"By the way," I continued, "this doesn't just apply to romantic relationships. The patriarchy is real in just about every facet of society. I know Beyonce said that girls run the world, but that's statistically inaccurate. In a literal sense, men run the world. They still hold most of the power and control most of the resources. And with that power, comes responsibility. They are responsible for meeting the needs of the world, and everyone who holds less power than them.
And I don't mean that in a personal way. Like, if you own your own resources, you're entitled to use those resources however you like. You don't owe me a thing, because I respect your freedom. But in a general, philosophical sense, I do believe that people in privileged positions hold a responsibility to make the world a better place. If they prove themselves to be incompetent at that task, then they do not get the privilege of my respect, nor my obedience to their agenda. When men are abysmal leaders, they shouldn't be surprised when women rise up to take matters into their own hands.
So here's the thing: I can choose the man I marry, and allow him to be the king and the warrior. I would only do that if I trusted him. But women around the world have inherited a patriarchy, not chosen it. And there's a lot of women, like me, who have this intuitive feeling that the world was supposed to be more beautiful than this. There was supposed to be more love, and kindness, and joy, and peace. There was supposed to be less war, and conflict, and destruction, and fear, and hatred of each other. And so, our needs are not being met. I want a better world, and the patriarchy is not providing it.
Nowhere is this more prevalent for me than in the scientific establishment. The physics community is a clear patriarchy, with nine in ten physicists being men. Men hold all the power, which means they hold all the responsibility to deliver results. As a young woman, I look to them for leadership in that area of my life. I want to know how the universe works. As long as they deliver me the answer to the riddle, I don't have a problem with their leadership because they are meeting my needs.
But they have not delivered an answer to the riddle. In fact, they're abusing their power. The patriarchy is being tyrannical and oppressive when it ridicules and censors anyone who disagrees with their ridiculous materialist paradigm. Despite men working on this problem for over a century, and spending billions of dollars to unravel the riddle, they have not delivered the goods. I have no results. My needs are not being met. The patriarchy is incompetent."
"That's a bit harsh," Zac said. "The patriarchy has delivered a lot of results. The only reason you have your freedom right now is because some very smart male physicists did what had to be done, and built an atomic bomb. That bomb was horrible, but it was also necessary. Men are doing their best-"
"I'm not saying that men aren't doing their best," I interjected. "I'm saying that their best isn't good enough if they want me to sit down, shut up, and let them lead while I go raise their children. They are competent at building a bomb, sure. And I respect the individual men who did that gnarly task — just like I respect the individual men who go to war for my freedom. But as an emergent, collective societal structure — a patriarchy — men also have to take responsibility for the fact that they start the wars.
It's like a bunch of young boys running around, making a mess. Then they run up to me and say 'Look, Mom! I cleaned up my mess!' Well done, Timmy. You took responsibility. And perhaps you, individually, didn't make the mess, so taking responsibility and cleaning it up is very respectable — just like men fighting in a war they didn't start is very honorable, and demonstrates extreme moral competence. But I, as the mother, gave you boys the power to do as you please, and as a group you made the mess. So you, as a collective group — a patriarchy — don't get points for cleaning it up. As a group, you also had the choice to not make the mess in the first place. Just like the patriarchy had a choice to say, 'Wait a minute... why are we killing innocent people? Is this really necessary, or am I just trying to feel like the big, swinging dick in the room? Am I just trying to feel powerful, because my masculine ego wants to know what it feels like to rule the world. Maybe instead of killing people, I should heal the wound inside of me that makes me want to kill people, so I don't want to kill people anymore. Actually, that might be an easier way of solving the problem. Yes, I'll work on myself instead. In fact, as powerful men, why don't we all support each other in becoming better versions of ourselves so we don't abuse our power.'"
"But if women ruled the world, there would still be conflict," Zac smirked. "You'd just do it in more subtle ways."
"Oh, I know," I said. "I went to an all-girls boarding school, and had plenty of first-hand experience with female power structures. Men will physically torture each other, whereas women will emotionally torture each other. So I'm not saying women are necessarily better leaders because 'rah, rah, feminism!' I'm just saying that we currently exist within a patriarchy, and my needs are not being met. Can women meet those needs? I don't know. That experiment hasn't been run yet. But I do know that men are not, so I need an alternative solution.
Anyway, let's get back to the physics community. As a patriarchal group, they are objectively incompetent at this particular task. Now, many men in that community will have an emotional reaction to that statement, saying 'But! But! But! But what about...' To which I would just gently point out the fact that they have been working on this problem for a century, and not delivered results. Therefore, they are incompetent.
Does that make them bad people? No. I'm sure they are lovely fathers and brothers and men, in general. It just means they are incompetent at their craft, and therefore not entitled to my respect as leaders, nor my obedience to their materialist agenda.
And I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. I am incompetent at so many things that scientists are insanely competent at. But let's not bullshit ourselves. If the job of the scientific community is to find the objective truth, they have objectively failed at that task — at least in the past half-century or so. When my business fails, it's not an indicator that I'm a bad person. It's an indicator that I'm an incompetent entrepreneur. I chose to hold the power, so I have to take responsibility for the outcome of my choices. So don't get mad — get better. I'm just stating a fact.
Now, because the patriarchal physics community is incompetent, I have two choices. I can continue to let them lead me, and tie my fate to their sinking ship. Or I can captain my own ship, and lead myself in that area. Of course, I've chosen the latter. This task is important to me, and important to the world. If the fate of the world is resting on their ship, and their incompetence is sinking the ship, then the world will eventually drown.
But here's the thing: I know myself well, and I'm just not very good at bringing out that archetypically masculine energy. I'm not confrontational, or competitive, or aggressive, or disciplined. Deadlines and stress and rigorous structure make me miserable. Waging war in the realm of the relative sucks the life and the grace out of me, and drains me of my creativity. I don't particularly want to be a warrior, but the patriarchy has left me no choice. So I will step up and do what needs to be done for the world.
Which brings me to my next point about the patriarchy — it's very difficult for women to disrupt it and affect change. If a woman has the audacity to be confident and self-assured and bold; if she has the audacity to be immodest and aggressive and strong to affect change in a society that is literally built by men, based on masculine values that reward strength and aggression and brazen immodesty — well, society hates those women. They're unlikable. They're 'too much.' They should tone it down and step back in line because they make us all uncomfortable. There is this subconscious, instinctual abhorrence of her, because the voice in the back of our heads say, 'Who does she think she is?'
And if you think this is an anecdotal observation, it's not. Studies have shown that success and likeability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women. A professor at Columbia Business School handed out a case study on a successful female venture capitalist named Heidi Rozen. One group of students got the original case study. The other group got the case study, but the name was changed to 'Howard.' The students were then surveyed, and everyone loved Howard. He seemed like a good guy that you'd want to work for. But Heidi? Well, she seemed a bit political and selfish. When a man aggressively pursues his mission, we love and admire him. When a woman aggressively pursues her mission, she's selfish and needs to be put back in her cage where she belongs.
So, if you examine the structure of this game, we live in a society full of rules and constructs that were developed over thousands of years by men. This society rewards displays of archetypically masculine traits. So, of course, archetypically feminine traits — kindness, compassion, intuition, playfulness, vulnerability — don't get you ahead in a society built on masculine ideals. Women want their needs met, and since the patriarchy isn't meeting them, women begin uncomfortably contorting themselves to fit the shape of the system they exist within — being immodest, self-interested, aggressive, disagreeable, and taking up space. But if they do that, we punish women and deem them 'unlikeable.' So basically, if a woman doesn't adapt to the rules of the system, she loses. If she does adapt to the rules of the system, she gets penalized and labeled a bitch — just like she gets labeled a slut if she dares engage in the same sexual behavior as a man. And yet many men call this situation 'equality' because women can now legally play the same game as them — a game whose rules were designed by men to reward traits that men have an evolutionary advantage in.
At this point, again, feminists might yell 'burn the patriarchy to the ground! We need equality of outcome across all domains!' But, like I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of 'strong, independent, feminist women' want to date superior men. Therefore, they abhor patriarchy on a conscious level, and crave it on a subconscious level. And I've just pointed out why.
You see, our society overtly values the acquisition of material resources. A 'successful' person is one who makes a lot of money, has a high status, is highly educated, and contributes to the world by employing very archetypically masculine traits: hard work, grit, perseverance, and an aggressive pursuit of goals and achievements. Basically, we measure people's lives by what they do. If you're not a good 'doer', then you're unsuccessful in society's eyes.
And this is where the cognitive dissonance comes into play with modern feminism. Because our society measures someone's worth by their material achievements, for women, as a collective group, to consciously admit that they aren't equal to men in that respect is akin to admitting that they are worth less than men, and are second-rate citizens. Our society really doesn't give a shit if you're kind and loving and nurturing — all things that women are evolutionarily superior in. In fact, if you're all of those things, there's a high probability that you'll end up poor, with no health-care, or stability, just struggling to get by. Like in my teacher example, someone with more aggression will come in and eat your lunch, because that's the behavior we incentivize.
So, if women were to admit that they're evolutionarily inferior to men when it comes to acquiring resources, they'd basically be admitting that they are worth less than men and are second-rate citizens. But obviously, women are not second-rate citizens — they are people, and every person on this planet is equally valuable in an intrinsic sense. We all deserve equal rights, and the freedom to pursue our own happiness.
Do you see how this comes down to a conflict of values? Our Western society overtly believes that all humans are intrinsically equal, but on a more subversive level, it only values archetypically masculine traits.
Similarly, on a overt level, my ego would like to believe that I am perfectly equal to men. I don't logically like the idea of being inferior to a man. But at the same time, I'm just not turned on by men who aren't traditionally masculine. My monkey-brain is subconsciously looking for indicators that he can take control, provide for me, and protect me and our future family. If I don't perceive him to be superior to me, I'm not going to trust him to take care of me while I'm taking care of the children.
So, you see, patriarchy is just the natural order of things. And I'm not saying that women can't, or shouldn't, hold power — because obviously that's a ridiculous statement that violates a value that all people have a right to equally pursue their own happiness. And if a woman wants to experience herself with a masculine kind of power, then she should have every right to compete with men on equal footing, free from sexism and discrimination.
I'm just saying that there's a reason most women seek out superior men, and willingly hand over their power to them. It's because a lot of women don't want masculine power, with all the stress and deadlines and responsibility that comes with it. They want to feel feminine power. They want to feel love, and joy, and light dancing through their veins. And they can only do that if they feel safe and secure and loved and seen for the multi-dimensional women that they are. If the patriarchy is meeting their needs, and allowing women to experience the joyous version of themselves that they want to experience, then there is no need to fight the patriarchy with brute force.
And so, here is where we've pinpointed the heart of the issue. Our biology makes patriarchy inevitable, but there is a huge difference between a benevolent patriarchy led by strong, enlightened, empathetic kings who care for the world with love — and an oppressive, tyrannical patriarchy led by boyish, greedy, egotistical tyrants.
For one moment, just imagine that every man in this world was an enlightened king — the epitome of mature masculinity. These men have transcended their egos. They treat women with respect, provide a world of equal opportunity, and provide a safe environment for women to become enlightened, loving queens. Immediately, rape would cease to exist. Our prisons would empty out. Domestic violence would disappear. Women could enter the workforce, but our society would equally value their choice to focus on family and community. Productivity would probably go up, because men generally love working hard when they are appreciated and admired for it. Women wouldn't have to return to work straight after having a baby. Vulnerable citizens would be fed and cared for. Female voices would be heard and valued, without the need to shout and protest. Kings would defend their nations, but against what attack? There would be no more wars, because why go to war with other enlightened kings over abundant resources?
Thus, if women want true empowerment — and by that I mean the freedom and power to be themselves, and not just masculinized versions of themselves — then feminism needs to foster a benevolent patriarchy. Using our feminine energy to help men transcend their egos, and achieve some kind of masculine, spiritual awakening — is the key to female empowerment.
But alas — here we are, in an imperfect world run by imperfect men who complain that modern women have lost their soft femininity. The patriarchy simultaneously craves femininity, and then tramples all over it with their power. But I wouldn't have to be so confrontational and aggressive if the patriarchy wasn't incompetent.
Like I said, I don't want to be a warrior. As soon as men can demonstrate that they are benevolent, effective, trustworthy kings, I'm happy to give back their power. I know Sheryl Sandberg tells women to lean in, but I don't want to lean in. I want to lie down. If men are willing to step forward and do the hard work, then they're welcome to. As far as I know, getting someone else to do the labor for you while you spend time with your family is called leverage. It's a good thing. So while the men might want to feel powerful by leading and working hard, I want to be powerful by allowing them to. Leverage is power.
But until the patriarchy can demonstrate competence, I am going to contort myself into the shape of a warrior, pick up my sword, and fight for a better future for everyone."
Join the conversation.