patriarchy i

anonymous asked:

What is the equivalence of "patriarchy" for antiracists? (Does a word even exists?) I mean when people ask me why anti-men sexism doesn't exist I say it's because gender roles are the consequences of the patriarchy. What should I say when people ask me why racism against white doesn't exist? Or does it?

Racism against white people (reverse racism) doesn’t exist. You can see more about this in our “reverse racism” tag.

The closest word or phrase I can think of for you is “white privilege” but I’ve been drawing a blank on this. Anyone else?

Mod Bethany

It’s times like these I realize how burdensome my social privilege is and not because it burdens me. I burden others. Often just my presence is enough, thanks to white supremacy, whiteness, and patriarchy. Like I have to be mindful of this in a way that resists making it about me and in a way that resists insisting we’re all the same, eradicating social difference and the realities it creates, for my sake. But I’m encouraged to do so. So, rather than moping about it, I become more invested in class struggle.

I’m bipolar and have always depended on friends and colleagues to tolerate me at my worst. I wouldn’t even be alive if it weren’t for my friends. No joke. I can’t imagine being an ordinary man choosing to be abusive and then smugly using the market and public discourse community as a tool to maintain status and friendships. And I don’t want to believe that people I respect and care about choose to keep relationships with haters going on the sly for what are surely self-interested reasons.

been thinking a lot lately about how (for lack of a better word) ugly men are allowed to be, and still be seen as natural and human, versus the forced maintenance of femininity required of women to be seen simply as human and worthy of respect. we live in a society that celebrates male mediocrity and demands constant performance from women, and idk it just really makes me wanna scream

my aesthetic: ezra miller saying that if he had a wand, he would use his power to destroy the patriarchy.

i have literal object permanence when it comes to my opinion on children. right now in the presnce of 0 children or 0 mentions of children i could not be more neutral. when im around a cool baby who like smiles at me or is bein funny & is maybe wearing a cute hat im like :))) “i want 30000 babies” but then if i hear one (1) singular child cry on a plane i think “Having children is a societal expectation thrust upon women by the patriarchy therefore i”

anonymous asked:

pride and prejudice wasn't written as a resistance to the patriarchy djdjfhdhsj what

i mean i’ve been staring at this message for a solid minute now pondering how to reply, trying to figure out how ro reply, but honestly it boils down to one question: have you read it?

because literally the prevalent theme of pride & prejudice as well as other works of Austen—perhaps most visibly, sense & sensibility—is the ironic social commentary on the degraded role of women, as subjected and dependent on the way of whether they would marry well as they used to be?

like, honestly, what did you think it was about? sure it has a romance in it, but it’s probably one of the the most politically designed and carried out romantical arcs in literature, as it relies not so much on mutual affection, but rather darcy aknowledging his fault of diminishing elizabeth as an intelligent human being. at first, we see him as quite obviously set upon taking her for granted and applying stereotypes; startled with her outspoken attitude and clueless as to why she would reject him. because it IS surprising, that’s the point, given the context of Austen’s novel, the commonly praised choice would be to accept not only darcy, but mr collins without another thought. what do you think is the reason mrs bennet was so distraught all the time? there was no way of securing the future of her daughters other than marriage, we hear it being repeated over and over again—they cannot inherit their father’s fortune.

and—good grief. that’s the romantic ‘main plot’ concerning darcy and elizabeth alone, because the whole point is that he changes his beliefs and acknowledges elizabeth as an equal in the end. darcy isn’t exceptional for being surly and broody, he’s exceptional because he listens and learns.

but all the rest? the whole arc of charlotte, and her unhappy and dull marriage to mr collins, and the stark contrast with elizabeth. charlotte is not WRONG, she does the only thing she knows for certain will allow her to live in a respectful way without becoming ‘a burden to her parents’. the arc of lydia, basing off her portrayal against wickham? even with all his debt, infamy and faults, wickham’s opinion is at no point more blemished than lydia’s. that’s the point, that’s reiteraring the original notion of the disparity between men and women in regency England. the radiating, stinging paternalistic attitude of mr collins towards elizabeth when he marries charlotte and TELLS her that she would probably get no better chance. his absolute belief—corresponding with darcy’s, and contrasted with the latter’s rehabilitation later on—that elizabeth has no choice but accept him.

and elizabeth herself—for all the composition and impeccable manners, she IS a controversial figure in the novel. take the scene when she’s bashed by lady catherine de bourgh, the ongoing commentary on her being too forward with her opinions, the continuous bashing coming from her mother—the lingering threat that lizzy’s ‘stubbornness’ will cause her much trouble and, above all, prevent her from securing both her and the other sisters from absolute poverty when their father dies.

and, just … of course it’s written subtly, it’s conveyed in elizabeth’s wit, in austen’s slightly ironic narrative. the problem with the situation of women is not EXPLICITLY named and stated. it’s not modern times where we’re accustomed to forward addressing of feminist issues. no: it’s shown. it is not only the consistent theme in her works, it’s the prevalent theme of them. i mean, come on, there’s tonnes and tonnes of books that were NOT written with a purpose of targeting partiarchy. fuck, there are much MORE of such books than there is of the latter kind. But to choose Pride & Prejudice specifically, a novel which became one of the most famous books in the world, renowned for e x a c t l y t h i s … i cannot comprehend. please, at least consider this: do you really think the purpose of austen writing p&p was writing a romance? really? why would it become so much of a literature landmark, then?

i don’t mean to be nasty and honestly, go and have your opinion, you’re perfectly entitled to it, but it does make me sad that a novel that is a witty, outsanding and one of a kind social commentary on the plight of women in a specific time period written by a woman IN the time period is turned into something as common as a novel with a romantic plot. that’s all.

We see movies in which people are represented as being in love who never talk with one another, who fall into bed without ever discussing their bodies, their sexual needs, their likes and dislikes. Indeed, the message received from the mass media is that knowledge makes love less compelling; that it is ignorance that gives love its erotic and transgressive edge. These messages are often brought to us by profiteering producers who have no clue about the art of loving, who substitute their mystified visions because they do not really know how to genuinely portray loving interaction.
—  “all about love: New Visions” by bell hooks

Wonder Woman spoilers. Hit J to skip. 

Got into a discussion about the implication that Diana finding love with a man was what saved the day and I thought I should go ahead and bring it over here. 

I can see the argument being made here. Diana has been around women all her life. That suddenly a man, and more specifically sex with a man, changes her and makes her a hero. That hetero-sex is what saves the day. 

I have a couple objections to this theory, but let me start by saying I can see why you would feel that way, particularly for those of you who are lesbians. I don’t, and I recognize it’s largely because of who I am and my own views.

What I won’t agree with is the implication that Amazons are all straight. It’s just not true. When Antiope was killed, three women came to her side- her sister, Diana, and a third grief-sticken and screaming who got the camera’s attention for an extended shot even though nobody knew who she was. That was her wife. Fight me. 

Additionally, when Steve and Diana are having their boat sex talk, she says she knows of sex. She knows the pleasures of the flesh. Men are unnecessary for pleasure. She’s either talking about lady love or masturbation (both of which are still pretty taboo to talk about as women today let alone in 1918). I choose to believe it’s the former. She’s had at least one Amazon lover in the comics- Mala in Earth One. 

On to my objections:

Diana’s not a lesbian. She’s bisexual. Bisexuals are allowed to love men. We’re allowed to like men. Steve Trevor, whether romantic or platonic, is a big part of Wonder Woman’s story. He is the Lois to Diana’s Superman. For those of you who say Steve was too much or Steve was intolerable or the het love story ruined it, I ask you to accept that you might have some biases based in your preference for a queer Diana who doesn’t like men. Again, I understand why you feel that way, especially for those of you who are lesbians. But to constantly hear ‘het love’ and ‘het sex’ is annoying at best and erasure at worst. Diana is bisexual. She is queer. Of course I’d like it to be more explicit in the movies, whether through her expressing attraction to women or outright saying it, but the point still stands. This is the most powerful canonically queer character in media. 

Nothing she does is heterosexual. 

Another point is about the love saves the day. It wasn’t just Steve’s love. It wasn’t just Diana’s love for Steve. (And yes, I can see why it might seem rushed, especially for those who aren’t aware of the “Diana’s Lois” history of the ship, but how often do we see the woman falling head over heels for the hero of other movies and why can’t we allow the script to be flipped here? Steve Trevor is very much a counter to most macho action movie stars full of toxic masculinity which is a whole post on its own.)

Love saved the day, but it wasn’t just romantic love. It certainly wasn’t just sexual love. It was also platonic love between the men themselves. When she sees the men embracing each other in the face of certain death, what does she see?

She sees three men who could have gone home when the money ran out. Three men who continued into a suicide mission, following Steve because they loved him too. When Steve gave them the option to go home, they say “she can handle herself, but what would you do without us?” They follow him because they love him. They’d deny it, of course, but it’s there. That brotherhood. She sees that. She recognizes it from the way the Amazons loved those they fought with. That’s how she recognizes that there is good in men. That’s why she believes they can choose good. They aren’t fighting for the anger and the bloodshed. They are fighting because they love. 

Just like she does. 

I think the most beautiful thing about Diana is that she doesn’t fight the patriarchy.  She just flat out doesn’t acknowledge that it exist.  A room where women aren’t allowed?  Gender rules about sleeping with someone? Bruce grabbing her arm in a power play?  Diana’s all just, you’re doing what now? She’s a Princess and a Goddess, so way more powerful than you on any kind of scale.  She’s just gonna lol in your face any time the patriarchy comes up because she’s the most powerful person in the room at any given time, so she doesn’t have time for men to mess around pretending they have a say in anything she does.  

what im here for:
little girls being allowed to cut their hair short and wear comfortable clothes so they can roll around and play. little girls never being asked about their theoretical “boyfriends” and not having the idea of having a boyfriend thrust on them. little girls having crushes on their best friend whos a girl and being able to be open about it. little girls being allowed to be themselves and be comfortable and be little kids.

On this July 1st, this “Canada Day”, this “150th anniversary”, here’s your reminder that “Canada” is trash and not worth celebrating.

The “Fathers of the Confederation” acted out of economic and geopolitical interests and “Canada” was not founded on the interests nor the voice of anyone but the bourgeois’.

Hundreds of underpaid Chinese workers died building a transcontinental railway that ran through indigenous lands, violating the treaties. Reminder that the Québécois are as insensitive as any other white people when they call a certain meal “pâté chinois”. Reminder that the Québécois are settlers too and that past oppression does not excuse us.

In less than a decade in the late 19th century, Cree, the Niitsítapi, the Nakoda, the Métis and the Sioux, to name a few, dealt with the extinction of bisons, famines, diseases and persecutions. In 1881 the Saskatchewan Herald mocked them for starving in the streets. The Canadian government then sent in more guns to defend the food supply, than food.

The RCMP and the Canadian police departments have a history of violence against Indigenous people (and specifically Indigenous women), people of colour, leftists, and the LGBTQIA2S communities. “Canada” purged thousands of queer people from the government and the army between the 1950s and the 1990s. Despite it being continuously shown as a cute symbol of “Canada”, the RCMP represents colonialism, capitalism and patriarchy.

Tens of thousands of Indigenous children were taken away from their homes, their land, their families, their culture and their language to “take the Indian out of them” in residential schools. The last one closed in 1996. Reminder of the ongoing, historical, intergenerational trauma of colonialism and racism.

Thousands more Indigenous children were taken away from their homes between the 1960s and the 1980s and given to strangers’ families. Thousands still live in foster care today, away from home.

The deadly trains still go through the town of Lac-Mégantic (and many more towns), despite the 2013 fire and the lost lives and the trauma, as a false compromise for pipelines.

The Canadian army takes part in various wars, in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. “Canada” sells tanks to Saudi Arabia.

White Canadians love to make fun of, co-opt, appropriate and folklorize other people’s cultures.

White Canadians relish in images of great mountains, white snow, strong rivers and mighty winds in books, poems, plays, music, paintings; they relish in an idea of the “True North” that was never theirs. They willingly take part in the destruction of nature for economic interests anyway.

Justin Trudeau (as if his family name alone wasn’t a red flag) is a liberal; his PR team should not fool us; he keeps promising without delivering; his speeches and symbolic gestures are not enough, and he keeps approving detrimental policies just like his predecessors.

Indigenous people are not an artefact or a relic from the past; speaking of them in the past tense only serves white people’s interests and embarrassment.

The people of Attawapiskat are still in a state of emergency and have yet to see any promise fulfilled, more than one year after 9 people attempted suicide on a single day.

The Inuit in Nunavut, as well as Indigenous peoples in Alaska and Greenland, are punished and marginalized nationally and internationally for seal hunting. Sealing is a traditional and necessary practice in the north.

There are still hundreds (if not thousands) of missing and murdered Indigenous women whose cases are ignored or unsolved.

Water protectors exist in “Canada”, too. Many communities don’t even have access to clean water or electricity.

There are currently Indigenous activists on Parliament Hill, which is situated on unceded Algonquin land. Canadians and the Canadian media are currently afraid of a tipi.

PM Trudeau sat in the tipi last night, while protesters could not enter it and many were arrested on the site.

Many other protests, demonstrations, drum circles, prayers and road blocks are being held around the country. Reminder that violence is as legitimate as peaceful protest in the face of colonial violence.

Reminder that land is not property, that it is not mine, and that us settlers are uninvited and occupiers. We live comfortably at the expense of a land that we distabilize, plunder, poison, drown, starve.

Reminder that Canada is a society rooted in colonial, capitalist, patriarchal and racist ideologies that should not be celebrated.

Sources will follow when I have access to my laptop.

Intelligence is not a redeeming character trait.

I’m really unbelievably tired of (mostly male) characters being “redeemed” from their bad attitudes, bad manners, poor treatment of other characters, etc. by the big reveal of their supposed genius. 

Being intelligent (no matter how intelligent) doesn’t make a person worth more than anyone else. It doesn’t excuse any of those things. It isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card for bad behavior, and having other skills (no matter what they are) doesn’t justify never prioritizing learning how to not hurt the people around them.

It’s not an excuse. 

And I think this is especially important to bring up for (mostly white) male characters, because actual men outside of fiction are excused by society in the same way that narratives excuse them in fiction. As long as they’re perceived by society as being “more important” than other people (which they already are by default if they’re men, and even more so if they’re white, etc.), any inappropriate, harmful, or offensive behavior toward other people is excused. 

The excuses are always that it would be “hard” for someone who is SO INCREDIBLY GIFTED to… be kind? Show compassion? Consider the effects of their actions on others and act accordingly? 

It’s bullshit. 

Fundamentally the trope is ableist (by basing someone’s worth around their mental capacity), with undertones of classism and racism (in the same ways that IQ tests are classist and racist), and it perpetuates a narrative of male privilege and entitlement.

And by the way, if you were reading this post and thinking “Is this about [specific male character who does this]?” then the answer is yes.

Please tell me I’m not the only man in existence who doesn’t get defensive as hell when a woman says “I hate men.”

The reason I don’t get offended by that statement is because I understand the context (I think?). In a patriarchal society like the US, men are almost always going to treated with some degree of privilege over women, especially with this huge degree of social pressure to repress emotions and be the one in control of every situation, all without acknowledging that women are on the same level intellectually and emotionally; it’s just that different experiences among a gendered society shapes the way we respond to the world around us.

Men taking “I hate men” at complete face value and pushing back against it demonstrates a failure to acknowledge privilege, in my opinion. It’s a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat that… honestly? You can fix by promoting equality through feminism and the likes and taking time to examine how you can improve your own behavior. You want lesbians and/or feminists to actually like guys? Why not make yourself likable to begin with?