Sure, and many others didn’t. That is my point. People idealize the past. They forgot about the not so nice things. Like the men who abandoned children, the widows, the orphans. Or the beatings. And that was common. Reading about industrial revolution or non noble people in middle ages or before, you’ll find a lot of this situations. But when people defend the “benefits” of the traditional model, they never consider all the people that that system “failed”. And let me be clear, the times it “failed” it wasn’t because they didn’t have strong patriarchal values. They did had those. But applied to women who “didn’t comply” or please them, meant that. In fact, the part about beating their wives was a feature.
I don’t disparage your argument. I’ve considered it. Neither I’m disparaging men, since men are not the same than patriarchy. I’ve seen traditional marriages that work. But I’ve also read and seen plenty of situations where the “traditional family” model where the wife submits to the husband, etc, go wrong. There is also strong evidence about beatings, for example. Here:
And here:
And in the bible:
And you can find similar things for muslims and apparently India.
You might claim that that is patriarchy going wrong. But it was astoundly common. And here is a description of marriage in the middle ages:
And here about men abandoning their wives:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3790154
To draw a paralel, what I’m doing here is similar at what you do when you say that sons of single mothers would be problematic (don’t remember the exact phrasing). Except I’m basing my argument on what is known of that time. Why is it fair for you to generalize on single mothers, yet I shouldn’t point out when the patriarchy failed?
By the way, I see positive examples of men in history and today. The thing is that some of them don’t uphold patriarchal values. Examples: Gandhi, Turing, Martin Luther King…
And it seems that you want women to just accept the patriarchal values that harm them for “the greater good” or “the family” but discard the possibility that men accept feminist and egalitarian values that harm no one and also benefit the family. Why is that?
I mean, there are no books on “how to hit your husband” Have you notice that? If you want to defend the patriarchal values, you need to offer answers for the not so nice parts. Because patriarchal values include those things.
You might think it is unfair, that I’m not considering “the good things”. But the fact is that I consider the good with the bad and reaching the conclusion that the good, doesn’t make up for the bad. And while I can see how from a man’s perspective the good might compensate the bad, I’m still not buying it.
You talk about gratitude. But you might consider, about what exactly? Because it doesn’t seem as if patriarchal values include gratitude for pregnancy and birth. Even if that literally meant death risk for women in the past. Is there gratitude for Einstein mother? What was her maiden name? We remember him, not his mother, since “she is not important”. Yet, he could have achieve nothing without her giving birth. Patriarchal values say she is not important. Or, well, they might pay lip service to that, but they won’t honor her.
The thing is that I don’t assume that men are bad, neither that they are good (same for women). But I do look at what patriarchy values has to offer and is not good to men or women. Sorry, but it’s what I see. If you only allow half the humanity to develop their talents, you don’t know what you are missing. From discoveries, to inventions. And when women have full rights, children are usually better cared. Not just that, if you allow en to be vulnerable (patriarchy frowns a lot on this) or to share the responsibility to earn a living, family live improves. After all, if a father is home to spend time with their children, aren’t they happier? If the two parents work, aren’t they better prepared to face crisis and layoffs? After all, in the “traditional marriage” if the men is fired, family might find that they have no income. In a feminist one, if one of them is fired, the family would still have one wage. And then you have the working hours, if only one works, that person would need to work more hours to make ends meet. If two work, there won’t be need so many work hours, which would let them time to actually be with children or be together and improve the relationship.
I’ve seen the good version of patriarchy in my grandparents (happy) marriages. Yet, I don’t want that for me. Because even the successful patriarchy marriages, are worse for women than a mediocre feminist marriage. I don’t envy my grandmas’ lives but I can see how men today might envy my grampas’ lives. And it is a feature that a patriarchal wife that “knows her place” won’t complain in front of her husband. She would complain to her sisters or daughters…
You might think it wasn’t such a lose that one of my grandmothers was denied to go to the university. She has money! she has 4 children! Her husband provided a comfortable life! What is there to be sad about? Right? And yet, even now she is sad remembering how her father forbade her to accept a scholarship. Now, more than 6 decades after. And is not the only story. Neither are my grandmothers the only ones with stories.
Many men who like patriarchy seem to think that feminist reach their conclusions from hate or “victim mentality”. But many reach the conclusion by listening to women who have lived when the patriarchy was the norm. Interestingly enough, most of them don’t want the same for their daughters. And that is telling.
That is why we won’t agree on this. Because I’m evaluating the good with the bad. You are evaluating an idealized version that doesn’t includes the sacrifices that women do even in the happiest patriarchal marriages.
By the way, I do love my grandfathers. But I would never marry someone like them, even if they were “the good ones”. And if you want to understand feminist, the way to do it is to consider if YOU would enjoy living the traditional wife’s life. I’m illustrating what that meant (idealized US version):
You can exclude (or not) the last one and adapt the part of the beer for whatever favourite drink and snack. The part about “respond to non-verbal cues” includes the ones not doing intentionally, since a good wife is expected to anticipate her husbands needs. I’ve seen my grandmas do that. They were incredibly good at this. And they taught my mother, aunt, female cousins and I.
So this is the thing: We do know very well what patriarchy means for women and what men are offering. We do, but we put it into a balance with what we are asked in exchange and is not worth it. It is not about “women being ungrateful” is that the “deal” you are offering is great for men, not so good for women. I ask you again, would you accept the role of the wife in this add? The implication that if you aren’t good enough making your wife happy it is up to her to discipline you however she wants? Or even leave you with nothing? And if the answer is no, why do you think is fair to call us ungrateful for not “valuing” this offer? Now, being honest, of course I would like to be in the husband’s position. Is just that I won’t be able to talk myself into thinking that that would be fair for whoever is in the “wife” position and I would feel guilty (therefore won’t enjoy it in the end). I guess there are men who would feel like me and that is why some men support feminism.
And I know the speech. “Women’s nature is different, so they can be happy as house wifes”, etc. Well, if that were true, feminism won’t exist, my grandmas won’t have wanted something better for us, etc. And those are the happy wives, the ones that patriarchy didn’t fail. There is also the ones who were failed. Imagine doing all of the above and still getting beaten. Or left for someone younger. No, not worth it.
