Towards a Critical Theory of Patriarchy: Part 3

6 thoughts on “Towards a Critical Theory of Patriarchy: Part 3”

  1. What do you think of the idea/theory that the female/male ratio in any given human population is unnaturally skewed and without patriarchy we would probably have a lot more women than men. Because we don’t really need a lot of men, we currently have way too much than is necessary. this fifty-fifty arrangement, aka keeping female population down and male population unnaturally inflated, is done to ensure control over us and that every man gets his own personal sex slave/womb from which to make babies from. I mean there are people who just keep going on about how monogamy isn’t natural, especially for men, it’s natural for him to want to sleep with several women–yeah so we don’t need that much of them? like one per every ten women maybe. or even one per a hundred women. How are they gonna oppress us if we outnumber them one hundred to one? Also, on women’s vaginas, you know in medical education texts a vagina is referred to as a vagina, except in the chapters dealing with human reproduction, then suddenly it’s called a “birth canal”. ???? what? so is it a “hole to fuck aka put a penis in” or “canal through which a baby comes out”? Like these people will go on and on about how homosexuality is an abomination because anal sex is “unnatural”, the “natural” thing is for a penis to go in a vagina, uhhhh no. I don’t think so. Vaginas are an EXIT. NOT an entry. Penis-in-vagina aka the only thing that counts as “real sex”(lol) is NOT natural and to think so is brainwashing. imo. A vagina exists for a baby to come out of, NOT for penetration especially not by a penis. Mainstream science even acknowledges that penetration isn’t needed for a baby to be conceived. There is literally no reason for a penis to go in a vagina. Majority of women don’t orgasm from vaginal penetration. There’s NO reason. There ARE accounts of women who orgasm during birth(hour long orgasms) though. Makes you think!


    1. To clarify–women who orgasm while giving birth, for very long durations(the whole time the baby passes through the vagina presumably). Imagine that. Creating a new human being, being a pleasurable experience–literally, as in physically. Not painful and life threatening.


    2. I don’t really think much about stuff like that because to me, Patriarchy is ultimately a historical and social (i.e. political) phenomenon. There is this great quote by Catharine MacKinnon that makes the point: “Biological problems have biological solutions.” But I loved this line: “I mean there are people who just keep going on about how monogamy isn’t natural, especially for men, it’s natural for him to want to sleep with several women–yeah so we don’t need that much of them?” Ha! It’s so funny to me when their own ideology backfires.

      Like when they argue that in the animal “kingdom” (lol) there are some species where the male is larger than the female, (and often has elongated horns, a mane, or some other defensive attribute) and this is supposed to justify male violence against women. But in those species the male evolved according to his combative nature – he must fight other males for breeding right’s with the females. It isn’t so he can ‘overpower’ the females for fucks sake – what would be the point? It would be like arguing that the peacock evolved to ‘outpretty’ the peahen.

      So, even by their own explanations Patriarchy is a fragile and absurd evolutionary abherration, whereby they are trying to ‘transcend’ (their word for it) being male. It really just feels like a six millenia long male gender identity crisis. And they keep trying to reverse the mother – child (i.e. son) dyad, whereby they create us…somehow, and then claim that all we contribute to the generation of new life is the sex-act. I think that’s related to the point you are making about their conceptions of our bodies, too.


  2. Also on men being considered male and female, isn’t it interesting in Western/Christian mythology the “perfect man”, Adam Kadmon(or whatever his name is), is described as being physically perfect and also androgynous aka both male and female in nature, like just literally physically hermaphroditic.


    1. Here, from Wikipedia and respectively:

      “However, Adam Kadmon itself is divine light without vessels, including all subsequent creation only in potential. This exalted anthropomorphism denotes that man is both the theocentric purpose of future creation, and the anthropocentric embodiment of the divine manifestations on high. This mythopoetic cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis enables the “Adam soul” to embody all human souls: the collective Yechidah (“singular”) soul essence in Adam Kadmon, and the collective Neshamah (“soul”) revealed soul in the Biblical Adam Ha-Rishon in the Garden of Eden.”

      “That Philo’s philosophic views are grounded on the Midrash, and not vice versa, is evident from his seemingly senseless statement that the “heavenly man,” the οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος (who is merely an idea), is “neither man nor woman.” This doctrine, however, becomes quite intelligible in view of the following ancient Midrash. The remarkable contradiction between the two above-quoted passages of Genesis could not escape the attention of the Pharisees, to whom the Bible was a subject of close study. In explaining the various views concerning Eve’s creation, they taught (‘Er. 18a, Gen. R. viii.) that Adam was created as a man-woman (androgynos), explaining (Gen. i. 27) as “male and female” instead of “man and woman,” and that the separation of the sexes arose from the subsequent operation upon Adam’s body, as related in the Scripture. This explains Philo’s statement that the original man was neither man nor woman.”

      A “female” man. hahaha!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s