“Non-manly” men suffer just as much, if not more at the hands of women. “Toxic masculinity” is the red herring here.

If the "patriarchy" is perpetrated by both men and women and negatively affects both men and women, maybe "patriarchy" is a bit of a misnomer?

It is, the term was inherited from angry 2nd and 3rd wavers. Trans inclusionnary feminism tries to frame the discuss1ion more around the concept of gender normativity for this exact reason.

Why? Nobody has ever thought that a society where only men can be kings must mean that all men are kings.

why quibble over the word? you're talking about gender roles, men are supposed to be big and tough and take charge, and womem are supposed to be nurturing and demure and receptive to being taken charge of. it's a model with men in control, patriarchy is a fine word for that. of course if you can't hack your assigned gender role you'll catch shit from those that can. those that can hack their gender role may be men or women; those that can't may be men or women-- this is your observation. but how do you go from that to patriarchy is a misnomer?

It’s not a useful term because it bakes a ton of political ideas into a concept everyone is expected to accept. Mainly that our society is somehow intelligently designed to put men in charge and that it’s not a mix of biology and random happenstance that got us where we are today. It also implies that men actually are in charge. Some men may be but the vast majority are not. If incarceration and university enrollment numbers are examined, it might even look like men as a class are the oppressed not the oppressors.

"Mainly that our society is somehow intelligently designed to put men in charge and that it’s not a mix of biology and random happenstance that got us where we are today."

i don't believe anyone thinks this a or that anyone cares if we're here by accident of history or by intention.

"It also implies that men actually are in charge. Some men may be but the vast majority are not."

of course, and the vast majority of women aren't in charge either, but the topic has been gender roles, not who's in charge. recall that i was questioning the claim that patriarchy is a misnomer because it's bad for men too. the subject at hand is gender roles and gender expectations.

"If incarceration and university enrollment numbers are examined, it might even look like men as a class are the oppressed not the oppressors."

yes, patriarchy is bad for men. and if you look at the number of people murdered by their spouse it also looks pretty oppressive to women. that's the point, patriarchy is oppressive to everyone.

> claim that patriarchy is a misnomer because it's bad for men too.

Nope. What I wrote that it is perpetuated/enforced by both men and women (arguably by women more than men) and has both negative and positive effects for both men and women.

yeah, that's the one. thanks for clearing up any confusion that i might have caused by not reproducing your post verbatim.

anyway, gender roles and gender expectations.

Yes. "Gender roles exist, and they come with expectations for everyone" is a lot different from "the evil patriarchy is a conspiracy by men to oppress women".

By looking it up in the dictionary. Patriarchy are about the dominance of the _father_ figure. Fathers can be lots of things, and not all of those things require overturning.

> why quibble over the word?

Framing, which is very important in political discussion (e.g. estate tax vs. death tax).

yeah, that's what i suspect.

Not if you are attempting to co-opt the situation.

Just because a particular man does not benefit from his role in a patriarchical society does not mean that he doesn't live in one. It's entirely possible to support a social order without deriving any personal benefit from it, or without even being a member of the benefiting class.