Well now. Have you ever heard the term 'The Patriarchy'? I'm sure you have. It's the go-to boogeyman of feminists, leftists and right-on types, and it gets used and blamed a lot.
They do seem very reluctant to truly define it, though. Requests for clarification are met with answers like: "You know. The Patriarchy."
Which doesn't really help clear things up any.
It's either that or some allusion to the oppression of women by men. Which is also rather vague, I feel.
So I thought I'd have a little look and see if I couldn't find out for myself what it might be. Now, this research below didn't take long, and if anyone can give me a better explanation, I'd like to hear it.
Anyway.
Let's start with the name. The
term 'Patriarchy' means that men - or more specifically given its etymology - fathers, rule society. And indeed, men have ruled over many societies,
not just western ones, since time immemorial. No argument from me there.
The problem I see
is that this has lead to the assumption that all men rule over the society
of which they are a part. And this simply is not true.
Moreover, there is the idea that men have oppressed women since the dawn of
time, and this is also not true.
Allow me to
explain.
These twin
assumptions would lead one to the impression that all men, throughout the ages,
have lived well and had a say in how society is run. They also would lead
you to believe that the lot of women has been far worse, that women have had no
say at all in how society is run, and have generally been held in thralldom to
the wills of the men to whom they are related or married, and boy have they
suffered for it.
Here's the thing:
whilst civilisation has invariably been run by men, it has only been the
men at the top: those belonging to an elite class. Nobody else had a say
at all, for a very long time. Even here in the West, in our much-vaunted democracies, it was pretty much a closed shop.
Allow me to present, as an example, a timeline for the right to vote here in the UK:
1800: Voting
allowed on the basis of wealth and class. About 3% of the population could
vote.
1832: The Reform
Act allowed certain leaseholders and householders the vote, taking the figure
to 5%.
1867: The Second
Reform Act extended the voting population to about 20%.
1884:
The Third Reform Act extended the vote to any adult male owning or
occupying land with an annual rateable value of £10 or more could vote - and
the figure went up to 24%
1918: The
Representation of the People Act meant that all men over the age of 21 could
vote, and all women over the age of 30 could vote.
1969: All adults
over the age of 18 could vote.
So, until 1918,
the majority of men were unable to vote; even after 1884, less than 50% of men
could vote or have any say in what went on.
And in the
meantime, who fought the wars that the government decided to fight? Who
worked in the dangerous jobs?
When women were
campaigning for suffrage in 1916, where were their men? Where would you
have rather been at that time - chained to railings in Belgravia to campaign
for the right to vote, or conscripted against your will to a
mud-filled trench in France to get a facefull of mustard gas?
My point being,
the Patriarchy, if such we are to call it, oppressed men a damned sight more
than it did women. Which leads one to think that the Patriarchy is, in fact, a myth.
It was a monarchy.
It was an aristocracy. It was an oligarchy. Given the use of
the militia to quell, inter
alia, the chartist riots, it was arguably a timarchy.
But I cannot see how it has ever been a patriarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment