- Why? It has always been there!
- Men are simply made to rule.
- You can see that with lobsters (Jordan Peterson likes to use them as an example).
- The world is flat and God created it 6000 years ago.
Well then. If these are your dogmas, then our conversation will be difficult. But if you are willing to debate it, i.e., fundamentally also to move away from your point of view, then let's begin.
First of all, to the basics:
I'll lay my cards on the table, here I am convinced by the current scientific theories:
- Humans are conscious beings, we have an understanding of ourselves, we can even reflect on our thinking and consciousness.
- However, there is no biological-scientific theory yet that could conclusively describe this subjective experience. It is still a great mystery.
- The universe is very old (approx. 14 billion years)
- Life on Earth is also very old (approx. 4 billion years)
- We call the „fundamental mechanism of the development of life“ evolution.
- Evolution – probably – has no goal, no meaning, no direction, no destiny.
- Evolution led humans to become a social being and society is indispensable for the survival of the individual (no human baby can survive independently immediately after birth – and, contrary to what is depicted in fairy tales, cannot be raised by a she-wolf either)
- Human societies form „social reality“ for organization, i.e., they create reality beyond physical reality (e.g., sound symbols – i.e., language, power symbols, money, writing).
- Increasingly complex and larger societies have developed.
- In the course of this development, the patriarchy arose – probably independently in various places on Earth.
- The patriarchy is a form of society in which men (generalized) have more power (and thus dominance) than women (also generalized).
- The patriarchy was not an invention.
- The patriarchy did not arise overnight, but very probably over the course of millennia.
- The emergence of the patriarchy was not an evolutionary coincidence, but the result of certain causes.
- The patriarchy could only arise because there is a – albeit slight, but existing in Homo Sapiens – sexual dimorphism between male and female human beings. Male beings are – purely on average – larger and have more muscle mass and thus physical strength. This is a biological fact, but it says nothing further about any other differences between female and male human beings.
So much for the basics for now, it's just a tiny excerpt of it, but from here we can start.
These basics are not dogmas, but the current state of science. They must always be considered when we think about the patriarchy. If subordinate statements in the framework of thought contradict these basics, then either the basics must be questioned (openness for this is always indispensable), or – and this is by far the more common case – the contradictory statement must be rejected.
What do I mean by that? An example: „The men in power at the time introduced the patriarchy.“ This contradicts the basic principle that the patriarchy was not created, but is a developmental process of evolution, and that it developed over a very long period of time. The statement must therefore be rejected, as it provides no evidence whatsoever to doubt the basic assumptions.
If we go into a feud with arguments that have exactly such weaknesses, i.e., clearly contradict the essential foundations, then we do the „fight against patriarchy“ a disservice.