Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Can’t See The Trees for the Systemic Forest
So over on đť•Ź, I’m engaged in an argument — I guess I’d call it that — with, of all people, former tennis great Martina Navratilova.
Very briefly:
The topic is a recent court case in Australia, in which a man who self-identifies (not at all convincingly) as a woman sued a women-only organization for admission, and won. It’s an awful decision, Martina and I agree about that. But she characterized it as an example of “the patriarchy,” and that prompted me to respond:
I agree that it’s wrong. Patriarchy? I don’t know. Thuggish, fetishistic men? Yes, absolutely.
As tepid as that was, it didn’t go over well, neither with her nor with several other women on her thread. A pointless back-and-forth ensued until I got tired of repeating myself (It happens. It takes a lot.) and stopped reading the comments.
But it got me thinking about something the left does, something that I think fools a lot of people into supporting it. I’ll try to be succinct.
Example 1: The Patriarchy
1. The problem, Martina and I agree, is that men are invading women’s spaces. They’re doing it under the banner of “trans,” this idiotic gender-identity movement that’s latched like a lamprey onto the now wholly irrelevant gay rights movement.
2. The Democratic Party is the party of trannies and other gender-queer fruitcakes. It was Obama who ordered schools to let boys into the girls’ locker room; Trump who reversed that diktat; Biden who re-instated the practice (surprise, right?).
3. So Martina and her fellow liberals are told to ignore the specifics, and to focus instead on the patriarchy. Never mind that the immediate problem is a product of leftist cant: focus your anger on the patriarchy, and know that we, the Democrats, are the party fighting against that vague and not-quite-definable evil.
See how that works? Vote Democrat because, even though we’re creating the immediate problem, we oppose the sinister force that’s really behind it all.
It isn’t just the patriarchy, a phrase that always puts my teeth on edge.
Example 2: Systemic Racism
Too many young black Americans have a problem. Their educations are terrible, they kill each other far too often, and they come from broken, drug-addled homes. They’re in thrall to a dysfunctional sub-culture that locks them in mediocrity and failure.
The Democratic Party, unsurprisingly, is the brain trust behind the bad policies that condemn so many young men to a challenging, often too-brief existence.
But by not focusing on the policies, by ignoring the specific, immediate problems, and by talking about systemic racism, the left distracts from and absolves itself of responsibility, and replaces the very real policy problems with an amorphous villain, systemic racism. And it’s the Democrats, of course, who are leading the fight against that bogeyman.
Example 3: Mass Illegal Immigration
Back when Kamala 2.0 was Kamala 1.0 and still the “border czar,” her mandate was to stem the inflow of illegal aliens. Of course, we all know how to do that. It’s pretty easy: Control the border.
Now a porous border is the immediate and wholly predictable result of Democratic Party interests as implemented via Democratic Party policies. The problem is that most Americans don’t want a porous border. What to do?
Simple: Redefine the problem as something other than the actual problem. Make it, once again, vague. Say it has to do with “addressing the root causes of mass migration.” Tell the American people that we, the Democratic Party, are on it.
(Pro tip: Try to pin it on climate change, because otherwise you risk getting into uncomfortable discussions about cultural differences, which might imply that some cultures are better than other cultures, and that’s a slippery slope. Climate change makes the West the villain, and that’s always firm ground.)
Anyway, I think this is one way that the party that causes most of the trouble manages to claim the moral high ground and convince its followers that it really cares, and that people who really care will give that party their votes.
Published in Culture
Twitter is fun for brushes with celebrity. Or faux celebrity, like when I was blocked by Kevin Williamson.
“But by not focusing on the policies, by ignoring the specific, immediate problems,and by talking about systemic racism, the left distracts from and absolves itself of responsibility, and replaces the very real policy problems with an amorphous villain, systemic racism. And it’s the Democrats, of course, who are leading the fight against that bogeyman.“
Exactly. I don’t take much of what they say they’re concerned about at face value. All of this re-framing of everything into oppressed / oppressors  is a ruse to intimidate and silence those whom are depicted as holding power, whether they actually do or not, so that they can force a shift of power to themselves. If normal reasonable people who understand human nature are ultimately neutralized and shut down their own voices, they win.  It’s evil.
As I believe you’ve said before, don’t argue for the knot-heads who will never change anyway; argue for the other people witnessing.
I do. Always.
Â
I think it’s important to never debate or argue over facts, even the ones the other guy doesn’t like. I also don’t debate principles, I’ll state mine and hope the other guy will cop to his. And, I do think some cultures are better than others – principally the ones who don’t use their children as weapons of war and who don’t buy and sell neighbors to slavery.  There are other thresholds of course but training your children to kill themselves is a giveaway.Â
What if the focus on the patriarchy and systemic racism are actually efforts promulgated by especially ambitious patriarchists (?) and racists with even longer timelines, who are using stated opposition to patriarchy and racism to set up systems in which men have absolute dominance and race determines all, as dictated by wealthy white men (and maybe using black or female compliant house slaves as useful idiots)?
Hmmm. Wouldn’t that just be an example of individuals exercising their power, not of some group that shares immutable characteristics all exercising the power? I realize your statement could be satirical but taken seriously the problem with all of these arguments is the use of the phrase “the patriarchy” as if it’s a real thing. Yes, some cultures are explicitly organized that way (can you name a Middle Eastern or Islamic country that isn’t?) But ever since approximately WWII when women entered the workforce to replace men fighting the war, it seems their political power has only grown. And cultural power too, to the point where one of our major parties actively encourages the neutering of its males with free vasectomies at their convention. Are they easier to control then? Or is it just a way for the narcissists to proclaim their solidarity with the baby-murdering harpies? That sounds harsh but also, accurate.
Excellent post, Henry.
Agreed. Outstanding.
This is brilliant. I am sharing this with everybody I know.
So left-wing gender-bending sexual chaos is due to right wing patriarchy? Holy mackerel.
Ok, Martina. Is it possible that leftists have made a mistake? On anything?
Martina should remember Margaret Thatcher’s message – everyone is conservative about things they care about.
The Democrat party has become the party of single females–a true matriarchy.  In the case of sports, it is definitely women that insist on allowing men to participate as women. If it was up to men, these guys would be mocked and then forced to compete and lose against real men.Â
Whereas a patriarchy is based on competition and meritocracy, a matriarchy is based on consensus, empathy, and compliance.  It acts like a cult, where deviation from the consensus is forbidden and those that speak out are shamed back into compliance under threat of expulsion from the in-group.  A cult where men are the oppressors and the safety of women is always at risk. Navratilova starts to speak outside of the consensus, but immediately retreats to the “men are holding us back”. Â
My history books don’t have any examples of successful matriarchal societies, but those books were probably written by men.
You share an opinion, perhaps a conclusion. I’m not convinced you agree on what the problem is.
Â
You are certainly correct in a sense, which was the point of the post. But problems beget problems, and she and I agree that one of the leaves of that very leafy problem tree is men in women’s safe spaces.
I made this a while ago, perhaps not exactly on-point here but maybe useful at other times.
Â
And yet it does seem to be women – at least, some women – who insist on that. Actual men aren’t pushing for it.
Seems like it would take actual castration, not just vasectomies, to seriously affect behavior. Those who would seek out vasectomy probably have the mindset already, for other reasons.
Unfortunately, the most aggressive fringe pushing for it is male. The broad support for gender nonsense comes from women, but the point of the spear is fetishistic men.
With majority of support from women, which was my point. (Not the majority of women; the majority of the support.) That “spear” wouldn’t get anywhere without it.
The puzzle is why those women would fall for that patriarchal “spear.”
And that’s precisely the point of my post. None of the gender problems are patriarchy or have anything to do with patriarchy. The problem in this case has to do with fetishistic men who want to get close to women in vulnerable places. The broader problem of the gender movement is that it harms women and children. Neither of those have anything to do with what people mean when they say patriarchy.Â
but, if you can sell it as a problem of patriarchy while continuing to exacerbate the problem through your own immediate policies, you can keep people fired up and voting for you forever.
Maybe it’s a vulnerability that arose after years/decades of claiming that men and women are “equal.”
I am sure that is correct. Feminism jumped the track a long time ago, and has been working against the interests of women in the west for decades.
But women have their own reasons for wanting to believe THAT; they didn’t need pressure from any “spear” of fetishistic men.
Although I suppose it could have been the men who initiated it. But really, the militant lesbians would have been enough.
That is indeed the puzzle.
But the past 10 years of progressive politics has focused on the problems that arise from a toxic form of masculinity.
However, full clarity on that issue would now be at hand had the problem been defined in that manner.
But instead of focusing on the toxic form of masculinity, the problem was imaged as being about masculinity itself.
Then after Trump was elected, the message that women were not getting the right amount of respect in our society became full blown. The solution? Simply march around in weekend long protest marches. Simply wear a vagina hat on one’s head while at the march. Surely doing that will get us women respect! (I know. I know!)
What is the difference between a toxic form of masculinity and the very necessary healthy version of masculinity?
Healthy masculinity: A male who is involved in the life of his mate and their offspring.
He is an individual who stands willing and able to support the woman emotionally just as she supports him, who is a protector, both in terms of keeping the economic wolf from their door as well as being someone who physically looks out for the family’s well being.
He gives respect and appreciation to his partner and expects and gets the same in return.
He extends respect to women he works with or encounters at social gatherings.
He has as a goal improving his community – although this goal may be put on hold while raising a family.
A healthy male who is a parent engages on an intimate level with the kids., teaching them the life skills that they have, whether those are plant id’s while out hiking, how to play games and sports, how to repair things. How to relax and listen to music and to have conversations. Basically whatever is of interest to the dad also involves the dad bringing the kids on board.
Demented toxic masculinity: A male who feels by virtue of being a three legged, that he should be the recipient of his mate’s continual adoration and devotion, while he does little more than criticize and “keep her under his thumb.”
As far as parenting, the toxic male is more along the lines of “Why the hell can’t she keep the kids out of my way!”
He plugs into the community as it suits his need to advance socially and at his career. He treats his coworkers or employees in the same manner, if he can get away with doing that.
Â
What effect does patriarchy have in western society? Major party presidential candidate (not actually earned through a primary, suggesting a female preference), Supreme court justices (confirmed in part by men), cabinet members, men can’t stop guys in ladies facilities, and women CEOs elected by men. Men are sure doing a crappy job of executing this elusive patriarchy power.
When was the last time any of us discriminated against women or minorities? Yet the brush paints us. I hear about QAnon as if its part of the Republican Code. I’ve never been to the site. Not like we suggest all Dems are antifa, that would be absurd. But we’re all back woods militia. Never just conservative – Ultra MAGA, far right, extreme right wing and always with ill intention. Unfortunately, if that’s all you ever hear, it will influence you perception.
Can somebody point me to that sweet gravy train of the patriarchy?
Again, the point of having a vague and amorphous villain is that you can’t convincingly discredit it. You can argue about salary and crime and career advancement and every other single thing, but there’s no slam dunk. There’s no clear win.
It’s exactly like systemic racism. Whatever the varied intentions of those who invoke these abstractions, the effect is to distract people from actual practical solutions to real problems, and to keep them focused on things that, if they exist at all, defy clear articulation, much less solution.
I suspect that most people who believe in these things are sincere. I’m not even sure there’s a conspiracy to keep people hamstrung with these ideas. It may just be that you get a few charismatic flakes writing theses on oppression and it snowballs.
But it keeps people engaged in self-defeating behavior.Â
I think that the so-called “gender” problems have everything to do with the idea of the so-called “patriarchy.”
I view the issue as arising out of feminism. Feminism gave rise to the very idea of “gender” being something different from “sex.” Feminism rejected the idea of male and female sex roles, and went further, I think, arguing that the traditionalist view of male and female roles is actively evil and oppressive.
Feminism made no logical sense, as it continued to seek spaces and opportunities for women only, when doing so would benefit women, while arguing that there can be no such separate spaces and opportunities for men only. So I find feminism to be an internally incoherent theory that, as an added bonus, denies biological reality.
One of the key ideas to emerge out of feminism is that irrespective of your sex, you should be free to adopt a different “gender.” The logical endpoint of this turns out to be the madness of the trans ideology.
So in my view, it is feminist opposition to the so-called “patriarchy” that has led directly to the trans phenomenon. But it’s not the fault of the so-called “patriarchs.” I think that I’m one of the few remaining actual “patriarchs,” meaning a man who supports traditional sex roles for men and women. We have no power, as far as I can tell. I’d estimate that 80-90% of men are feminists, in this country.
My reaction to the whole trans thing, particularly in women’s sports, vacillates from outrage to schadenfreude. Almost all of the women affected are feminists anyway, so it’s hard to get upset, sometimes, when they are hoist on their own petard. Other times, though, my male instinct to protect them kicks in, and I get a bit ticked off. It helps to remember that most of them would be insulted by the idea that they need protection, and would slander me as a male chauvinist for thinking so.
This is a spiritual battle anyway, against one of the Devil’s latest lies. It’s been going on for thousands of years, one form of foolishness after another.
There’s a lot to agree with in that. And a lot that I do agree with. Most of it in fact.
Labels are both a convenience and a problem. The word patriarchy is too broad: it includes both things that I value and things that I don’t value. Similarly, feminism is too broad.
Men and women are different in ways that matter. I support legal equality of men and women with a couple of exceptions, but I don’t support the legal identity of men and women.
I also believe that men and women tend to be happiest when they adopt fairly traditional gender roles. I think there was a time when women did not have sufficient rights relative to men, and addressing that was appropriate and necessary. I think most of what makes up feminist theory is destructive of both men and women.
But…
When I say that the problem the tennis lady and I are discussing has nothing to do with patriarchy, I mean that it is not the product of what she imagines the patriarchy to be. And the immediate solution to this problem of men invading women’s spaces is to prohibit it.