Just to clarify this position, do you believe that insecurity about physical appearance is the result of patriarchy and not a hundred thousand year genetic predisposition to find desirable mating partners for survival?
I'm insecure about my looks because I'm happier when I see attractive people and I know I can't give other people that happiness.
I believe that's my position. If the social structure of humanity is based on genetic necessity, I wouldn't think to frame it as any one group of individuals making decisions that harm others.
I think people in these discussions over-assume that patriarchal is consciously intentional. So we're confusedly agreeing?
> The social structure that results is emergent, not designed.
... yes, and the undesigned structure that has emerged we are labelling "patriarchy".
> the social structure of humanity is based on genetic necessity
... requires a lot more unpacking. Is this asserting that culture doesn't exist and material conditions are irrelevant? All behaviour is only genetic? I don't think that's what you're claiming, but I can't parse it otherwise.
Definitely. It feels like there's a difference in our interpretation of the context of the word "patriarchy". I have most often heard it used as a condemnation of a group of individuals who are also disadvantaged by the social structure. Similar to the way "idealism" is commonly used to disparage positive future thinking.
I would sure rather a society where no one has to feel like they're in a fight for survival where the only way to win is someone else losing.
The same sorta pattern repeats a lot. Even a lot of quite toxic MRA stuff is basically dudes redescovering core feminist concepts but then not seeing the forest for the trees.
I'm insecure about my looks because I'm happier when I see attractive people and I know I can't give other people that happiness.