In The Second Sex, De Beauvoir quotes Engels as he argues that patriarchy (as we know it today) likely arose with the advent of private property. So there is some relation to capitalism (of which private property is a core component), but it goes back way further than the Black Plague and marking it down to “trade promotion” is over-simplistic at best in that it’s wayyyy worse than that.
the patriarchy doesn’t benefit the male. in fact, most men are overall harmed by the forces of patriarchy.
the goal of patriarchy is to subjugate and repress an “other,” that is, women. it’s true that patriarchy gives privelege to men, but equating privilege and benefit is to misunderstand the core components of the system.
This is true, but who decided that a woman keeping her maiden name is just using her father’s name? That idea comes from patriarchy. If I inherit something at birth, like a rare coin, it’s mine, whether it came from my mom or dad. The same goes for a woman’s name—it’s hers because she’s had it since birth. Suggesting she doesn’t own it, and must create a new name to escape, reinforces the idea that only patrilineal identity matters and undermines her autonomy in making that choice.
appreciate your insight! i fully agree with everything except perhaps:
You’re not doing anything wrong by not confirming to that standard.
still a correct statement on its own, but needs the clarification that it’s not chill to mock or hamper the efforts of that “Othered” community to subvert or reclaim their repression. while it’s certainly not wrong for a woman to conform to the patrilineal system, it’s not chill to “gotcha”-laugh at this woman for using the same name she and her mother have owned their whole lives.
it’s a very Rush Limbaugh-esque “you claim to he a feminist, yet you live under the forces and histories of the patriarchy, curious 🧐” joke, in that it’s not wrong, it’s just intensely and obviously comes from a place of ignorant disrespect.
…yeah? exactly what i said? i don’t disagree at all except you possibly ignore that the butt of the joke is the woman, normalizing the very repression she attempts to subvert. it’s undermining and mocking the woman’s identity intentionally by asserting the dominance of patriarchal schemes over her own life and decision. (perhaps unintentionally, but nevertheless really.)
in America, historically Black names are also dominated by the history of slavery and white supremacy (different functions, but the end result: subjugation, is parallel). i would post a similar comment hating on a post mocking Black folk for resisting these patterns as well! :)
with no ill will for you, OP, genuinely fuck this boomer ass “joke”
a woman’s name is her name. she lives with it for 1 lifetime, absolutely no shorter than her grandfather does. “male” is not somehow the default human identity. stop trying to enforce that standard.
thank you. it’s utterly obscene how people will see awful actions like drag’s, and instead of combating the actions drag has done, just fight for their right to misgender and abuse.
i encourage everyone who sees these behaviors, from
anyone, to bring them forward to mods immediately.
In The Second Sex, De Beauvoir quotes Engels as he argues that patriarchy (as we know it today) likely arose with the advent of private property. So there is some relation to capitalism (of which private property is a core component), but it goes back way further than the Black Plague and marking it down to “trade promotion” is over-simplistic at best in that it’s wayyyy worse than that.