Benevolent Patriarchy

"This is so true," I said. "Genesis tells the story of a mathematical event, but it does so in a dishonest and manipulative way. It's very convenient that women were blamed for the downfall of men. Our entire Western society is built upon Judeo-Christian foundations, and these foundations have a clear message: women are not to be trusted. Therefore, they must be controlled. Glennon Doyle articulates this quite well…"

Why do women find it honorable to dismiss ourselves? Why do we decide that denying our longing is the responsible thing to do? Why do we believe that what will thrill and fulfill us will hurt other people? Why do we mistrust ourselves so completely?

Here's why: Because our culture was built upon and benefits from the control of women. The way power justifies controlling a group is by conditioning the masses to believe that the group cannot be trusted. So the campaign to convince us to mistrust women begins early and comes from everywhere.

When we are little girls, our families, teachers, and peers insist that our loud voices, bold opinions, and strong feelings are "too much" and unladylike, so we learn not to trust our personalities.

Childhood stories promise us that girls who dare to leave the path or explore get attacked by big bad wolves and pricked by deadly spindles, so we learn not to trust our curiosity.

The beauty industry convinces us that our thighs, frizz, skin, fingernails, lips, eyelashes, leg hair, and wrinkles are repulsive and must be covered and manipulated, so we learn not to trust the bodies we live in.

Diet culture promises us that controlling our appetite is the key to our worthiness, so we learn not to trust our own hunger.

Politicians insist that our judgement about our bodies and futures cannot be trusted, so our own reproductive systems must be controlled by lawmakers we don't know in places we've never been.

The legal system proves to us again and again that even our own memories and experiences will not be trusted. If twenty women come forward and say, "He did it," and he says, "No, I didn't," they will believe him while discounting and maligning us every damn time.

And religion, sweet Jesus. The lesson of Adam and Eve — the first formative story I was told about God and a woman — was this: When a woman wants more, she defies God, betrays her partner, curses her family, and destroys the world.

We weren't born distrusting and fearing ourselves. That was part of our taming. We were taught to believe that who we are in our natural state is bad and dangerous. They convinced us to be afraid of ourselves. So we do not honor our bodies, curiosity, hunger, judgement, experience, or ambition. Instead, we lock away our true selves. Women who are best at this disappearing act earn the highest praise: She is so selfless.

Can you imagine? The epitome of womanhood is to lose one's self completely?

That is the end goal of every patriarchal culture. Because a very effective way to control women is to convince women to control themselves.

Untamed Glennon Doyle

"Is that really the case these days?" Zac asked. "Like, I get that women have had very little power throughout history, and women's liberation is relatively new. But in modern Western society, women are actually doing better in a lot of areas than men. They have the same rights as men — more rights, even. They graduate from college at higher rates than men. Men get divorce-raped, while something like seventy percent of divorces are initiated by women. Women overwhelmingly get child custody, and all they have to do to separate a father from his children is lie and tell the court that he hit her-"

"Yeah, that actually happened to a friend of mine, poor guy-"

"And men have higher suicide rates, mental health issues, go to war, and work the most dangerous jobs-"

"Hey," I said, raising my hands in surrender. "I'm not attacking men, and this is not to detract from the very real issues facing men. I hate it when feminists scoff at men's problems, as if their suffering is irrelevant. Suffering, in all its permutations, is heartbreaking, and can only be remedied by compassion and empathy. Women do not rise up when men fall.

In fact, I'm about to make a case for the opposite: when men fall, women fall further, and great societies crumble into dust. Therefore, if we want true female empowerment in this world, feminism should not focus on competing with men and tearing them down. Feminism should focus on building men up, and nurturing them into becoming true, benevolent, enlightened kings. This is counterintuitive, yet quite simple to deduce.

In order to draw this conclusion, we have to start with an understanding of patriarchy. I've already pointed out one way that men have historically controlled women, and that's through assigning a value to a woman based on her sexual 'purity.' Men shame women into repressing their sexuality in order to boost their own masculine egos. Basically, if a man is single and wants to explore his sexuality, he can. If a woman is single and wants to explore her sexuality, she can't, because she's been taught not to trust it. Just like she's been taught not to trust so many other things in her life: her intuition, her curiosity, her ambition. Of course, historically, women had much higher consequences for engaging in sex due to the risk of pregnancy, but these shaming tactics are still used today.

Now, at this point, a lot of modern feminists will jump up and down, yelling 'burn the patriarchy to the ground!' while they talk about the historic oppression of women. But I think they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't inherently have a problem with the patriarchy-"

"Wait. You just told me the end goal of a patriarchal culture is to convince women to control themselves."

"I didn't tell you that," I said. "I simply read that from a book. And I personally don't think the end goal of a patriarchal culture is to convince women to control themselves. I think that's historically been a side-effect of an immature, oppressive patriarchal culture, but it doesn't have to be that way."

"Look," Zac replied, "I'm a man, and I'll advocate for myself all day long. But I'm just curious... you're a woman-"

"Yes, I am..."

"-And the thought of someone trying to control you makes me laugh. Shouldn't you have a problem with the patriarchy?"

"That's a valid point," I said. "But it's an oversimplification of a nuanced system. A patriarchy in-and-of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. There are many problems in the world, and although those problems manifested in a patriarchal system, it doesn't necessarily mean the patriarchy caused them. Correlation is not causation. I'll explain that train of thought in a second.

But first, I just want to acknowledge the fact that I'm sitting here, safe and sound, on a pier, in a beautiful city, enjoying this conversation with you. And this level of safety and luxury is also the result of the patriarchy. Men are magnificently productive creatures who are responsible for astounding things, and criticizing the patriarchy without acknowledging that is pure ignorance and narcissism. If men disappeared tomorrow, society would quickly fall into chaos.

You see, as a modern woman, I have the illusion of independence. But the truth is, men still indirectly take care of me. Whether it's the hard-working men who get up early to collect garbage, or the men like my Uncle Greg, who toil in the fields to grow my food, or men like my Uncle Brad, who work on the oil rigs in the middle of the ocean.

Good men deserve my respect and appreciation, and I am more than happy to bestow it upon them. My mother always made sure us children acknowledged and appreciated everything our father did for us, whether it was working long hours to provide us with a good education, or fixing things around the house, or cooking a meal, or cleaning up, or mowing the lawn. My modern independence sits on top of millennia of benevolent male labor and sacrifice.

So, historically, our society has been built by men, while women supported them. And that was an evolutionary imperative. Men acquired resources, provided and protected, while women raised the children in safety. As much as modern feminists love to imply that I'm physically as strong as a man, that's just biologically not true. It's a nice, empowering conceptual idea that looks cool in a movie, and women can definitely become competent fighters who could beat an average man using superior technique. But any feminist who truly believes that I can overpower a full-grown, fit, well-trained man has obviously never been face-to-face with that kind of raw, masculine power. When I trained at that Muay Thai camp, I was sometimes paired up with men to practice technique, because there weren't enough women in the class. These guys looked like warriors — they had huge muscles, and they had to be gentle because it obviously wasn't a fair match. To be honest, their physical power scared me. If I had to compete with one of those guys in the wild, I would lose. No question about it.

So I don't want to be out there fighting lions and risking my life, because I will die. I don't want to die. Hence, it is in my best interest to find a man who'll protect me and provide for me. Women needed men, and men needed women. This is why I believe the patriarchy is not bad, in-and-of-itself.

However, women have historically had no choice in their gender roles. With power comes responsibility, and women were given no responsibility outside the home — hence, no power. This lack of freedom creates the perfect breeding ground for tyranny and the abuse of power. If men were physically stronger than women, and yielded more power in society, they could easily abuse, control and oppress women. Women couldn't leave them, because they couldn't support themselves.

This means society was like a monopoly market. In a free market, people exchange value in mutually-beneficial transactions. You exchange money for a good or service. This benefits you, because you get what you want. It also benefits the vendor, because they get money, which allows them to acquire whatever they value. In an efficient market, everyone wins.

However, in a monopoly market, this dynamic is lopsided. If you need a good or service, and there is no competition in the market, the provider of that service holds all the power. There is much less incentive for the vendor to meet your needs, because you have nowhere else to go. That means that you, as a consumer, can provide value to the vendor, and the vendor can under-deliver value to you with no repercussions.

For most of history, women have been buyers in a monopoly market. They could meet their husband's needs by having their children, cooking, cleaning, supporting them, loving them — and then the woman just had to cross her fingers and trust that the man would meet her needs by providing, protecting, treating her with respect, staying loyal, and not abusing her. If both men and women have their needs met, there is no inherent problem with the patriarchy — just like there is no inherent problem with a monopoly market, as long as the vendor is benevolent and takes pride in meeting the needs of its consumers.

So, way back in the caveman days, gender roles were very strict. Men had to provide and protect, so they didn't have much choice in the matter. Women had to care for the children, so they didn't have much choice in the matter either.

But as technology evolved, humans gained more leverage. With leverage, came more freedom and independence. Men didn't have to hunt for food anymore, and had more choice over the profession they went into and how they spent their time. They could be the master of their own destiny. Yet men still only needed women for the same reason that they always needed women: for their womb. Sure, you can argue that men wanted love and companionship, but if they didn't find those things they could choose not to marry, and still be just fine.

Women, on the other hand, still needed men to provide for them. As a woman, your fate was very closely tied to things that you didn't necessarily have control over: your genetics, your youth, your fertility. It was a seller's market, and a woman's fate depended on a man's desire for her. This is the part of the patriarchy that I don't like: the idea that a woman's cards were dealt when she was born into a certain family, with certain genetics. You could have the best personality in the world, and continually self-improve, but if you were born ugly, none of that could substantially affect your fate as a woman. It's the equivalent of entering a monopoly market as a consumer, but you were born with no money and no means to increase your income, so you never get the product on offer i.e. a man never marries you.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Mens' needs remained the same: they wanted a pretty, fertile companion to have a family with. But as technology improved, women started to think, 'Wait a minute — I'm more than just a womb. I have dreams and desires, too. I want to learn things, and experience things, and go on adventures, and vote, and have my voice heard, and improve the world somehow.' And because of the leverage afforded by technology, women could start providing for themselves.

So now we're in a situation where a monopoly market is being threatened. The needs of men have stayed the same, but the needs of women have increased. This is the equivalent of the taxi industry holding a monopoly, and then Uber coming in to the market to compete with them. Without competition, there was no incentive for taxis to up their game and meet the increasing needs of their consumers. When a consumer (or a woman) raises her self-worth and wants more from a service (from men), and she has the choice to go elsewhere if she doesn't get it (provide for herself), then she threatens the monopoly (the patriarchy).

When a monopoly is threatened, there are three ways of maintaining power: suppress the competition, suppress the need, or meet the increasing needs of the consumer so they don't go elsewhere. Being male yourself, I'm sure you understand how closely a man's masculinity is tied to the feeling of being respected and in control. They're biologically hard-wired to be leaders, providers and protectors. So men obviously needed a solution to this problem in order to maintain that experience of themselves.

The first method of maintaining power in a monopoly market is to squash the competition. The taxi industry tried to squash Uber with legal action, instead of compete with them. In the same way, the patriarchy fought women tooth-and-nail when they demanded more freedom and autonomy over their lives. If women don't have freedom to choose, then the monopoly is restored and women continue to rely on men for all their needs. This makes men feel masculine, respected and in control.

But the men couldn't squash the competition. Women got their freedom and autonomy. So the patriarchy ran another campaign — a campaign that they've actually been running for centuries; a campaign to convince women that they could not trust themselves. If women couldn't trust themselves, and were taught that their innate dreams and desires were selfish and wrong and 'too much,' then they wouldn't demand more from life. If they didn't demand more, then men had no incentive to meet their increasing needs in order to maintain their power and sense of masculinity. It's similar to if the taxi industry were to run a campaign to convince consumers that their desire for clean cabs and good, reliable service was selfish and 'too much.'

This is what Glennon Doyle was referring to when she wrote — 'We weren't born distrusting and fearing ourselves. That was part of our taming. We were taught to believe that who we are in our natural state is bad and dangerous. They convinced us to be afraid of ourselves. So we do not honor our bodies, curiosity, hunger, judgement, experience, or ambition. Instead, we lock away our true selves. Women who are best at this disappearing act earn the highest praise: She is so selfless.'

Now, I want to talk about this concept of selflessness, because I think it has the potential to be misunderstood. There is nothing wrong with being selfless, with 'selfless' being the opposite of 'selfish.' By that I mean, you consider the needs of others, and love to serve others because it is an expression of who you are. That is a very admirable and healthy kind of selflessness.

But that's not the selflessness that I'm talking about. We've historically trained women to be subservient martyrs; to literally lose themselves, and their own identity, in the service of their husbands, family and community.

Selfless women give without receiving, and then we wonder why women, in general, earn less than men. It's not necessarily because employers are preying on them, although that still happens in certain cases. We just have different values and make different choices. We're taught that confidently asserting ourselves in the world makes us difficult, aggressive, masculine and disliked — all qualities that represent the antithesis of the 'good girls' we were trained to be. We're more likely to take up compassionate, caring roles, and society doesn't value that work."

"But isn't compassion an evolutionary trait?" Zac asked. "You said it yourself: once upon a time, women were very vulnerable. They raised the kids in their hunter-gatherer cave, and the men went out into the harsh world to provide for them. Men didn't have the luxury of being compassionate. It's a gnarly world out there."

"Sure," I said. "It's not surprising that men are, on average, less emotional, and more competitive and aggressive. If generations of men practiced that belief over millions of years, that adaptive trait would exist within the Male blueprint, from which men inherit."

"That means women inherit the 'selfless' adaptive trait, then. It's not a misogynistic, societal thing. It's a biological thing," Zac said.

"It's probably both," I shrugged. "One of the hallmarks of an enlightened society is moving away from our egoic instincts. If we made no effort to overcome our ego — and I mean, not our biology, but our ego — then we wouldn't have the modern technology that is responsible for us not living in caves anymore. We'd still be fighting each other like neanderthals. Women may be more naturally compassionate and caring, but society has historically programmed little girls to be obedient people-pleasers who bow to authority — even when the authority figure is not meeting her needs.

This setup allows the patriarchy to take advantage of femininity — especially women's natural desire to assume more compassionate roles. In a patriarchal world built on masculine values and a 'survival of the fittest' mentality, compassion is not rewarded. Soft femininity is viewed as weakness. Therefore, if women want to be primary school teachers, our society believes they should receive little in return. So primary school teachers — the majority of which are women — take on those roles like selfless martyrs, because if they don't, then how are these kids going to get an education?

Do you see what I mean? If alpha males were in those roles, they'd negotiate their worth. Society would have to adapt because otherwise we'd have no teachers. But women? No. They don't ask for more — that's unladylike! We've trained them to be selfless, remember? They're good girls doing good work for society, so they should be happy with a bit of verbal praise and a pat on the head. Many of these teachers are treated like shit, offered no support, are paid next to nothing, and abused by helicopter parents. Yet these compassionate women close their mouth and swallow the abuse because they care. The men in power abuse their feminine compassion and treat them like a doormats.

This is how the patriarchy maintains power. Convince women that they don't need more, so the men in power don't have to step up and provide more if they want to maintain the privileged position that reinforces their masculinity."