makingmatriarchy-blog

[makingmatriarchy-blog]

Patriarchy Hurts Everybody

Claire Warner, an author from Bustle, released an article in 2015 called 6 Ways The Patriarchy Is Harmful to Men, Because Feminism Isn’t Just For Women. She focuses on how patriarchy has become harmful to the male sex due to the pressure it places on them. She makes six points on the matter; toxic masculinity, sexual assault, sexual aggression, domestic violence, fatherhood, and mental health.

Toxic masculinity refers to the pressures put on males at birth to be considered masculine, and how this causes unhealthy suppressing of emotions, making men more likely to abuse alcohol and be aggressive towards women.

Sexual assault refers to the fact that although this idea is mostly seen as something that affects women, men make up 10-38% of sexual assaults. These male targeted sexual assaults are often not taken as seriously as female ones due to the sexual pressures put on men, making these assaults seem more like jokes than as serious offenses. Going along with this topic, sexual aggression refers to the pressures put on men to extreme “sexual appetites”, something that people just assumed was encoded in the male DNA, while recent research questions this once set-in-stone thought.

Domestic violence, much like sexual assault, refers to the fact that men are also the victims of abusive relationships, but are less likely to speak out about it, relating back to toxic masculinity.

Fatherhood refers to the societal views that mothers are the nurturers and should be the more involved ones in a child’s life and men should be the breadwinners, encouraging less time spent with their children and less satisfaction with life if the roles are reversed.

Lastly, patriarchy affects mental health in males because of its toxic masculinity. This makes it less likely for men to reach out about emotional problems they are facing, and an increased rate of suicide among them.

It is clear that the main problem with patriarchy that contributes the most to all the other problems is the idea of toxic masculinity. There was a point made in the article about how men are often insecure and struggling with society’s standards for masculinity, and how those who are struggling with masculinity are often more violent. This shows how a lot of negativity can come from this patriarchal pressure, for both men and women. I feel that this article makes some very good points and depicts how patriarchy is an all-around negative social construct.

[makingmatriarchy-blog]

Feminism: Hurting or Helping?

A 2011 article posted by US News is discussing the book The Flipside of Feminism written by Phylllis Schlafly and Suzanne Venker. This book talks about how feminism has “sabotaged” women by doing things such as reversing the roles of relationships by making women more independent and men more ready to settle down. This article, called 5 Ways Feminism Has Ruined America, breaks down the negative effects of feminism into 5 parts. That it affects the ideals of marriage, results in more children in child care and eventually more “rebellious” children, creates a “two-income trap”, undermines college sports, and finally, emasculates men. It also says that feminism has caused a problem using a pedestal analogy, stating that women have left their pedestal in order to share the men’s and create equality whereas the men are just happy where they are creating tensions.

I have not read this book but from the brief summary mentioned in this news article I am baffled that this book even exists making the points that it does. Whereas I can understand that some take feminism to an extreme which can form a bad name for all feminist, I still wouldn’t consider it a negative thing, but instead an idea designed to abolish negativity when it comes to the wrongdoings of society.

I don’t believe that it has affected marriage in a necessarily negative way, as women having more independence and men being more ready for marriage only seems positive to me compared to the past where men were mostly concerned with their independence and where women had none. If anything, this seems to me as a way for the sexes to “meet in the middle” and result in more successful and equal marriages. Building from this topic of marriage the “two-income trap” seems a little bogus to me as well. As explained my Mother Jones, the two-come trap talks of how families with children are more likely to go bankrupt. Her article however only seems to mention how children are the cause for many bankruptcies as things such as healthcare and homes are becoming increasingly expensive, instead of how two people working together causes problems. I guess she must be assuming that a two income household and children go hand in hand, but from what I read my interpretation is the she thinks children are the real cause of problems.

As with the problems regarding more children in childcare, possibly due to more independent working women, resulting in more rebellious kids I feel like that says more about this country’s childcare systems than about the women choosing to enroll their children in the programs.

Lastly, the fact that feminism emasculating men and undermining college sports are even points as to why feminism is negative seems like a complete joke to me and the reason why feminism even exists in the first place. I’m so sorry that these men are feeling insecure and emasculated because of the presence of strong women, NOT. Also, talking about how Title IX has ruined some male-only college sports makes me genuinely angry because men are mad women are given the opportunity to compete in the same sports as them.

Conclusively, my thoughts based on this article are that the only people truly against feminism are the reason why feminists exist. Despite being female centered, feminism is more about equality and the recognition of the power of women, much like the idea of matriarchy. I feel that this discouragement of feminism results in a continued suppression of women. 

[makingmatriarchy-blog]

Matriarchy: The Ultimate Solution

Author Russel Means did an academic article in 2011 on the discussion between matriarchy and patriarchy. Called the Griffith Law Review, his article Patriarchy: The Ultimate Conspiracy; Matriarchy: The Ultimate Solution, as made obvious by the title, talks about how patriarchy is a violence based society that should be eliminated and replaced with a  much more peaceful society, matriarchy. He speaks of how men are mostly obsessed with being in control, and when that cannot happen violence ensues. Men strive to be on top and compete with other men for this position. Women, however, are spoke of as much more peaceful and caring. He states that women tougher and have more endurance than men, his example of this is that women tend to live much longer than men. These points he makes  about women are the main basis of his argument on why women are perfectly capable of  being in control of society, and will do a much better job of it as well.

Means seems too exaggerate a little within his review, stating that women are holy and sacred (not that I necessarily disagree with this), making it a little hard for me to be 100% convinced with all of what he is saying. Despite this, I do agree with his viewpoint on the topic, as it directly relates to my research question “could matriarchy cure patriarchy?” He explains that women are much more peaceful than men and will result in a much more peaceful society and government. This seems extremely logical as this difference between men and women has been psychologically proven, and could very well result in a positive outcome.

[makingmatriarchy-blog]

Life In A Modern Matriarchy

Peggy Reeves Sanday is an anthropologist and the author of the nonfiction monograph Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy (2002) about the society of the Minangkabau. This book, published by Cornell University, is a firsthand story of Sanday’s visits with the people within the Minangkabau, a society located in West Sumatra, Indonesia and “the largest and most stable matrilineal society in the world today” (x). According to Sanday the people of West Sumatra are proud to state their affiliation with the society know as a matriarchaat and are known for it by the locals of Indonesia.

The Minangkabau have continued to obtain their matriarchal society despite outside influences of patriarchy from things such as immigrant kings and traders trying to establish a gold market within their land, and a long line of worldwide patriarchal societies presents to this day.

I enjoy that Sanday states in the preface that matriarchy is typically known as the exact opposite of patriarchy, or “it’s female twin” but then goes on to state that she hopes this book of her firsthand knowledge will redefine the word, and make matriarchy more of an accepted concept rather than a nonexistent form of society (xii).

Sanday, as an anthropologist, backs up my claims in previous posts of the fact that a truly matriarchal society has never existed, but I praise her in that we have the same idea and hope that instead of matriarchy replacing patriarchy it will become an accepted form of society that pays a newfound respect for women, a concept I will touch more on in an argumentative essay regarding modern matriarchy.

Photo of real Indonesia women in the Minangkabau

[makingmatriarchy-blog]

The Land of No Men

Michelle DeSwarte recently conducted interviews and narrated a documentary, The Land of No Men: Inside Kenya’s Women-Only Village (2015), about the matriarchal refugee villages present in Kenya, Africa. DeSwarte visited the first and main refugee village, Umoja, and interviewed the women responsible for the start of the independent matriarchal societies present in Africa today. DeSwarte interviews many different types of people in the area in order to get a clear view of the opinions on this new way of thinking. This documentary was intended to show people all over the world of the lives of these women and how a harsh patriarchal society drove them to the lifestyle they are fighting to live today.

DeSwarte starts the documentary by interviewing the woman responsible for the start of this female revolution, Rebecca Lolosoli. Lolosoli started the first matriarchal village after being brutally beaten by the men in her village for advocating women’s rights. Her village, Umoja in the Samburu District, is open to all refugee women fed up with the harsh patriarchal society that is tradition to the Samburu area and beyond.

The traditions of this harsh patriarchal society include female genital mutilation, where young girls are forced to be circumcised in order to "be worthy” enough to marry men old enough to be their grandfathers. Also, the wives of these societies are considered property, and it is socially acceptable for their husbands to kill them for reasons such as disrespect and not obeying their orders. These are only a few of the many reasons why women decided to flee their homes in search of social freedom.

Women in Umoji are completely independent. They build their own houses and earn their own money, something that is extremely threatening to the surrounding patriarchal villages. This causes Umoji to be a target to thieves trying to ruin their new found freedom. Men from these patriarchal villages expressed great disapproval in their interviews, stating that women are not capable of leading themselves and must be controlled by men for guidance. However, these matriarchal societies are thriving, and it is no wonder these men are so worried about their traditions being ruined.

Despite the clear disapproval from most men in the surrounding areas, males are not banned from these villages, but instead are welcome as long as they agree to follow the rules and not try to dominate the women of the village. They even invite boys from the neighboring villages to attend the school in Umoji, one they built themselves with the money they earned from bead making and other tourist revenue. In an interview with a male resident of the village he states that he is okay with the way things are being run, as he sees his wife as an equal, a perspective that is extremely rare in the Samburu District.

Many of the women in these villages have decided not to marry, but there are still women who have boyfriends in neighboring villages, as it is not frowned upon to still be open to men. It is important to note that these women are not trying to suppress men, but live equally among them, something that Patriarchal societies do not accept. In my opinion this is a clear sign that these matriarchal societies have the opportunity to become much more successful than their patriarchal counterparts.

I could not pass up analyzing this documentary as it is a perfect example of my research question “Could Matriarchy Cure Anarchy?”. The success of these matriarchal villages shows that women really can be in charge of themselves and run things just the same, if not better than men. Also, the fact that instead of oppressing the men in these villages they same way they had oppressed them, they choose to live in harmony with them shows that a matriarchal society may really be able to cure the anarchy of the world today.

(source)

[makingmatriarchy-blog]

Opinion-Editorial Analysis: Everything You Need to Know About Being a Good Wife

In Jo Plazza’s article “Everything You Need to Know About Being a Good Wife” (2017) she suggests that there are ways of conforming to the necessary duties of being a good wife without falling to patriarchal ideals. She creates ethos by discussing her career as a travel editor and how it gave her the opportunity to interview women from twenty countries on five different continents about what being a good wife meant to them. Her purpose of this article is to show women that there is more to being a modern wife than an expensive ring and baking cookies in order to empower women by showing them their true purpose in this important relationship. The author directs this article towards other women, and says how she was also once a newlywed woman who did not know what the term “wife” truly meant and how to live up to this newfound roll and chapter of life.

Plazza’s article can be standardized as follows:

P1: Create a comfortable home because it makes you happy.

P2: Let your husband think he’s the one calling the shots.

               SPA: Men’s fragile egos demand a sense of control.

               SPB: Wives influence husband’s behaviors and decisions in more stubble ways.

[P3: Don’t give up on trying to look nice/be sexy once you get married.]

[P4: Have your man pamper you the same as he expects to be pampered.]

P5: It’s okay to put your marriage before your career.

               SPA: This does not mean you are “failing the women’s movement.”

               SPB: It is possible to be successful and still make time for your family.

P6: It’s okay to but your career before your marriage.

              SPA: It’s okay to be the breadwinner and have your husband take on the housework/ childcare duties if an important time in your career comes.

               SPB: Your husband should be able to support you and your career.

[P7: Be grateful, and show your gratitude.]

               SPA: Everyone likes to know they are appreciated.

P8: Keep an “independence” fund.

               SPA: Save money separate from your husband that is enough to support yourself.

               SPB: This is a “just in case” savings that you may never need, but at least you will know it’s there.

Thesis: There is more to being a good wife than patriarchal ideals.

This article tells of how a patriarchal society has sculpted an idea of what a “good wife” should be, and that this is not necessarily true, but instead there is a grey area where everyone’s needs in the relationship can be met. She makes logical points that anyone can agree on such as “creating a comfortable home.” While being the cleaner of the household sounds like the role of a wife from a patriarchal point of view, Plazza shows that there are aspects of this that a woman enjoys, such as buying scented candles and soft pillows, and she should embrace these things because it will make her and her family happy. This is the logical reasoning Plazza uses all throughout her article. She makes a strong argument by directly interviewing women from all over the world who have experienced all different aspects of marriage and have drawn their own wisdom from it.

When I first found this article, I was preparing myself for extreme critiquing based on the title alone, but as I read on I found myself really enjoying this article. Plazza’s use of logos, ethos, and ARG were so strong that the stereotypical wifely duties were put into a much different perspective for me. I thought the opinions and advice she received from women of all different ages and cultures was an exceptional idea and created a very persuasive and informative article.

I feel that this article shows that if a matriarchal society would occur femininity would not be at cost. Women can be “in charge” and still maintain stereotypical feminine aspects such as being a housekeeper and wife to a “bread-winning” man. These things should not be lost as an expense to an uprising of strong ruling women.

[makingmatriarchy-blog]

The Effects of Advertising

(source)

This is an advertisement created by Bic in 2015 to “celebrate” National Women’s Day. Bic released this ad to show support to women by saying phrases they found complimentary to women like “work like a boss”. Bic’s goal with this ad is to make women feel powerful and important on the day dedicated to them in order to make women want to purchase products from a company that supports them. Their target audience was clearly towards women, but the compliments conveyed are ones that appeal to men more than women.

I’m not sure where to even begin with this ad, as the flaws seem endless. Let’s start with how offensive this ad is and how it is supposed to be geared towards women but only conveys men’s ideas of what they think women want to be, but the fact that it was released for National Women’s Day has irony written all over it.  

This advertisement was released by Bic, the company most known for manufacturing lighters. Despite this, they are clearly not trying to sell their lighters, but instead gain support from a female audience. I’ll assume that their consumer audience consists of mostly men, which may have been the source of this marketing technique. I find this advertisement very discouraging to women if anything, as it conveys the type of patriarchal society that I discussed in my previous post.

The ad uses the phrase “look like a girl” because of the youth they know women want to have despite the fact that everyone ages at the same rate and this idea is unattainable. “Act like a lady” conveys societal views of how women are supposed to act, and “think like a man”, the main point of this ad that stuck out to me, implies that this type of thought process is the ideal way to think.

It’s a bit contradictory what this ad is trying to tell women. It claims women should stay youthful like a child, yet act like a mature women while also having the same thought process as a man. These type of views and assumptions are what has made society the way it is today and continues to be under a patriarchal society. I hope this type of media portrayal of women ideology sparks questions in your mind as it did mine. Would we see this type of advertising in a matriarchal society?

[makingmatriarchy-blog]

Matriarchy: A Mystery No More

The Cambridge Dictionary defines matriarchy as “a society in which women have most of the authority and power, or a society in which property belongs to women rather than men”. Although our society has come a long way since the era of housewife ridden women, this matriarchal social construct seems opposite of what the vast majority of societies are used to.

Of all the known social systems matriarchy appears in one of the least known categories. Don’t check my sources on this, as this is a conclusion I came to on my own based on my first-hand research. Briefly mentioning this topic to friends and family, I received the same questioning looks. Not that I was surprised by the responses I was given. Why would anyone know of a socially governed society that never existed?

The idea of a society where women are the breadwinners seems a rather odd concept. This is because the average brain has been pre-wired by a patriarchal ruled world since the beginning of time, which is where the basis of my research starts.

Why was patriarchy given favor over matriarchy so many years ago? Who/what were the factors that led to this decision and why was it accepted generation after generation? These are questions I seek to answer in my research, as the thought of this never-changing system baffles me.

The main focus of my research is to see how a matriarchal society would function if governed by women given the same opportunities as men. Could this society operate just as well, if not better than a patriarchal society? Could the chaos of the world be diminished if validation and action was given to a different set of opinions? If so, then this system our species has been cycling through for centuries must have been founded on strictly sexist opinions, something I’ve heard for far too long.

Although I have high hopes of discovering a society with matriarchy as a leading factor to success, I am open to all possibilities. Maybe there IS a legitimate reason patriarchy has been given a majority favor to, for I don’t yet possess the necessary information needed to know for sure. I hope that this blog discussion will open me up to information and ideas that I never thought before, and that along the way you will develop your own opinions of the questions at stake.

(source)