bell hooks is truly a blessing! she’s certainly not the first to do so, but she’s the most forefront and accessible of feminist voices to attend to the needs and experiences of men under patriarchy.
one of the self defenses of patriarchy is definitely just to misinform people about whom feminism is for, and so oftentimes that’s one of the first hurdles to overcome when discussing feminism. that’s why conservative spheres are often so obsessed with the “man-hating feminazi” stereotype—even though they make up a incredibly marginal subset of “feminist” voices, giving them a platform creates a useful strawman for conservatives to argue for the need of anti-feminism.
ugh i’m sorry :( i hope there is also a positive predicate for your transition in addition to this negative one, but it’s certainly apparent how the derisive treatment of amab individuals can play into their future expression of gender identity. thanks for sharing <3
And yes it does make sense that the physically stronger sex becomes the protector. Feminists will agree with you on this.
But they will take immediate issue with your supposition that men therefore need to be emotionally repressed in order to protect women from… most often, themselves.
your hypothesis isn’t stupid and in fact i think it lines up quite nicely with quite a few theories put forward by feminist scholars, including the one i summarized in my own response to this post. violence and the maintenance of control is a big element tied to most models of patriarchal masculinity :) you got good instincts
“patriarchy” is literally just a greek term for a household that had a man at the head. there is no blame inherent in the term, as it describes a system, not people.
so yes. men, by default, are not always the perpetrator, and women, by default, are not always the victim. we agree on this. the system of patriarchy hurts everyone and feminism is for everyone. you continue to adamantly disagree with this over a misunderstanding of a single word.
i haven’t taken any university course on this, despite your assertion. you are just getting one word wrong, and for this again i recomend you read bell hooks; she writes short works in a way that is meant to be accessible to laypeople like us.
Medium answer: As above, but in Western culture, this dynamic was reinforced by the advent of private property, which created a need to protect assets. While forms of patriarchy exist without private property, the patriarchy we recognize today is theorized to have been shaped by a perceived “need” for a dominant figure to hold and maintain property. Many factors have contributed to this dominance, but the factors of stoicism and emotional repression you describe are a significant facet tied to enforcing the male role as protector of property.
Long answer: As above, and as Simone de Beauvoir explains in The Second Sex, which is ~1000 pages, these roles evolved into patriarchal systems that have shaped society for centuries. Feminism as a whole is dedicated to unraveling these complexities, and the points above are only a broad overview of a much larger, nuanced topic.
Layman’s answer for those without time to read massive works of analysis: If you haven’t, I highly recommend reading bell hooks’ The Will to Change. It’s available as a free PDF on the Internet Archive. The book is under 200 pages and written to be accessible to non-academics, so feel free to skim and jump between chapters as suits your curiosity. The introduction and chapter 2 may be especially helpful for understanding this topic! 😁
If you haven’t, I always recommend reading bell hooks’ The Will to Change. It’s available as a free PDF under 200 pages on the Internet Archive but it’s also written to be very accessible to non-academics and so it’s also absolutely fine to skim and jump between chapters as suits your curiosity! The introduction and chapter 2 would probably get you a long way there 😊
"It is a difficult matter for women to accept their role as servants to life, and they only succeed in so far as they find compensations in the society that subjugates them. These compensations are transmitted from mother to daughter, perpetuating the subjugation."
(The Second Sex)
"The fact that we are human beings is infinitely more important than all the peculiarities that distinguish human beings from one another; however, women, in submitting to patriarchal society, often become the most fervent defenders of their own oppression."
(The Second Sex)
"Women and men alike have been socialized to accept sexist thought and action. As a consequence, women can be just as sexist as men."
(Feminism is for Everybody)
Emphases mine. Both notable feminist voices. Hope these can get you started on the path to overcoming your passed down misconceptions. And don’t worry—it’s not your own fault that you have this confusion— patriarchy’s greatest self defense is in subverting (lying about) the meaning of feminist language to you.
careful hehe ‘op’ in the context would be understood by most to mean the OP of the post, aka Ada. i caught what you mean before i took any action but that probably explains a good chunk of the downvotes ur getting :)
when feminists use the word “patriarchy” they mean exactly what you describe here. your misconception of the term is what is getting in your way here—there is no blame to any one, only the structure. highly recommended you read more of bell hooks’ work as she does an excellent job of explaining yours and other misconceptions with a focus on accessibility for a male audience :)
It’s sad to me that you feel the need to disavow genuine discussion of men’s mental and emotional health as “overexaggerated cringe.” That shit kills.