What "patriarchy paradox"?

Note: I am filing this under Gender Atheist because the apparatus that supports gender identity as a political movement is large and complex, and stupid arguments about feminism are part of that apparatus. One of these days I might do a separate feminist-themed Substack again, but it’s equally likely I won’t; nevertheless, I need a place to put that stuff. So here you go.

I have already had a bit of a shit week and now comes this new link in my Facebook feed to an article which some of my Facebook friends are already praising and sharing. I took a glance at it and then shared it to my own wall in a me-only post so I would remember to tackle it when I got off my phone and onto my laptop, because I don’t like the argument and wanted to attempt a rebuttal. In a couple hours I have to start getting ready for a Monday thing I do that takes up my whole day, so I apologize if this is rushed.

(Okay, what do I mean “if.”)

Probably the best approach, given that I’m likely to rush through this, is to tackle one section of the essay at a time. Feel free to hit that link I already shared and follow along. (This is easier on a real computer than on a phone.)

The Patriarchy Paradox

I couldn’t tell at first whether Dr. Dijk could even define patriarchy, which is weird since she’s convinced it doesn’t exist. As you go further into the essay you find that she seems to define it as “male dominance.” This is a common mistake among anti-feminists.

The word literally means “rule of the fathers,” and the political concept is a bit more complex than mere male dominance. We have all seen that in patriarchal cultures, while men are definitely on top most of the time (and those few women who wind up on top do so only with men’s permission), some men are much more “on top” than others. This is because some men have cultural “father” status and others have cultural “son” status, and fathers are in charge of sons. I never see this pointed out in “critiques” of the concept of patriarchy and you really have to wonder why. What does it hurt to at least examine the idea? It certainly fits with the “patriarchy hurts men too” argument, which these people also often present, which is funny since they don’t think patriarchy is real in the first place.

While we’re at it, feminism is the movement to liberate female people from the patriarchy. It’s baked right into the fucking definition. Of course feminism is a response to the existence of patriarchy. Of course feminism would no longer be necessary if patriarchy went away. I don’t get why this is a controversial idea. If fire stopped existing tomorrow, we wouldn’t need the fire department either. Is Dr. van Dijk arguing that firefighters are arsonists? Of course not. And yet, that’s the equivalent of what she’s arguing about feminism. Even if you oversimplify patriarchy to mean male dominance, are female people harmed by male dominance or are we not? If we are harmed by it, why wouldn’t we organize a movement to fight it? That’s like letting people’s houses burn down. Are women and girls people? Do we matter?

At this point Dr. Dijk might argue, despite her disbelief in the existence of patriarchy (more below), that there are women who’ve made a career of feminism who would lose their jobs, therefore their pay, if patriarchy disappeared tomorrow. This would be a valid argument. I’ve seen what she’s talking about, particularly in academia. I have three responses to this, however:

-None of these women have sufficient political power to force patriarchy to continue — not even as a group — so they are not the reason it still exists
-If patriarchy disappeared tomorrow, there is a high likelihood that we could repair our society to be one in which women could easily retrain into other professions, and be supported in that process — I fail to see the tragedy here
-Patriarchy is not in any danger of disappearing tomorrow. We will not see the end of it in our lifetimes. I would LOVE to be proven wrong on this, but I won’t be

So I’m not sure where the brilliant insight is here. I’m not seeing it. Sorry.

Dr. Dijk also apparently doesn’t understand the difference between having a political system imposed upon you to make you socially and culturally inferior to other people, and simply living a biological reality that causes some physical differences. If women’s only problem was that men were stronger than we are, it wouldn’t be a problem because greater physical strength is an asset in certain situations. But men use the fact of their greater physical strength to abuse us so that they can gain greater political power, and then use that physical strength again to enforce that greater political power. If Dr. Dijk isn’t seeing this, she’s not looking for it. Refusing to look for something does not mean that it is not there. Nobody looks for me. I still exist.

The Patriarchy as Sublime Object

What is meant by “sublime object,” as explained in the previous section, is “an unattainable X that structures desire.” Basically, a thing that doesn’t exist but that a person uses as a target of desire. After presenting zero evidence to support her apparent belief that patriarchy doesn’t exist, Dr. Dijk then proceeds to accuse feminists who believe patriarchy exists of indulging in a fantasy. Based on what? Dunno.

Her screenshot is particularly irritating. She starts out asking what patriarchy is, and when someone replies, “It prioritises the male over the female,” she comes back with “What is this ‘it’?” WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST ASK ABOUT, TARA.

My initial response to those Facebook friends who found her essay “interesting” was “This is a stupid, dishonest essay” (or something in that vein — I at least didn’t throw a lot of F-bombs around). And this sort of bullshit is why. But it doesn’t end here.

And I assure you, ma’am, that patriarchy does indeed have a clear definition. In fact, I’ve already offered it here. Scroll back up and look. Thanks.

The Bait-And-Switch

There is no bait-and-switch, ma’am. It is quite possible to both assert that patriarchy is no one individual man’s fault and also demand that men each do their part to bring that system down.

In her next screenshot, Dr. Dijk seems to believe that if patriarchy is a system, then it is a separate thing from human beings, therefore it is nonsensical to both understand patriarchy as a system and to expect individual men to work to dismantle it. Okay, so if it has to be one or the other, what does Dr. Dijk mean by system? What is this system supposed to be made of? Where is it located? How big is it? What color is it? How is it powered? Is it funded? By whom?

This woman is a philosopher. Surely this is not such a difficult fucking concept. YES, a system can be made up of people and exercised by the decisions those people make. YES, you can dismantle such a system by changing the behavior of the people who make it up. In fact that’s the only way you can.

If you disagree with me, kindly point me in the direction of the current location and population of the Roman Empire.

Yep, that’s what I thought.

The Patriarchy as the Ultimate Shape-Shifting Obstacle to Female Liberation

Dr. Dijk says:

“The Patriarchy isn’t just feminism’s enemy—it’s its petrol. Remove it, and the movement stops.”

Yes. Because feminism is the movement to liberate female people from the patriarchy. See what I said about fire and fire departments above.

“The Patriarchy is to feminism what the Joker is to Batman.”

Really bad analogy. I see someone never picked up a comic book in her entire fucking life. There were a lot more villains than just the Joker. Batman’s thing is fighting crime, not just fighting the Joker. Of course he doesn’t exist in the real world, but our real-world equivalent is police officers and courts; is Tara trying to argue that crime is not real or that we could get rid of crime by abolishing police and courts? Wow.

Why Feminism Needs Its Villain

Here we go with more “abolish the fire department and fire would stop existing because fire is a fantasy in the first place.” Darlin’, fifty years ago you would not even have had your fucking PhD. Even now we have endless pointless studies trying to “prove” that the fact of women obtaining university degrees somehow hurts men, who can still (last I looked) walk onto a building site and get a well-paying union apprentice job and also expect to not be sexually harassed at the worksite nor to have their jobs outsourced to China or to AI. Land sakes. Such oppression. Many sad. Lemme get me a mug for all them male tears.

I’m convinced this woman really did find herself a literal ivory tower to live in and has been ordering food and supplies from a delivery app ever since. She can’t possibly be out here living in the real world. Or if she is, she’s doing it with a seeing-eye dog and also closing her ears and also not giving a shit what any other woman ever tells her about our lives.

Patriarchy as a Defence Mechanism

Patriarchy IS a “messy tension of biology, sexuality, and power,” moron.

Nature: The Unthinkable Sublime

Oh, now it’s okay that men oppress women because apparently it makes them want to fuck us or us want to fuck them or blah blah yackity-schmackity. Just fucking stop.

Capitalism’s Double Bind

“Capitalism shreds traditional patriarchy” — okay, how does it do that when patriarchy isn’t real? How would it do that anyway? This is one of those people who makes capitalism into this shapeless, definition-less bugaboo or defines it as everything except what it actually is. Until she sorts this out, I can’t even begin to contend with whatever argument she thinks she has about it but I will say this: you can’t “shred patriarchy” with capitalism when MEN OWN MOST OF THE CAPITAL.

Once again, she simplistically defines patriarchy as “male domination.” Lazy. So lazy. Tsk. Scroll back up if you missed my treatment of the subject.

And oh my god, she really did come out with this:

“You’d think that by now, feminist scholars and researchers would have developed a definition that connects male dominance to specific historical, cultural, and structural mechanisms.”

Oh my everloving fucking God. I… I just fucking can’t. Someone please gather up her entire feminist-academic library and DROP IT ON THIS STUPID WOMAN’S HEAD. I’ll fundraise for your legal fees.

I am so TIRED of women busting our asses to create and produce and analyze and invent and everything, and then NOT ONLY men pretending we’ve done jack shit, but fucking handmaidens like this backing them up. Fuck. Right. Off.

The Escape Hatch

And yet again. What the fuck do we need a fucking fire department for? Fire is just a sublime object!

Traversing the Fantasy

“Feminism clings to The Patriarchy fantasy because it masks a harder truth: sex-based disparities are shaped by biology, capitalism, and power—forces way beyond The Patriarchy.”

…No, that IS the patriarchy. Men use civilization — not just capitalism — and power to leverage biology to oppress women. This is not THAT fucking difficult, lady.

Step 1: Confront the Fantasy, Own Your Desire

Yeah, sure. Putting an end to men’s pathological control of women worldwide is just a silly fantasy and we’d all be better off just accepting things as they are. Let me know when you’re ready to turn in your PhD and torch your bank accounts. I’ll bring the Kleenex and the pointing and the laughing.

Step 2: Drop the Crutch

Nobody said patriarchy was a plot, darlin’. That was all you.

Step 3: Embrace the Real

Patriarchy is not “sex-based relations,” darlin’. It is a crime against humanity. Are you going to keep being an accessory, or nah?

Beyond the Fantasy

Oh my god. “Feminism must reorient away from idealism toward materialism.” Feminism is BASED on material analysis, you fucking sellout. If some guy literally has his boot on my neck and I want the boot off, my noticing his boot is on my neck is a material observation, and I am aiming for a material result of not having the fucking boot on my fucking neck. I don’t care whether anyone thinks he should have his boot on my neck, I don’t fucking want it there. You’re the one wallowing in an idealism shithole (paraphrased: “oh, this is just biology, you should just learn to enjoy it”). Leave me out of it. Thanks.

Apparently Tara identifies as a funny person, too. I ain’t laughing.

I hope Jennifer Bilek reconsiders her willingness to platform bullshit like this, but I’ll not hold my breath. If this is the best we can do, no wonder it took a Trump to intervene in the gender-identity mess.