The raise of the soyboy and vagina selfies
What happens when feminists mistake masculinity for patriarchy?
Wikipedia tells us:
"The term patriarchy is often misused loosely to stand for "male domination", while the more rigorous definition lies with the literal interpretation: "the rule of the father."
Even when patriarchy is not the domination of men over women, "the rule of the father" still conveys the male dominance over everything human without following a binary structure of dominance.
Patriarchy has been both, biologically and socially conditioned. Yet, socially in here doesn't just mean ideologically, politically or through the passing of legislation.
The genetic code stored in DNA is "interpreted" by gene expression, and the properties of the expression give rise to the organism's phenotype.
This "interpretation" obviously comes from our environment, be it internal (the food we eat to create proteins) or external (the brain's signals travelling in our bodies as we interact with our surroundings and frame what we live through experiences.
Those experiences, as they build the patterns of our behaviours, impact great deal our gene expression (phenotype) and as a result our very biology.
How can we correlate taking our genes expression as a social dimension of our genes with the "social construct" that most postmodernists use to describe the dynamic changes in human life against the biological rigidity they assume our body to have?
The truth of the matter is that our body is not rigid, not even at its biological order. Maybe a better word to use is not biological rigidity, but biological gradient of confinements. It is not hard to see why our DNA (genotype) has evolved confined or why somehow it is a relatively closed blueprint.
We could also ask why atoms are so tighten together after that great battle between matter and antimatter at the beginning of the universe? How come they don't traverse each other and give us the reality of things in space?
And yet, other questions might creep in. How our mind can afford giving us the impression of things being traversable as if in a state of perpetual flux? Our brain is made of atoms, right? We wouldn't think of "quantum" processes in our brain, right? Is there some "things" in our minds which mismatch the appearance of atoms?
I wouldn't think so. If we accept the hypothesis of the big bang and that energy can not be created nor destroyed then atoms are just storage space of energy coming from the beginning of time.
The universe is a huge storage of energy.
Harnessing such energy is precisely what could give us the key to the flux states that our minds is so much inclined to phantom from time to time. But, let's no fool ourselves, the state of flux is not a "thing" in the way atoms are and atoms are not a "social construct."
Our DNA carries a heritage from atoms. It is a storage space of energy and information, but not exactly in the same sense as atoms. Atoms store such energy because of the fundamental principle of thermodynamics, namely, the increasing entropy in things. Our DNA, on the contrary, is fighting back, not as much against it as through it.
Our DNA "help" us not to wear out to quickly and have to reinvent over and over again the engine of our own life. It is a blueprint attempting to transcend entropy with the very mean of entropy, the consumption of energy.
Then, in relation to patriarchy, if it were mainly biologically conditioned by the "rigidity" of our DNA, there would probably be very little we could do about it and any kind of political activism would make no sense at all.
If, on the contrary, it were merely a "social construct" with their male agents responsible for having created it by the use of violence, then viewing human history as a history of men's oppression of women would be valid.
We would have to rewrite the history of human violence and "let" women turn upside down the structure of power more to their advantage. It would result in a women Marxist revolution. It wouldn't work, as history has already shown.
In matriarch hyena clans and patriarch lion prides the use use of brute force by female hyenas and by lions is common. Yet, force is not use to the extent that it would injure or alienate both sexes from reproduction.
Gender violence among hyena clans and among lions prides is kept to the minimum by the dominance of the females in one and of the males in the other. They bring order and stability. In both, one of the fundamental but no exclusive element dominating such balance of forces is the production of testosterone.
However, something different happens with elephants. Elephants are a matriarchal society, but males do not live with the herd. As soon as they reach adulthood they leave to form bachelors pods. From time to time males, however, visit the herd with the sole purpose of mating.
We can't say the same about human society, but it is undeniable that there must have been at the beginning of civilisation some gradients of brute force in social relations far higher than the one we have today and not exclusively related to gender struggles.
There are some feminists (Juile Bindel) who are close to imagine the ideal human society living in similar matriarchal social structures as that of hyenas and elephants. We can also imagine how absurd implementing it in practical term would be.
Gender roles across the spectrum of life has not only affected the rituals of reproduction, but also the division of work and social hierarchy among those sharing communal living.
Masculinity, in the case of humans, has not, biologically or otherwise, any advantage over femininity nor femininity over masculinity even when patriarchy, defined as the rule of the father, has naturally created in human societies a division of labour and social structures, which have not always favoured equally the sexes.