Você está na página 1de 6

Patriarchy; the

oppressive ideology

Randhir Gautam

“woman unconsciously yields to the suggestion of a masculine thought” (Honey ,2000)

Ideology does not merely work in the realm of politics but also in the domain of patriarchy
.Ideology is to be understood as the system of representations located in the everyday practices of
society. Tomson argues ideology is used in the service of power. As we know one of the big obstacle
to women’s empowerment is patriarchy.

patriarchy refers to male domination both in public and private sphere. Sociologist mainly used the
term “patriarchy” to describe the power relationships between men and women. Even when I think
about male identity I think in terms of male dominance. Think about masculinity. “masculinity” is the
biggest ‘red flag’ when it comes to structural violence. I think patriarchy exists in the male identity. it
is rooted in the concept of masculinity. Empirical studies tell men are more socially valued. women
are always identified in subordination to men’s desire (Haskel 1999). Patriarchy is an
institutionalised system of male dominance that is expressed in social practices and corresponding
social ideology. Since ideology plays an important role in a maintenance of social stability. That is the
social reproduction of society through role-internalization and role management.

Margaret Mead, who argues in sex and temperament in three societies (1963) that socialization is
the source of gender-based traits. Like all social system, patriarchy consists of economic, legal,
beliefs and norms. It grants privileges to men and encourage their domination over females. With
the advent of new kind of capitalism, postmodern patriarchy has recently emerged, it characterised
by the hyper development pf consumption and change in sexual consumption pattern of
relationship. Patriarchal ideology exaggerates biological differences between men and women,
making certain that men always have the dominant, or masculine, roles and women always have the
subordinate or feminine ones. This ideology is so powerful that “men are usually able to secure the
apparent consent of the very women they oppress”. They do this “through institutions such as the
academy, the church, and the family, each of which justifies and reinforces women’s subordination
to men” (Millett). Patriarchy is also harmful to men (Kamla Bhasin ,2006). she argues how men
aren’t allowed to cry, how they are supposed to be protractors of women as soon as they are born.
it is patriarchal mind-set who turns men into a rapist, assaulter so and so forth. Patriarchy and
conflict All conflict is patriarchal. It's kind of a shock to think of it that way, but even if you can find
some women soldiers, you don't see any other sort but patriarchal cultures attacking each other.

Look at any conflict happening today and generally the role of a soldier is connected to the beliefs of
what it means to be a man. Patriarchy and militarism go together like peanut butter and jelly. Sexual
reproduction is an objective thing. 'Masculinity' is not an objective thing. The concept represents the
story of what it means to be a man. Nationalism is the same thing. It represents the story for your
role in the social order of your country. The energy that is put into those ideological systems
organizes those systems, and the style of thinking is perpetuated. “Femininity' is also not an
objective thing and an equal conspirator in the perpetuation of the stereotypes of patriarchy. There
is homeostasis between these socially constructed terms, as there is between 'black' and 'white'. I
like to think of socially constructed terms as organisms of the imagination. These ideas come alive
through imagination, and have real consequences in the objective world. Like any system, the
energy put into that system organizes the system. The concept of god is like that. I don't believe in
god, but I see what the concept of god does in the world. I realize that the concepts of masculinity,
femininity, black and white are mostly imagination, but I see what belief in those things does in the
real world. Those ideas come alive. They transcend centuries in the case of 'black/white', and
millennia in the case of patriarchy. I don't suggest a world in which all people are gender-less, but
one that understands what gender is. It is benign, because it is what we make of it. If our
motivations are benign, the consequence is benign. That's how humanity works. We need to look at
these sorts of concepts and flush out what is arbitrarily untrue, divisive and violent.as we know how
patriarchal imperialist capitalism created a structurally violent culture.

Women and patriarchy The category of women does not become useless through deconstruction,
but becomes one whose uses are no longer reified as ‘referents,’ and which stand a chance of being
opened up, indeed, of coming to signify in ways that none of us can predict in advance…it is a
critique without which feminism loses its democratizing potential through refusing to engage – take
stock of and become transformed by – the exclusions which put it into play. (Judith Butler, Bodies
That Matter). We can think of the ‘category’ of woman not as what it says a woman is, but from
what it excludes a woman from being a Liberation is the elimination of exclusion. The question of
what a woman is cannot be answered until all of the exclusions are eliminated. I think the another
way to say that is we can only know what is real in the absence of stigma.it can be understood by
Social-Constructivism. What a woman is in objective reality goes through a ‘transformer’ before both
herself and society perceive her. A transformer in this sense is not electronics, but a psychological
filter, which is how we are taught to see the world and ourselves in the world. It creates the filter
through which we perceive society and ourselves. The ‘category’ is the transformer of the real into
the perceived. Another way to say that is the social-construct is the transformer of the real into the
perceived. Only by removing the transformer can we know what is real. The Inter-subjectivity of this
phenomena is that We can also call the ‘category’ of woman an intersubjective concept: a shared
belief that must be mutually believed in order to exist. That doesn’t mean women are invisible if you
don’t believe in them, but that the concept of women is something that is determined by society,
not reality and not individuals. The ‘category’ is a shared story. That is to a great deal a fictional
story. It’s the fiction in the concept that 3obscures reality. I think Whatever unreality is in the female
category is in homeostasis with the unreality of the male category. The entities exist as one dualistic
psychological system for exclusion.

The ideology of patriarchy creates a system of stigma. The same is true for any socially constructed
stigma. We can only know what is real about humanity in the absence of stigma. Liberation in this
context is the elimination of stigma and exclusion. The questions of what is a woman, and what is
humanity cannot be answered until stigma and exclusion are eliminated. Family and patriarchy THE
FAMILY AND THE PERSON You may know someone, perhaps a family member, or neighbour, or
someone at work who will blame you for not making a family in complete disregard of your right to
choose how you will live. I do not think that reproduction is necessarily a choice - we respond
somewhat involuntarily to circumstances, but if we do have a choice and we decide not to
reproduce then our choice is our right. Many believe that reproduction is not a choice but a duty,
that everyone is a slave and must form a family and live in a family, otherwise, they are somehow
harming others! No court in the nation, however, prosecutes anyone for not reproducing. So, people
who insist that you reproduce or marry are tyrants, tyrants who are treating you as a slave, who
believe in slavery. They are imposing a general contract upon you under their dogmatic belief that
they have a right to FORCE you and others to do what they believe in and in so doing that they may
harm you and interfere with you. They reject privacy and they disturb you and others over the
question of reproduction, sex, marriage and family formation. They are religious persecutors and
they are violent - they wish you harm unless you comply and enact their version of culture. They
believe it is their duty to force others into marriage and reproduction. Everything they do on this
score leads to violence: haunting, shadowing, monitoring, harassing, intimidation, bullying,
menacing, etc. Each person has a right to their own home where she/he can do whatever they like
as long as they do not disturb their neighbours, but these freaks do not believe that - they object to
a person having a home without also having a wife and child, and they spend their lives disturbing
neighbours who do not live in a 'family.' These are people who find it extremely difficult to accept
others as equals in the sense of counting their viewpoints, ideals, options, preferences, theories or
wants as of equal weight One of the big questions we all have to answer in life is "How should you
raise your child?" At some point during your child's early experience, the child will do something and
you will tell the child that it is wrong. Sooner or later, the child will ask "Why is it wrong?" And, you
as a parent or teacher may respond that there is something like a general contractor agreement that
makes doing that, say stealing or hitting, wrong. The child will then perhaps reply, "But I didn't sign a
contract, nobody asked me to sign a contract, why should I be bound by it?" There is a general social
contract and all children should be asked to consider it - it is composed of duties and rights and
includes how the government makes laws and enforces laws. The duties would include the
agreement to accept the nation's laws, to work, to defend the nation and to change any laws by
democratic negotiation. The rights would include the right to free speech, the right to legal decision
procedures to judge whether someone is guilty or innocent, the right to receive a fair share of
housing, food, money, healthcare, education, housing etc., AND the right to lead their own lives and
do what they want as long as they did not impinge harmfully on other people.
The problem is that we did not freely agree to the social contract nor to any particular contract, like
the institution of marriage or of education. So, we are told that there is a tacit agreement, like
traditions, but the items in these tacit "agreements" are not clear and can mean whatever anyone
who has a knee-jerk reaction wants it to mean. Any of the items in the social contract or the tacit
contracts should therefore be enforced, according to this logic, but they are not enforced
adequately: the right to a trial is denied, guiltiness is presumed without evidence, persecution is
endemic for believing in values that are different from others, like not reproducing or forming a
family - as if this process of family formation does not often require forcing others into it, a violence,
just like the violence of persecuting those who have not formed a family. These are people who do
not see others as equals in any sense; they prefer their own ideals to procedural justice; they prefer
to discomfort others rather than do business, rather than come to terms with others - they are
rebelling whenever they feel like it. Unless they are fought off, directly opposed, the whole business
of justice, negotiation and contract, of law and order, cannot succeed. They have made up their own
rules - that everyone, YOU, must reproduce and form a family, in direct contradiction to the rules of
the society - that each person has certain rights and may choose to live as they see fit as long as they
harm no one. But, these people will harm others for the sake of their family cause! I am pointing out
here that it has nothing to do with legality, that family formation involves promising encounters and
free choice, and that if it is coerced it is blackmail. The government however does incentivize
marriage and reproduction, as well as drastically restrict opportunities for family formation and sex.
The divorce laws that require/practice asset splitting is a clear opportunity for both blackmail and
coercion. So, I really do think that misogyny (patriarchy) is the deepest structure of oppression. In
other words, anarchocommunism (Post-Scarcity anarchism) is simply impossible if we don't embrace
anarchic-/Marxist feminist critiques of society. This is my effort to fully synthesize "Marxist
economics" with "Feminist economics" ("The personal is political"). (To be clear, there is a distinction
between my social scientific framework (Marxist-Feminist and my political ideology which is anarchic
communist......) This is especially about the concept of social reproduction in both Marxist and
Feminist thinking) through a confessional biographical vignette.

Methodologically, it is very close to C. Wright Mills' ideas about the relationship between biography
and social structure (what I'm trying to do is build an "integrated social science" model, that
synthesizes both sociology and economics, overcoming the deep fragmentation in social science due
to a dysfunctional division of labour. Furthermore, this is basically an effort to identify the "causal
mechanisms" underlying misogynous preferences amongst significant portions of the male
population (and contra Milton Friedman, sexist preferences can be explained through "good social
science"). Furthermore, it can be read as a full blown critique of the "Rational Expectations" garbage
that Krugman et al. believe is helpful, which in fact it is the part of the problem because it can't
explain "emotional-psychologically driven" preferences. (Krugman depends on the assumption that
preferences are driven by "passions as slave to reason" ("reversing Human ontology"), which makes
it impossible to understand preferences driven by "reason is the slave to passion" (actual Hume—
what misogyny is really rooted on). The basic reason why I did this, is that I didn't have any "deep
female/male" friends at the time, who could have challenged my very disturbing assumptions on
"female behaviour". But most males simply can't make such "extreme" ontological conclusions. They
want "female companionship" (experience a degree of existential loneliness without female
companionship) even as they internalize the hatred towards their "mother" and project that hatred
onto their partner (or onto feminism (I think it is classical case of psychological projection. They hate
their ("oppressive") mother (but there is a deep prohibition in our culture that prohibits males from
expressing their frustration ("Honour thy Mother" commandment), and they believe Feminists who
are trying to "undermine" crazy matriarchically organized female behaviour as where hatred is
directed at..."I can't hate feminist, bur I can hate those feminists......").,

I experienced a "communist educational experience"—"To each according to one's ability and to


each according to one's need". Methodologically, it is very close to C. Wright Mills' ideas about the
relationship between biography and social structure (what I'm trying to do is build an "integrated
social science" model, that synthesizes both sociology and economics, overcoming the deep
fragmentation in social science due to a dysfunctional division of labour. Furthermore, this is
basically an effort to identify the "causal mechanisms" underlying misogynous preferences amongst
significant portions of the male population (and contra Milton Friedman, sexist preferences can be
explained through "good social science"). Furthermore, it can be read as a full blown critique of the
"Rational Expectations" garbage that Krugman et al. believe is helpful, which in fact it is the part of
the problem because it can't explain "emotional-psychologically driven" preferences. (Krugman
depends on the assumption that preferences are driven by "passions as slave to reason" ("reversing
Human ontology"), which makes it impossible to understand preferences driven by "reason is the
slave to passion" (actual Hume— what misogyny is really rooted on). Until I was 17, I had these very
faulty/disturbing assumptions about my mom's behaviour as "universal". So I experienced my
"mom's behaviour" as painful, oppressive, bureaucratic and authoritarian ("guilt-tripping me all the
time", getting angry at me for nothing, and then the next day apologizing for losing her temper"
("emotions prioritized above reason"). The basic reason why I did this, is that I didn't have any "deep
female/male" friends at the time, who could have challenged my very disturbing assumptions on
"female behaviour" . Patriarchy imparts intersubjective ideas of gender. -- The key is to be able to
have a process by which we can tell what is objective, and what is intersubjective. And what is
positive and benign, and what is negative. Constructivist view of Gender. I'm speaking about
transgenderism outside of any consideration of 'choice'. Choice happens in society. In this view I'm
looking at how gender-identity is innate to the body, before any consideration of society. A general
property of the species is that people get a set of needs. The two significant needs regarding gender
issues are the need for love and sexual relations. Those two concepts connect in the concept of
romance. Romance happens on the level of instinct. All humans need romance, regardless of one’s
gender. That's our intersection. Follow what evolution is doing. Evolution creates the body, and body
has needs. Needs create instincts, instincts create desires, desire creates behaviour. There's an
interplay between companionship and sexual relations that create romantic relationships. That's all
still on the level we share before gender-identity or sexual biology come into the picture. The
romantic component is the same for all humanity, the logic for romance is universal. The sexual
attraction component is where gender-identity diverges. The logic for sexual attraction is more
complex. Diversity in brain wiring gives us a wide gamut of sexual preferences.

The gamut includes heterosexuality, bisexuality, polyamory, homosexuality, transgenderism etc.


Specific to transgenderism is an innate need to self-identity with the opposite gender. Otherwise
transgender have the same universal romantic component. All of that happens before any 'choice',
social relations, socialization or conditioning. That's the universal, metaphysical layer of humanity
that is not socially constructed. Where the socially constructed layer comes in is when people who
have the need for romance emerge in the world. That’s where patriarchy plugs-in to the picture as
cultural hegemony, teaching all people irrational and archaic ideas of gender Conclusion we need to
advocate we need to advocate the abolition of gender roles.

The ruling ideology normalizes systematic violence towards woman in all social group. I think it is the
ideology because it's what provokes all the behaviour. If men do not preach feminism to model
dignified character towards women for men, dignity for men cannot happen because It is an
ideology that discriminates woman. It teaches people that objectify men as "dominant" and women
as "subordinate. what an Irony! most woman of our culture also internalizes this ideology. Indian
woman is by virtue of a purer constraint of the ideology. Let us change this. we should rise our voice
against this ruling ideology. I think the reality of gender identity is malleable. we are free to
construct a male identity focused on critical thinking and compassion, rather than the essentialist,
stereotyped version of patriarchy. we are free to teach a rational concept of gender identity on
order to foster social harmony. we have seen how feminism has emerged as a counter ideology
criticising the patriarchal subordination pf women to men, and calling for the eradication of systemic
gender inequalities in society.

References.

1. Coole, Diana ,2000. Threads and plaits or unfinished project? journal of political ideology ,new
York

2. German, L,1989, sex, class and socialism , Landon \

3. Cockburn ,2010, Gender relation as causal in militarization and war, international feminist journal
of politics ,uk

4. Judith Lober 2009, social construction of gender, feminism.org

Você também pode gostar