Patriarchy Isn't Parsimonious

1. Preamble


There are two reasons for rejecting patriarchy as a construct that explains the existence of gender-specific roles. After the following definition of patriarchy, I will render an argument for each reason in order to ascertain whether we ought to use patriarchy in order to explain the existence of gender-specific roles.


Definition 1 'Patriarchy': the predominate western culture, which oppresses women and imperils their well-being, and which men instituted in order to ensure their own well-being.


2. Western Patriarchy Does not Exist


In this section we will ascertain whether the common conception of patriarchy concords with western history. If we discover that it does, then patriarchy, as commonly conceived, possibly exists. If we discover that it does not, then patriarchy, as commonly conceived, does not exist.


Assertion 2.1 If patriarchy, as people commonly conceive of it, exists, then the preponderance of western cultures imperil the well-being of woman in order to ensure the well-being of man.

Let 'T→H' stand for 2.1


Fact 2.2 Western cultural practices imperil the well-being of men in order to ensure the well-being of woman.

Let '¬H' stand for  2.2

The following considerations evince fact 2.2.

• There is a custom that obligates man to die whenever his death increases the probability that a woman will survive. ('Woman and children first.')

• Man teaches his son to "never hit a girl" and "never hit a woman", despite the fact that woman does not teach her daughter to "never hit a man". 

• Man sentences woman to serve briefer prison sentences for committing a given crime than he sentences man to serve for committing the same crime. [1]

• Man imperils his life when he toils to provide resources for woman and child. (Note, historically, most jobs involved dangerous manual labour.)

• Man requires any man who has lived with woman to pay her when she decides not to live with him, no matter whether she proffers a reason for her decision (i.e. alimony, child-support).[2]

• Man gives woman control of 70% of their resources, (Western woman controls 70% of consumer spending.)[3] 

• Man will imperil himself in order to ensure the well being of woman, and does not expect her to reciprocate. [4]

• Man invests 200% more in woman's health than he invests in man's health [5], despite the fact that in every country, at every age, man dies more often than woman does. [6]

• Man ensures woman is safer than he is. (In every western country woman enjoys more safety than man does.) [7]

• Man participates in 'Men Against Violence Against Women', despite the fact that woman perpetrates 70% of unilateral domestic violence.[8] (Some feminist magazines acknowledge that statistic and encourage woman to abuse her partners - for fun.) [9]

• Man granted woman the unconditional right to vote. Man will permit man to vote only if he serves as a combatant in the military or registers for the draft. (Sweden, Russia, Denmark, Switzerland, The Ukraine, Norway, Finland, Austria, Israel, South Korea, Mexico, Singapore, all of South America, etc. permit man to vote only if he agrees to serve as a combatant in the military. The United States permits man to vote only if  he registers for the draft to vote.)[10]

• Man requires that the police arrest only the man whenever there is violence between a man and a woman, no matter who assaulted whom.[11]

• Man requires boys, as young as seven years old, raped by woman to pay her for twenty years if she impregnates herself while raping him. [12]

Conclusion 2.3 We cannot warrant the belief that patriarchy exists.

Proof:

1.  T→H
2. ¬H
3. ¬T         [MT 1,2]    

Consider that if patriarchy, as people commonly conceive of it, exists, then the preponderance of Western cultures imperil woman in order to ensure the well-being of man. However, western cultures imperil the well being of man in order to ensure the well-being of woman. Accordingly one of the criteria of patriarchy has not obtained. Therefore patriarchy, as people commonly conceive of it, does not exist ■


3. Patriarchy is an Inefficient Explanation


In this section we will consider an explanation of the existence of gender-specific roles that appeals to cultural selection in order to ascertain whether we ought to accept that explanation instead of an explanation that explains gender-specific roles by appealing to patriarchy, or vice versa.


Definition 3.1 'Cultural selection': The natural process by which cultural traits that engender cultural persistence become more prevalent over time. 


Assertion 3.2.1 The existence of a great probability that a given culture will persist through a given period is contingent on the existence of a great number of people participating in that culture.

Let 'P→N' stand for 3.2.1.


Proposition 3.2.2 The existence of a great number of people who participate in a culture is contingent on the existence of a great number of women who participate in that culture.

One man can do the reproductive 'work' of many women. Accordingly, the number of women who participate in a culture determines whether, and how quickly, its population grows.

I acknowledge that a culture could increase its numbers by proselytizing participants from other cultures; however, proselytizing is a zero-sum game, so to speak; accordingly, by itself, proselytizing can ensure the persistence of only a minority of cultures.

Let 'N→W' stand for 3.2.2.


Assertion 3.2.3 The existence of a great number of women who participate in a culture is contingent on the survival of a great number of women who participate in that culture. 

Let 'W→S' stand for 3.2.3.


Lemma 3.2.4 Whether a culture persists through a period is contingent on the survival of a great number of women who participate in that culture.

Proof:

1. P→N
2. N→W
3. W→S
4. P→W    [HS 1,2]
5. P→S    [HS 3,4]

The lemma is an implication of the syllogism that consists in 3.2.1-3: Whether a culture persists through a given period is contingent on the existence of a great number of people who participate in the culture; whether a great number of people participate in the culture is contingent on the existence of a great number of women who participate in the culture; whether there are a great number of women who participate in the culture is contingent on the survival of a great number of women who participate in that culture. Therefore, by a hypothetical syllogism, we may validly infer that whether a culture persists through a given period is contingent on the survival of a great number of women who participate in that culture ■


Remark 3.3 Both, explanations of the existence of gender-specific roles that appeal to patriarchy, and explanations of those roles that appeal to cultural selection, explain why cultures forbid woman from working outside the home: Explanations that appeal to patriarchy assert that man forbids woman from working outside the home in order to enslave her. Whereas explanations that appeal to social selection assert that cultures forbid woman from working outside the home in order to ensure her safety.

Let 'f' stand for the explanadum 'why cultures forbid woman from working outside the home'.


Remark 3.4 Explanations of the existence of gender-specific roles that appeal to patriarchy cannot explain why cultures obligated man to work outside the home. Contrariwise, explanations of the existence of gender-specific roles that appeal to cultural selection can explain why cultures obligated man to work outside the home: non-domestic work posed a greater risk than domestic work did. Historically, a human would perish unless s/he, or a member of his/her, group completed certain non-domestic tasks. In order to ensure the safety of woman, cultures obligated man to complete these tasks.

Let 'o' stand for the explanadum 'why cultures obligated man to work outside the home'.


Definition 3.5 For any set, A, that includes all the elements of any other set, B, and B does not include all the elements of A, then B is a proper subset of A. 

We may restate that definition thus: If A subtract B is a non-empty set, and if B subtract A is the empty set, then B is a proper subset of A.

Let '((S-P≠Ø)∧(P-S=Ø))→(S⊃P)' stand for 3.5

Lemma 3.5 The set of explanada of the explanation that appeals to patriarchy, P, is a proper subset of the set of explanada of the explanation that appeals to cultural selection, S. 

Proof:

P={f}
S={f,o} 

1. ((S-P≠Ø)∧(P-S=Ø))→(S⊃P) 
2. (S-P≠Ø)→((P-S=Ø)→(S⊃P))    [EX 1] 
3. (S-P≠Ø) 
4. (P-S=Ø)→(P⊃S)              [MP 2,3] 
5. (P-S=Ø) 
6. (S⊃P)                      [MP 4,5]

Consider that both explanations can explain why cultures forbid woman from working outside the home, but only the explanation that appeals to cultural selection explains why cultures obligate man to work outside the home. As per 3.5, if one set, A, includes all the elements of another set, B, and B does not include all the elements of A, then B is a proper subset of A. The set of explanada S includes all the explanada of P, but P does not include all the explanada of S. Therefore P is a proper subset of S ■


Fact 3.6 The two explanations in question posit the same number of considerations. 

Let 'C' stand for 3.6


Proposition 3.7 For any explanation, A,B, if the explanada of A is a proper subset of B, and if B posits as many or fewer considerations than A posits, then we ought to accept B, and reject A. 

Occam's Razor advises us  to accept the explanation that posits the fewest considerations whenever we must choose to accept one explanation from a number of explanations that explain the same set of explanada. The explanation that appeals to patriarchy needs to posit another consideration in order for it to explain what the explanation that appeals to cultural selection explains. Accordingly, Occam's Razor advises us to accept the latter explanation and reject the former one.

Let '(S⊃P)∧C → J' stand for 3.7


Conclusion 3.8 We ought to reject explanations of gender-specific roles that appeal to patriarchy and accept explanations of those roles that appeal to cultural selection. 

Proof:

1. ((S⊃P)∧C) → J   
2. (S⊃P)
3.  C 
4. (S⊃P)∧C       [Conj 2,3]
5.  J             [MP 1,4]       

Consider that in 3.5 we concluded that P is a proper subset of S, and that both the explanations in question posit one consideration. Therefore, as per 3.7, the explanation that appeals to patriarchy satisfies the criteria for rejection; whereas the explanation that appeals to cultural selection satisfies the criteria for acceptance. Ergo conclusion 3.8 ■


4. Postamble

The common conception of patriarchy as an extant social system that harms woman does not concord with the facts. Moreover, there are better explanations of the phenomena that feminists claim patriarchy explains.

--------

[1][a] Men receive 63% longer prison sentences according to large UMichigan study. 

[1][b] Female murderers rarely sentenced to death according to SFL & NYCLU study. 

[2][a] US Census Bureau: 3% of divorced men awarded alimony, 37% of divorced wives earn more.

[3][a] Women control 70% of consumer spending in the US according to Harvard Business Review

[3][b] The original study cited by the Harvard Business Review linked in [3][a]

[4][a] (Video) Comparison of bystanders' reactions to violence against men and women.
[4][b] (Video) ABC News comparison of bystanders' reactions violence against men and women.
[4][c] (Video) ABC News comparison of bystanders' reactions to drugging of a man and a woman.
[4][d] (Video) OCK TV Comparison of bystanders' reactions to violence against men and women.
[5] Thyroid Cancer Canada website with statistics on Canadian cancer research investment.
[6] World Health Organization life tables.
[7] See figure 1 (below).
[8] Academic review of intimate partner violence studies
[9] Feminist magazine Jezebel boasts that women initiate 80% of unilateral domestic violence.
[10] Wikipedia list of countries that mandate military service.
[11][a] Kingsnorth and MacIntosh, (2007) p. 461
[11][b] Felson and Pare, (2007) p. 436
[12] 'Hermesmann vs Sayer', an often cited precedent that requires boys to pay rapists child support.

Figure 1:

Divorce and the Optimal Strategy

A recent article, "Why Great Husbands are Being Abandoned", written by Randi Gunther and published in the Huffington Post, begins thus:

Fifty percent of marriages are still ending in divorce, and women continue to initiates those endings... They’re dumping men who are faithful, attentive, and respectful, the very men they said they have always wanted. Why would women who have accomplished the female dream suddenly not be satisfied with it? Why are they leaving these ideal guys, and for what reasons?

 The author adds her professional experience as a clinical psychologist

I am currently dealing with several of these great husbands. They are, across the board, respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive guys whose wives have left them for a different kind of man. These once-beloved men make a living, love their kids, help with chores, support aging parents, and support their mate’s desires and interests. They believe they’ve done everything right. They are devastated, confused, disoriented, and heartsick. 

I take special issue with the following

Most often these women still love their husbands as much as they ever did, but in a different way. They tell me how wonderful their men are and how much they respect them. They just don’t want to be married to them anymore.

The author then comments "I think I know what's going on" and proceeds to unanswer the question in no fewer than 1,000 words.

I propound a briefer answer to the question:

All things being equal, there is no reason for a man to invest in one child over any other child if he does not know which child is his own. Consequently, women secure a man's investment in their respective children by promising to mate only with him. However, women (justifiably) demand the man reciprocate her promise, lest there be reason for him to invest some of his resources in children other than her own. Therefore, if a woman has, or will have, sufficient resources to raise her child without remaining in, or entering into, a monogamous relationship with a man, then she will not remain in, or enter into, such a relationship.

Given that the current system of administering the family law effectively guarantees women their children and the resources to raise them, the foregoing explains why divorce rates are what they are, and why women file for 90% of divorces. The foregoing also explains why 99.87% of women who are the sole breadwinners of married households will divorce their husbands within three years of attaining that status [1]. It explains why women who earn enough to raise children by themselves marry less often than other women do [2]. It explains why women do not marry men who earn less than they do [3].

------

[1](a)

[1](b) 

[1](c)

[2]

[3](a)

[3](b)