Modern world patriarchy reveals its extremism in its ultimatums -- eg. the idea that women who mix their rage with an ambivalence towards their oppressors can't really have valid reasons for their hostility, given that they have already tempered their negative reactions with something positive. This viewpoint works as an ultimatum for deperate women because it penalises women for any possible expressions of empathy during an otherwise deplorable situation. It suggests, "To the degree that you express any empathy, your oppressor really can't be as bad as you say he is." The challenge given through this typical form of patriarchal logic is that it is necessary for women repress any form of empathy so they can render their perspectives logical enough to be taken into consideration.
The rhetorical extremism of this kind of patriarchy is likely derived from metaphysics (i.e. a system that upholds an abstract idea that male and female are polar opposites, with consequently nothing in common). This metaphysical approach to gender lends itself to upholding a patriarchal system that, in the final analysis -- and indeed on patriarchy's own terms (as I have shown above) -- is completely illogical and untenable.
By contrast, Zimbabwean patriarchy comes across as being far less metaphysical, less extremist, than the patriarchy I have experienced in more "contemporary" society. For instance, a male there can be criticised and called to task for not being properly ethical in his duty to his family and friends. Most of Zimbabwean culture is based on the basic idea that doing harm to a fellow human must be wrong. Although this society is still a patriarchy (hence unjust), its patriarchy is less abstract, hence less pervasive into everyday modes of thought, than the West in the 90s.
The rhetorical extremism of this kind of patriarchy is likely derived from metaphysics (i.e. a system that upholds an abstract idea that male and female are polar opposites, with consequently nothing in common). This metaphysical approach to gender lends itself to upholding a patriarchal system that, in the final analysis -- and indeed on patriarchy's own terms (as I have shown above) -- is completely illogical and untenable.
By contrast, Zimbabwean patriarchy comes across as being far less metaphysical, less extremist, than the patriarchy I have experienced in more "contemporary" society. For instance, a male there can be criticised and called to task for not being properly ethical in his duty to his family and friends. Most of Zimbabwean culture is based on the basic idea that doing harm to a fellow human must be wrong. Although this society is still a patriarchy (hence unjust), its patriarchy is less abstract, hence less pervasive into everyday modes of thought, than the West in the 90s.
1 comment:
As long as men and women are not political equals, society remains anchored in the social relations of class power, a society where the overwhelming majority are deprived of a majority of the social product of their labour (thus, political power itself), which, in turn, reproduces hierarchical social relations between the sexes i.e. 'patriarchy'.
Zimbabwean men *may* be less imbued with patiarchal prejudices. I take your word for it. I applaud them.
A communist society cannot be created within social structures of hierarchical political power and a *free* association of producers is what I want to be apart of. Patriarchal political power is another form of bondage.
Post a Comment