ARGUMENTS FAVORING “PATRIARCHY” AS A “NATURAL” SOCIAL ARRANGEMENT OF POWER ARE AS BOGUS AS DONALD TRUMP’S “HAIR”
NOTE: this essay began as a response to:
If Women Don’t Want To Be Sexually Objectified, Why Do They Exist?
We can simply choose not to
NOTE ALSO: The above article title is intended by as irony by author Katie Jgin — just in case someone gets the wrong idea straight off and won’t follow the link as a result. Clarifying to ensure confusion by irony doesn’t interfere with recognizing excellent arguments.
The first part of this argument was posted as a reaction to Katie Jgin, so it will be repetitious to those who have read that comment.
Without being able to see the context & specific contents of “men bashing” comments you identify, it’s hard for me to offer a precise, accurate (as proven by examples) assessment of this surprising phenomenon.
However, my first, gut reaction was this: I suspect the men whose comments are covered by the phrase “bashing men” don’t see their comments as “bashing” but rather stating what they see as a reality that excuses men from responsibility for their “gut reactions” to women’s bodies, within which their sexual objectification of women is “understandable” and “acceptable.” If I’m wrong in that interpretation, please let me know.
My response to any and all claims that these social behaviors are burned into their Y chromosome is this:
Ok, what then explains all the folks with that Y chromosome who DON’T habitually sexually objectify women? How did they come into being if those behaviors are attached to a chromosome shared by “all men”?
Could it POSSIBLY be that — INSTEAD — those very same supposedly INHERITED behaviors appearing to be “natural” to men across time and distance are in fact solid evidence of the social distribution of power via the structural existence of PATRIARCHY? That is, the social structure identified by theoretical feminism (aka feminist philosophy, sociology, and political theory), undergirds…