We'd be in a better place if we started from the assumption that everybody is prejudiced, it takes work for any of us to overcome it, and the work is never complete.
I've seen hypocrisy and cruelty from people of all backgrounds. But anecdotally, among the "socially conscious women" I've spent time around, this, which is one of three top comments on the article, is a common sentiment:
> This is a reminder that the patriarchy hurts everyone and men should be just as invested in destroying it as women.
Thinking about this more, I think the far simpler explanation is "being a mean piece of shit hurts everyone" and it applies to pretty much any belief system and doesn't require a complete restructuring of society on the hopes that it'll prevent people from being mean.
It's an example of the harms that emerge from hidebound gender roles, preconceptions about the desirability of male dominance and female submission, and stultified ideals of attractiveness.
Just as women benefit when society learns to accept and appreciate a wider variety of body types, so do men.
Doesn't this only make sense though if patriarchy is a priori defined by gender roles? It falls apart if any non-patriarchal system develops or prefers any gender roles. On what basis is it claimed that only a patriarchy has gender roles?
You are talking about “a patriarchy”, they are talking about “the patriarchy”. In other words this particular one we are living in with it’s built in assumed gender roles.
I understand, I am asking why the gender roles being "built in" is exclusive to patriarchy. Suppose we replace patriarchy with matriarchy. Are there no built in assumptions about gender and everyone treats each other nicely?
> I aspire to a society where gender expression is independent from societal roles.
Brilliant. We're all in this together struggling to be generous to each other. There will always be tension between men and women and divergent gender roles will always exist, but things can be better than they are today.
There can be less of people of one gender or another demeaning others for physical characteristics, and more celebration of variety. I hope that more people can find it in themselves to accept when an olive branch is held out to them. This huge thread with hundreds of comments is a catalog of anguish showing how much potential there is for us to do better and be better — in daenz's formulation, being less of a "mean piece of shit" — for each other.
I believe it's an emergent phenomenon, so unless there is a plan to enforce that from emerging, you're going to be very unsatisfied even if "the patriarchy" is removed. But my question that I want to understand is, are "gender roles" by definition a patriarchal concept? If so, "the patriarchy" will always be a boogeyman to blame any time gender roles emerge. If not, then tying them to patriarchy is dishonest.
I would guess that both monogamy and historical gender roles derive from the economics of an agricultural society. We had thousands of years where almost all people were agriculturalists. It’s only within the last hundred or so that we have large numbers of people no longer closely tied to agriculture. I expect both expected gender roles and our societal concept of marriage to undergo profound changes.
That's not true though. It's women who believe in patriarchal gender roles that are more likely to date short men, because they focus on a man's suitability as a potential provider rather than his looks.
I've seen hypocrisy and cruelty from people of all backgrounds. But anecdotally, among the "socially conscious women" I've spent time around, this, which is one of three top comments on the article, is a common sentiment:
> This is a reminder that the patriarchy hurts everyone and men should be just as invested in destroying it as women.