Why I am going to stop using the term patriarchy
When feminists use the word patriarchy, it is usually followed with a shrug, a rolling of the eyes, or a sigh.
This is because when we speak about patriarchy, we are referring to the sanctioning of male dominance in society. We are taking issue with boys clubs that exclude women from matters which concern them. We are pointing to a binary hierarchy system where the value of the female sex is diminished by tradition, religion, culture etc., while the value of the male sex is given unreasonable preference.
There is no denying that this system exists, but I have started questioning how accurate it is to call it patriarchal.
See, patriarchy may imply all the above in theory, but the origins and archetypes that imbue a term are equally interesting to me as their theoretical uses are. Perhaps it’s due to my Finno-karelian and Yoruba ancestry, both ancient cultures to whom poetry, mythology and archetype were integral to understanding the world around us.
The etymological roots of the term patriarchy are associated with the Greek “pater” and the English term “father”. Patriarchy literally means “the rule of fathers”. Or to put it differently, patriarchy connotes rule which is fatherly.
Only there is nothing fatherly about the way we are ruled. Just look at the present state of our world – it is clear that although society is led by elderly males, it is not patriarchal in the sense of fatherliness. To be fatherly is not simply to provide the semen for child-making, it is to be concerned, kind and tender of those whom you father. When it comes to government, a truly patriarchal leadership would be paternal, meaning it would behave with love, benevolence and protection if also with authority.
Instead, what we have is a system which is dominated by the male adolescent archetype. Whether it’s a Donald Trump or a David Cameron, a David Mark or a Dino Melaye, it is boy- rather than father psychology that governs us. Unlike the father archetype, who invests in a positive future for his kin, the boy archetype wants to conquer everything in a hurry. It’s the ego gone wild, whose every action is rooted in the fear of losing power. We are governed by the “boyarchy”.
The boyarchy is characterised by qualities such as rowdiness, braggadocio, violence, territorialism and incapability of commitment. It is the reign of the eternal Bachelor, the buster, the Rambo, Tarzan and the Wild Wild West, and it’s ruthlessly controlling.
In family relationships too, the cantankerous boy archetype is more common than the mature father archetype. Our culture just does not encourage men to reach the stage of archetypal male maturity that is characterised by compassionate concern and emotional connection. This is why men who, despite the odds stacked against them, embody these latter qualities are seen as “feminine”.
There are exceptions, of course. The Nelson Mandelas and the Barack Obamas of the world have brought paternalism to the boy-structures that they lead. Also, let me point out that there are positive attributes to the energy of young male adolescence. This archetype can be courageous, vigorous and potent. A healthy society needs these qualities. But it’s not what should lead the way.
Moreover, let me add that women are equally capable of “boyarchal” behaviour as well as its equivalently unuseful (for leadership) girlishness.
Last but not least, the true patriarch knows that he is nothing without the matriarch. I do not mean that he simply “respects” women, especially older women or his own wife. I mean that the true patriarch knows that a combination of patriarchal and matriarchal sagacity is needed in our governing structures. He knows that society will not prosper until there is an alchemy between the masculine and the feminine because he knows that both exaggerated masculinity or femininity creates disorder and dis-ease.
These are some of the reasons why I’m going to stop referring to our form of rule as patriarchal. It is too generous a term to describe a system devoid of fatherly responsibility.
Related
Latest
Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox every day of the week. Stay informed with the Guardian’s leading coverage of Nigerian and world news, business, technology and sports.
9 Comments
The article overlooks the fact that the “boyarchy” is a product of feminism and misandry.
-Seriously.-
Yap! Couldn’t have been more apt.
I meant what Masimba said.
You’re on point.
How about “bratarchy”? It’s not boys in general this personifies, but the bratty nature of certain alpha types.
That said I don’t think there’s anything truly wrong with the original term. It may originate from ideas of fatherhood in the etymology but the usage has changed significantly over time – a “patriarchal” society is one where men dominate and hold the majority of the power, not one which is necessarily fatherly and kind.
Couldn’t agree with you more on the two point you proffered.
Yes, “certain alpha types”, without short in supply of these same types among women of today.
The other point like indicated in my post above, is the “use and twist of terms to suit [feminist] their virulent and hidden agenda. They’re cloaked misandrists of the modern day. They appear magisterial but full of putrid sophistry. They use their power of words and language to bamboozle to the extreme deception”.
No, sorry. I prefer the author’s terminology to “patriarchy.”
What I find really annoying is that feminists have unofficially claimed ownership of the word “patriarchy,” when it’s not about them (the majority of whom are women), but us (men).
I think it’s important to consider what men think of when they hear or see the word “patriarchy.” Patriarchy to me means that this world *belongs* to and is *ruled* by men (ie. rule of the father). In other words, it’s not just mere domination, but official rule. In the past, there really was a patriarchy: there were strict gender roles. Women were officially excluded from powerful positions in society because they were women. In today’s world, it’s the exact opposite: we have anti-sexism and anti-discrimination legislation. All positions of power in society have become gender neutral. This means that patriarchy is effectively illegal.
A patriarchy to me is an environment where men exercise authority as men. In a gender neutral society, men cannot exercise authority as men because positions of power have no gender. The only place where patriarchy can actually exist today is in the family, where men do exercise authority as men: as fathers. You could call it “household patriarchy” if you like.
Unfortunately, many feminists define “patriarchy” as “male domination.” The problem with defining patriarchy as male domination is that male domination is not a certainty. Things can change. That’s especially true in a democracy and free market. In a society with political and economic freedom, male domination of both government and the workplace is not a certainty. If women got smart and found a way to “change the game” so to speak, they could easily end up on top.
The most common definition for “patriarchy” that I can find on the Internet defines it as “exclusion” of women: “a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.”
But just how are women excluded from power? We have democracy. We have free markets and women can vote, so how are women being excluded? That’s the problem with defining patriarchy as “male domination.” We have a society whose rules allow the possibility of female domination. Women aren’t excluded from power and male domination isn’t certain to continue. Male domination is only temporary, not permanent.
I much prefer “boyarchy” to “patriarchy.” I don’t much like hearing people claim that our society is run by chauvinist pigs (ie. patriarchs), and that somehow I’m one of them. “Patriarchy” is suggestive of male chauvinism that was made illegal and eliminated two to three decades ago in the 1980s.
No, really I would much rather be called a “boy” than a chauvinist pig.
This write up is nothing but an empty
drivel. Most men were brought up by women hence they have the highest proportion of the blame of patriarch society.
More so, significantly successful and domineering men were brought up by single mothers whose population is increasing exponentially in the world today. If these men had been brought up with good maternal instincts perhaps they would’ve turned out far better according to the conjecture of this writer.
The world ruled by men had prospered over the ages and will continue to do so if only but not exclusively in material terms. Don’t ask me who benefits from the wealth of the world.
Yes, I concor that women should be encouraged more but not to the disadvantage and detriment of men. British education system is a typical example whereby girls are encouraged at the expense of boys. School results in the UK and the behaviour of boys attest to this fact.
Rabid feminists like this writer are the baddies of the present day ideal new world order, causing more widening schisms between men and women with their ultra feminist and wonky gobbledygook.
They use and twist terms to suit their virulent and hidden agenda. They’re cloaked misandrists of the modern day. They appear magisterial but full of putrid sophistry. They use their power of words and language to bamboozle to the extreme deception.
Wittingly or less so, they’re successfully pitting boys against girls and men against women. They’re very savvy in the approach to deconstruct the world stealthily and rebuild it into their new feminine world order. This write up is a waste of space. The writer is bereft of fresh and innovative idea. She struggled to fill this space up with new idea, hence her nonsensical drivel.
We will review and take appropriate action.