Historically, women have been in the household, taking care of children, etc. Men have been out hunting, earning the bread and so on. Now, why is the society we live in—and have been living in since the beginning of time—suddenly labeled “patriarchal”? My question really, is that what is the need of such a label? Such a situation could be looked at both positively and negatively. Gender roles place on women by “society”—whereas one could easily argue that they are placed by nature, due to women’s role in society historically—are readily given such a negative connotation, which I am unable to comprehend. What if we thought of women’s role to be like that of men’s? Women argue that they are being oppressed by men because of the “lack of freedom they have” (being expected to bear children, cook, be responsible for the well-being of their family and husband, not work outside of the home, etc). I assume they would like the opportunities men have: working anywhere, having a women to do everything for them, not altering their bodies with makeup or shaving body hair, etc . Now my argument would be that both cases can be viewed positively and negatively. Men can look at women and say,“Hey, she’s so lucky she gets to experience the beauty of giving birth”( I know I can’t forget men also have a part in this, but usually—not always—the mother is known to be closer to her children because she carried them in her womb). “She gets to stay at home, with not a care in the world while I go out and bust NEED it.” Of course, I am speaking of how gender roles can be taken in both views and these aren’t MY personal opinions but they can be the opinions of others. In the end my question remains, why do we bother labeling a society as patriarchal or, , in fact, even matriarchal? Aren’t feminist views on women being given the same opportunities as men, just that: being given the same opportunities as MEN. Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of equality? Because wouldn’t that just mean women would be be like men, but still a man couldn’t do as a women might traditionally do (wear makeup, cook, shave their body hair etc)? Isn’t matriarchy just as bad as patriarchy? I feel if feminism is anyone’s cause, they would in a way be contradicting themselve because that isn’t really equality—that is women being given the same opportunities as men but men not being given the same opportunities as women. That is why I wouldn’t call myself one and to me, it feels that the feminist cause has only happened )because women want what they can’t have even if they may not want it. That’s where the use of the word patriarchal comes in. Since these have been gender roles since the beginning of time, and as I mentioned how women’s roles can also be taken positively, who is to say that women aren’t the superior ones? I feel the labeling of society to be patriarch has started the problem. No one had a problem with the gender roles in let’s say, the 1800’s, but it is with today’s societal norms and the and the feminist movement that we associate the norms of that time to be patriarchal. In that case, I could easily argue that this notion that we live in a patriarchal society, is a result of TODAY’s societal norms/expectations. I could even argue **I would like to say that I for one am all about choice for women, but I think feminism is a leeway for a matriarchal society, and in turn inequality. I’m not looking to start an argument; I just wanted to share my view! I look forward to reading your feedback. Also, excuse any grammatical/numbering errors lol. Formspring word limit probably messed me up a little more than I intended.
-----------------------------------------

Ummm...whoa. There is so much wrong with all of this that I don't even know where to start.

The first logical fallacy is in your perceptions of history. We operate and think very differently now than our cave-dwelling predecessors. I'm not asking for the right to hunt wild game while my husband raises our offspring. I'm asking for the right to make an equal wage to a man in my same position. I'm asking for the right to be judged by my merit/talents/intellect rather than my appearance. I'm asking for the right to be taken seriously in society, and not just seriously "for a woman". None of those things have anything to do with hunting and gathering. Feminism has existed as long as SOCIETY has existed. You mentioned the 1800s. YES, people overwhelmingly had issues with gender roles in the 1800s. Look at Kate Chopin. She wrote feminist literature in the 1800s about the negative implications of society's limiting expectations of womanhood. The 1800s may have seen some of the first documentations in western culture of the feminist struggle, but the reality is that there is not a single civilized era in history in which no woman had ambitions beyond a family. Some societies are matriarchal and have been as far back as history can be recorded, with women in positions of leadership. In male-dominated societies, female ambition has always historically been present. Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth. These were all real people. There are COUNTLESS more dating back endless eras.

The second is that identity and skillsets are predetermined based on sex. Your sex does not determine your motives and interests in life. This is a very basic, common sense thing. If all women were naturally born with the inclination to rear babies and clean the house, and all men were naturally born with the inclination to bring home the bacon or whatever, there would be no need for the feminist movement. Obviously, the very fact that a feminist movement exists indicates that all women aren't happy with that expectation. You can make generalizations (men tend to be larger than women and therefor stronger), but the reality is that those generalizations are broad and not that accurate. Every dude I've ever dated could have his ass kicked by a tough chick in seconds flat. It wouldn't be close to a fair fight. I, personally, would fucking suck if my job was solely to rear children, and I know many more women who not only would be terrible at it, but have absolutely NO DESIRE to raise children, even up into their 30, 40s, etc. Women are not "naturally" homemakers. Men are not "naturally" bread-earners. Maybe in precognitive stages of human development where people were largely animalistic in their pursuits, this could have been true. However, sentient minds are far too multifaceted to be dictated by sex organs. Boys are not naturally interested in blue. Girls do not naturally want to be princesses. Many people believe that gender in its entirity is a social construct and not at all natural. Experimental child-rearing has shown that children have ZERO natural inclinations based on their sex or gender. They pick up on society's cues and learn quickly what society expects of them based on their gender. This doesn't even address people with alternative gender identities. I identify as cis-gender, but I sure as shit would rather play videogames than get a manicure. I'd rather work for a living than raise a child.

The third is in your understanding of what "patriarchal" and "matriarchal" refer to. Patriarchal societies have existed since the dawn of time. The label "patriarchal" is used to describe any society in which men are dominant leaders over women. You could stop calling the western world "patriarchal", but that wouldn't mean it stops BEING "patriarchal". It still fits the bill.

The fourth is in your understanding of the overall impact and goal of the feminist movement. It's not about freedom. It's not about matriarchy. It's about equality. If a dude can be taken seriously in life without his appearance coming into play, we'd like for a woman to be taken seriously without her appearance coming into play. If a dude can make six figures in a position, we'd like for a woman to be able to make six figures in the same position. If a dude can go through life without any interest in having a family and not be chastised for it, we'd like for a woman to be able to do the same.

The fifth is the far-reaching implications of feminism and the tie in of the GLBTQ community. The implication of feminism is a relaxed notion of gender roles, which actually has positive implications for the GLBTQ community, as well as for men. If women did not have gendered expectations of them, men would not either. Gender would cease to be a dichotomy and be, instead, more fluid. Without structured gender expectations, fuck yeah, it would be more acceptable for men to wear makeup on the daily if they want. It would also be more socially acceptable to be in a same sex partnership. People would have the availability to tap into the truest form of their personalities. We are in an ever-progressing movement to increase the fluidity of gender so that it is no longer a dichotomy. That progress is the only reason why we are able to be as vocal as we are about feminism and gender identity. It's not that those things didn't exist before now; it's that we, as a society, are progressing enough to allow for increased dialogue regarding issues that have been around as long as people have been around. Unfortunately, though, patriarchy still dictates which fluidities are acceptable. It's acceptable to be gay...if you're a hot lesbian couple that will appeal to male sexual fantasies. It's acceptable for a male aesthetic to be applied to a woman's appearance, but not acceptable for a man to dress in any way that is "womanly", because society apparently thinks there is something inherently second-class about femininity.

There's nothing wrong with you wanting to have a baby and play house. That's awesome for you. You do that. However, do not expect that your reality is the same as anyone else's. You are a unique person with unique influences and inclinations.

In summary, literally every single point you made was grossly inaccurate. You didn't even get your historical references and understandings right.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that upsets me beyond belief and makes me think that maybe there is absolutely no hope for the future. People are content to simply make things up and assume that they are correct. A simple google search of "feminism in history" would reveal to you that half of your thoughts are completely wrong. A simple search on "gender identity" would show you that the other half of your thoughts are wrong. You don't even need to check out a book or attend a class to know how incorrect you are. You can just open up a new tab on your browser. It would take fifteen minutes. You seem to be passionate about this issue, passionate enough that you would ask me to sift through your bullshit broken theories about gender. How is it that through that passion for the subject, it has never dawned on you to ACTUALLY CONDUCT RESEARCH?

Well, "drugs" covers a REALLY wide range of things. Are painkillers "drugs"? Are natural remedies "drugs"? Is alcohol "drugs"? Is caffeine "drugs"? Unless you are living a life 100% free of anything that alters your state in any way (including Advil and caffeine), there's no way to have a 100% firm stand against "drugs" that is rationally sound.

I really encourage people not to think in absolutes. It ends up restricting you from actually forming sound opinions. You end up stuck trying to adhere to your own "rules" rather than being honest about your opinions and trying to expand your vantage point.

Furthermore, sometimes it takes "being off your head" once in a while to actually experience the world. Unfortunately, that won't make any sense to you unless you've had a positive psychedelic experience. However, anyone who has had that kind of experience in a positive way will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Again, I don't think anyone should do anything with which they aren't comfortable, but I worry that propaganda and indoctrination and a generalization of "drug" culture into one lump (when in reality, there are many forms of "drugs" each with different effects and impacts) stand in the way of a rational process of decision-making and actually prohibits people from having experiences they might actually enjoy.

As you know, I tend to dislike things that aren't rational, and most of the perceptions people have of drugs are not rational.

Why do you feel guilty?! One of two things happened here: you either had sex because you were curious and wanted to do it, or you had sex because some asshole pressured you into it when you really didn't want to. Neither of those things is a reason to feel guilty!

If it was the former, you should high-five yourself! You tried something new, and that's awesome! New things can be scary and intimidating, and stepping out of your immediate comfort zone to consciously have a safe new experience takes guts. You should be proud of yourself for having that strength and seizing the world around you. It's there to be experienced! As long as you were safe about it, there is nothing wrong. If you didn't use protection, that sucks, but think of it as a learning experience. You still had the benefit of a new experience, which is cool, but just remember next time that using a condom is not optional, it's MANDATORY.

If it was the latter, it's not your fault in ANY way, so you have nothing over which to feel guilty. Someone overstepped their boundaries, and they should have known better. Feel angry, not guilty. Tell that person that they pressured you into something you didn't want to do, and that it was a dick move, and that you hope they never pressure anyone else again. Consider finding someone to talk to about the experience, like a counselor or close friend. If you don't feel comfortable talking to someone directly about the experience, try journaling to process your feelings.

Remember: there is absolutely no reason to feel guilty! Mainstream society puts a lot of pressure on girls and women to preserve their chastity or something strange like that. However, that is seriously left over from an agrarian era when fathers would essentially sell their daughters to potential "husbands" in exchange for money, land, goods, etc. in a dowry. The woman was only "worth" something if her hymen was intact. Is your dad planning on selling you off to the highest bidder on your wedding day so that he can own more livestock? No. Do you exist only as an object of sexual desire for men? No. Should you feel guilty for having sex just because you're a woman? No. Society doesn't shame men for having sex, so why should you feel any shame? Screw sexism, screw bizarre archaic puritanism, and, more importantly, screw whomever you want!

Wow, what a loaded question.

I'm assuming you've never actually read my blog, otherwise you'd know that I frequently speak out against the emphasis placed on a woman being "pretty" and "skinny" and encourage people to use fashion as a tool to reclaim their aesthetic in the name of self-expression and visual communication.

I'd imagine that people like my blog because I take the time to actually write creative and unique content, and I make a point to adress social and economic side affects of fashion from a feminist standpoint. Furthermore, as a fashion blogger, I'd hope people are inspired by some of the weird shit that I wear.

However, you'd probably be better served asking *other* people why they like my blog. Anything with which I can come up is nothing better than a semi-rational hypothesis based on comparison and feedback.

As for what you "know", if you knew anything at all, it would be that everything is subjective. That includes fashion; there are no absolutes. Hayley from Fashion Hayley dresses a bit like me, and I think she looks fucking kickass all the time. She is certainly pretty, but not child-sized like I happen to be, and girl looks GOOD in all of the kooky awesome shit she wears.

Basically, this question makes you seem really sucky. I don't want to think you're a sucky person, because the fact that you even asked this question means that you are intelligent and critical enough to realize that patriarchy dominates how even women choose to relate to each other. However, the unfortunate thing is that you have simply demonstrated yourself to be a victim of that system. You judged me based on the way that I look without actually taking the time to figure out who I am as a person. You've done exactly what I'm sure you wish people DIDN'T do to women every single day. I'm a whole lot of things, but you didn't care to see that. You looked at me and you saw "pretty" and "small". So, you know, fuck you. Fuck you for wasting your critical mind on trying to shame a girl you don't know on the internet. Fuck you for expecting other people to see past physical appearances when you didn't even take five seconds to TRY to see past mine. You're fucking better than this.

Hmm...this isn't something I would wear, but I can imagine Jessica from Vintage Virgin totally wearing them well with a bustier and crazy platforms.

Makeup to me is no different than wearing clothes. It is expressive in the same way that fashion is.

I wear makeup over my face because I feel that my acne is not really a part of me, if that makes sense, because it is always changing. I wear face makeup to cover my acne because I don't think my face is a real reflection of me when my acne is visible. It's distracting to me.

Also, I always kind of think of my face as a blank canvas. You'd gesso a canvas before using it, you know?

I am a socialist because I believe in equality. I think that democracy inherently does not allow for equality, and the current brand of democracy we have actually rewards people who do less work, based on a precedence of heritage and class. The income gap seems very obviously inhumane and amoral. Why is it that a woman in a service industry position who works forty hours a week on her feet should make 1/20th what a man who works in an office makes? There's no reason to me. It's completely irrational, yet that is what capitalism produces. In that system, capitalism encourages status quo. We may think that anyone can do anything, but the reality is that capitalism makes it very hard for people to do what they want. Rich people can do what they want, but that's about it.

Take the fashion industry, for example. To work in the fashion industry in the US, you need a college education. To get that education, you have to take out massive amounts of student loans. If you don't have credit, your parents have to cosign on your loans, meaning they have to have good credit, meaning they have to be economically sound. I personally was only able to take out loans for college because I was entered into a very small lottery based on my high school transcripts, and I was the lucky winner, so my college cosigned on my student loans. Your college education is grueling, and if your parents make enough money to support you throughout school, you can focus on your studies. However, if your parents don't, you have to take out a job while in school to support yourself, meaning you have less time and energy to devote towards your education. This means that rich people have a better chance of graduating with high marks, already creating a disparity. Then, when it comes time to find a job, you find that nepotism comes into play. If your parents know the right people, you are more likely to get a job. If not, your grades will help determine the job you get, but those grades are still subject to your original economic class. If your parents are rich, you can take unpaid internships to get your foot in the door. If they aren't, you need to take whatever job you can get to pay your bills. That job may or may not even be in the industry, meaning you might not even end up doing what you want to do because you're more concerned about being able to live and eat.

I believe that we have a lot of people working in jobs they don't love because of economic circumstance. I think that in a socialist economy, there would be no income gap, as everyone would be paid fairly and equally based on hours worked. Furthermore, people would be more productive, as they would be working in fields they love rather in fields that their personal economic situation made available or encouraged.

There is a difference between political theory and practical application. You can make a million arguments about socialism or capitalism in practice versus theory, and the reality is that there are no true examples of socialism operating in the world today. However, there are a million examples of failed capitalism. Any time someone dies because they can't afford to treat their medical problems, that is an example of failed capitalism. Any time someone who works hard still can't afford to send their children to college, that is an example of failed capitalism. The fact that Zooey Deschanel makes $95,000/month and teachers made $35,0000/year is an example of failed capitalism. Capitalism is cutthroat and selfish, and I am not comfortable encouraging selfishness.

I don't necessarily believe in the abolition of private property, so I wouldn't consider myself a Marxist, though Karl Marx has some brilliant economic and social theory worth at least reading.

Lastly, Ayn Rand is probably the devil. Her breed of social and economic theory encourages extreme selfish capitalism and would feed into the issues we currently have, as well as make them worse. Randian politics would aim to dissolve public education, stand in the way of public healthcare, and dissolute public transportation of any kind. Everything would be privatized, meaning only the rich could afford it. The income gap would only grow, and you would see the lower class emerge as almost a serf class. Rand encourages capitalism run amok. Also, she is a sexist who advocates men raping women as an example of the freedom and strength of the human spirit. Take whatever you can for yourself, for you are man, and that is glorious! Umm...no thanks.

Whew! That was long -- ha!

passions into my actual life. i have a history of depression which i dont like to lean on. it's a part of me and i understand it's probably caused by the same things that make me insightful or 'bright' or w/e. but it's really hard for me to put myself out there. i feel like im immersed in this 'daydream' of a future that i have no idea how to achieve. i feel so disconnected from the world/people around me and i want to fulfill myself, but i don't know where to start. also have a fear of being misunderstood, as much as i realize it's pointless to dwell on, i can't please everyone, etc. youre really intelligent and level-headed and seem to be living a full life that you built for yourself, so id really appreciate if you have any advice
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhh it happens to the best of people! It's actually good that you still live at home because you don't need to rely on money. I would seriously quit your job. Just quit. Then, I would enroll in music and creative writing classes at your community college, one each. I know you have your degree -- you aren't enrolling for any reason other than to force yourself to write and play music daily. It's good to get in the habit, and it will encourage you and make you excited again. Then, make a list of all of the things related to writing or music that you would like to do. Every day, try to do one thing on that list. Find people to play with. Write a short story. Stay on yourself! If you have to, disconnect your internet. Not having internet when I lived in San Francisco made me SO productive. I really recommend it. If you can, quit your job (since you still live at home) and focus on this stuff!

With a Crass record playing and a lot of alcohol.

Sometimes I look at the tag to see where it was made. I have definitely stood in a UO* before screaming to a friend, "HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT LABOR PRACTICES IN LITHUANIA?" only to ultimately become so frustrated that I say, "Ah, screw it. Let's go to Goodwill."

The long and short of it is that you don't know. That's why I recommend purchasing secondhand whenever possible, and simply being mindful of the fact that you have no idea how most new clothing is being produced. I know that most people won't stop purchasing new items altogether. Heck, I certainly won't. However, if people can view them as supplements to a wardrobe that is mostly secondhand or small-business produced or obviously fairly-made, I think that's a step in the right direction.

*Since learning of UO's CEO's contributions to homophobic political initiatives, I have not purchased anything from them. I hope I can stay steadfast in this little decision.

everywhere i applied but i am not going :)

Wow, again, I didn't knock anyone's lifestyle. I went out the way to say very nice things about that lifestyle and indicate that it simply wasn't for me. I'm not going to apologize for not wanting a house and husband and a bunch of babies. I don't have to want that, and I don't have to like it when other people have it.

In case you missed it, things I said:

"I'm sure these are perfectly wonderful women. Don't get me wrong. It just doesn't interest me."
"I respect people who want a 'nice' life like what those blogs present."
"One of my closest friends has a wonderful place that she makes into a home and she wears pretty vintage dresses and cooks dinner every night for herself and her boyfriend, and I love her, and that's adorable, and it's perfect when she does it. However, it's not for me."

How is any of that girl hate, in any way?

Also, the "stupid babies" thing was a joke, obviously. I'm not interested in babies, but it's only funny to call them "stupid" because they are obviously vital to humanity's existence and small tiny creatures that need constant care because they are inherently sweet and helpless. That's why it's funny to call them stupid, because they obviously aren't. JOKES 101.

That's a very insightful, interesting theory that I hadn't previously considered. Thank you for taking the time to send me this message! I do respect women who opt to be mothers, whether they are bloggers or not; it's just strange that people do seem to feel as though there is something wrong with not wanting that.

HuffPo Teen has a great follow-up article in reference to that great video the 13-year old girl posted earlier this year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/slut-shaming-13-year-old_n_1199013.html (video contained in article, too).

Here is a catalog of articles related to slut-shaming on The Curvature (great articles about current legislative endeavors that are directly tied to slut-shaming!): http://thecurvature.com/category/feminism/slut-shaming/

Here's an article that is largely a response to the Sandra Fluke situation: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/60-second-attention-span/2012/mar/14/stop-slut-shaming/

Here's a summary and definition-based article: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/what-is-slut-shaming/

Here's a NY Post article on SlutWalk (vaguely pertinent):http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/slut_walk_feminist_folly_6wtwkoKdY0RgRtGfWTe47H

And here is a really interesting response to SlutWalk citing the language-race-context-history of the word "slut" and how it pertains to black women: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-brison/slutwalk-black-women_b_980215.html

Hahaha best thing I have EVER heard, EVER! You have to show me pictures of the rooster dress, oh my god. I'm so jealous.

which finally gives me an opportunity to experiment with my clothing, but now i don't know WHAT i like. many things appeal to me but i'm having trouble cultivating a personal 'style'. any advice?
-----------------------------------
This might sound strange, but I recommend starting a Tumblr. Weird, right? You are just exposed to so much on Tumblr, and the act of reblogging is so easy. Do it for a couple of hours, then look at your page, and you'll have an instant understanding of your taste.

I do hope you are moving away from home when you go to college! I recommend that everyone get a job while in college and move out of their parents' house. Sieze your independence!

He is quite possibly the most terrifying political candidate I have seen come out of the woodwork lately because he markets himself as being a free-thinking maverick, and people fall for it. It's not about something he has said. It's about absolutely every single thing he stands for. Ron Paul is an objectivist. The primary moral tenant of objectivism is self interest over all else. The only reason why someone could justifiably support Ron Paul is if they are extremely wealthy and selfish. Otherwise, you have to be simply, plainly, and without any other rational explanation, a fucking idiot.

I recommend reading this article: http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html

I then recommend reading The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. He fucking loves it so much that he named his son after Ayn Rand (Rand Paul).

I then recommend administering an IQ test to every single person who supports Ron Paul but falls under the economic classification of middle or lower class.

If you support Ron Paul and want to talk to me about it, you can really go fuck yourself. I don't waste my time talking to fucking morons. The man is a sociopath, just like Ayn Rand. I hate bipartisan politics just as much as the next guy, but that does not leave me in a position to support a fucking nut-job. I won't even humor a "debate" about it, because there is literally NO DEBATE to be had.

I feel so strongly about Ron Paul that the second I find out someone supports him, I instantly lose all respect for that person, based on their apparent lack of morality, skewed ethics, and inability to reason (unless you're crazy wealthy...then you're off the hook on that last part at least).

Are there enough "fucks" in there for everyone to take me seriously on this? FUCK RON PAUL AND FUCK HIS FUCKING MORONIC FUCKING ENTHUSIASTS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL FUCKING FUCKETY FUCK FUCK MORONS AND I WISH THEY WOULD FUCKING GO AWAY AND FORM THEIR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY WHERE THEY CAN FUCK EACH OTHER AND LET THE FUCKING WEALTHY GET FUCKING WEALTHIER AND ENDORSE ALL THE FUCKING RACISM, SEXISM, CLASSISM, AND CAPITALISM THEY FUCKING WANT.

Whew, that was cathartic. I feel much better now.

But seriously, fuck that guy.

Because I'm a socialist.

NO. YOUR PHYSICAL APPEARANCE ONLY MATTERS IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A LIVING OFF OF BEING ATTRACTIVE BY YOUR CULTURE'S TYPICAL STANDARD OF BEAUTY.

BEING PRETTY IS FUCKING STUPID. STOP TALKING TO ME ABOUT "PRETTY".

I HAVE A LOT MORE TO OFFER THE WORLD THAN "PRETTY", AND SO DO YOU, SO KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF.

Ha, it's kind of a joke, but kind of not. Obviously, not all white men suck. However, there is SO MUCH privilege that comes with being a white man (especially if you are middle or upper class). Most often, white men don't realize that, and they go through life with this bizarre idea of how the world works.

If you look at the people who say things like, "Racism doesn't exist!", "Well, women and men just have different ABILITIES, that's all!", "Ron Paul is exactly what this country needs!", "Being poor is a choice -- they wouldn't be poor if they just worked harder!", "Welfare is just lazy people looking for a handout!", "Why do these people keep having so many babies?", etc., they are usually middle-to-upper class white men.

For the most part, it's a humorous generalization, but I do find that there tends to be truth in it.