reasoning irrationally about gender

Well you didn't expect the patriarchal system to reason rationally about it, didja?


Watch out for always its slight of hand techniques. Someone said that domestic violence had to do with gender, which she said is something that patriachal valuations ignore. However, this is not precisely true. Rather, patriarchy appropriates gender distinctions on the basis of whether one is victimised or not. (It, in effect, reasons backwardly about gender as being denoted by violence, rather than as being already denoted prior to the violence.) So, anyone -- male or female -- who experiences victimisation is classified thereby as "female", whereas anyone who victimises is taking on the role of male. Well, that gets us so far, with regards to policing gender roles, but obviously for the patriarchy it does not suffice to leave it there, or you would have people of the wrong gender 'crossing lines' and messing everything up. So, now a new level of policing has to be added, whereby a woman who crosses these symbolic genderlines (by taking on the male role of being violent) is considered to be profoundly pathological in going against the grain of her 'nature' (which, doncha know, is to be the victim), whereas for a man to be victimised also means that something apocalyptic has gone wrong with society and its 'natural order'.

So this is how patriarchy reasons about gender.