NOTE: This is the second installment of The Myth of Warren Farrell, a continuing series examining Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, the most influential book in the Men’s Rights canon. You can see the first post here.
Men’s Rights elder Warren Farrell has been accused of being a “rape apologist,” largely because of one now-notorious sentence he wrote in The Myth of Male Power:
We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.
This sentence is at least as puzzling as it is disturbing. Calling date rape “exciting” is pretty foul. But what on earth is “date fraud?”
To find out, let’s do what Farrell’s supporters insist we always do with his more troubling remarks: look at it in context to see if it is somehow more defensible – or, at the very least, to see if we can discern what exactly is is he even meant.
Looking at the sentence in context in The Myth of Male Power, we find that it appears in the midst of a long discussion not only of date rape but also of a number of other dating-related behaviors that Farrell claims traumatize men in the same way date rape traumatizes women. So let’s back up a bit to let him spell out his basic premises — and define what “date fraud” is in the first place:
While the label “date rape” has helped women articulate the most dramatic aspect of dating from women’s perspective, men have no labels to help them articulate the most traumatic aspects of dating from their perspective. Now, of course, the most traumatic aspect is the possibility of being accused of date rape by a woman to whom he thought he was making love. If men did label the worst aspects of the traditional male role, though, they might label them “date robbery,” “date rejection,” “date responsibility,” “date fraud,” and “date lying.” (p.313, The Myth of Male Power, 1993 hardcover edition)
He proceeds from here to some Men’s Rights subreddit-style man-whinging:
The worst aspect of dating from the perspective of many men is how dating can feel to a man like robbery by social custom – the social custom of him taking money out of his pocket, giving it to her, and calling it a date. To a young man, the worst dates feel like being robbed and rejected. Boys risk death to avoid rejection (e.g., by joining the Army).(p. 314)
I think Farrell is confusing “the Army” with “the French Foreign Legion” and real life with Laurel and Hardy movies.
Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male version of date rape. (p. 314)
Yep. Paying for a woman’s dinner and having a pleasant conversation with her, only to have her refuse to have sex with you, is in Farrell’s mind just like being raped.
Having dealt with date robbery and rejection, Farrell moves on to date fraud and lying:
If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says “no” is committing date lying.
Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes.” In my own work with over 150,000 men and women – about half of whom are single – the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy’s place “just to talk” but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they’ve recently said something like “That’s far enough for now,” even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his. (P 314)
Uh, Dr. Farrell, I’m pretty sure that women are still allowed to say no to sex even if they are kissing a man. Either partner, of whatever gender, is allowed to stop sexual activity at whatever point they want to, for whatever reason they want to. That how consent works.
And now we come to Farrell’s famous quote:
We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. (pp. 314-315)
It still doesn’t make sense to me, but that combination of “date rape” and “exciting” makes me queasy.
Perhaps the rest of Farrell’s paragraph will help to elucidate what he means:
Somehow, women’s romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said “No”. They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this “marry the rapist” theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of women’s most enduring romance novels. (p. 315)
Oh, so because some women enjoy fictionalized rape fantasies, real non-fictional date rape is therefore “exciting?”
Farrell follows this up, confusingly, with two sentences that utterly contradict one another:
It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy. (p. 315)
Three things. First: If the “conflict” is as Farrell sketched it out above — a woman saying “that’s far enough for now,” while kissing with “tongues still touching” — there is no conflict. Kissing, with tongues or without, does not give a man permission to put his penis in a woman. Reciprocal kissing gives you permission for … reciprocal kissing.
Second: when the alleged nonverbal “yeses” and the verbal “noes” conflict – or you think they do – here’s an idea: RESPECT THE VERBAL NOES. Err on the side of NOT-RAPE. If she says no, assume she means no, until she uses ACTUAL WORDS to say yes. Strange but true: woman can actually USE HUMAN LANGUAGE to express what they want. If a guy doesn’t respect a woman’s verbal “noes” because he thinks — or pretends to himself — that she’s saying “yes” with her body, how exactly can the law distinguish this from rape?
“Your honor, it’s true she told me no, but her elbows were saying “yes.””
Also: if your gal and you want to play out “nonconsensual” fantasies, that’s fine; lots of people do that — consensually. You just need to work out the basic rules and safewords in advance. There are entire subcultures of people devoted to this who will be happy to fill you in on the details. Really. They are very chatty.
Third: Do you all find it as creepy as I do that Farrell tends to sketch out these various rapey scenarios in the steamy prose of a second-rate romance novelist?
If you’re an MRA convinced I’m somehow misquoting Farrell here, here’s a screencap of most of the passages I just quoted which someone on the Men’s Rights subreddit helpfully posted some time ago. Or you could get hold of Farrell’s book and check for yourself.
Oh, but I’m not done yet. I’ve got even more context to provide.
Farrell tries his best to draw some sort of distinction between date rape and stranger-with-a-knife-rape:
We often hear, “Rape is rape, right?” No. A stranger forcing himself on a woman at knife point is different from a man and woman having sex while drunk and having regrets the morning. What is different? When a woman agrees to a date, she does not make a choice to be sexual, but she does make a choice to explore sexual possibilities. The woman makes no such choice with a stranger or an acquaintance. (p. 315)
So going on a date with someone and ostensibly making a “choice to explore sexual possibilities” means that it’s ok for people to force sex on you against your will later in the evening? Uh, Dr. Farrell, how exactly is this not rape? How does the fact that two people went to a movie beforehand turn coerced sex into not-real-rape?
You’ll have to ask Dr. Farrell that question, as his explanation makes no sense whatsoever to me.
A few pages down the road, Farrell warns about the dangers of “date rape” legislation in hyperbolic terms, arguing, bizarrely, that it will lead to more rape.
If the law tries to legislate our “yeses” and “noes” it will produce “the straitjacket generation” – a generation afraid to flirt, fearful of finding its love notes in a court suit. Date rape legislation will force suitors and courting to give way to courts and suing.
The empowerment of women lies not in the protection of females from date rape, but in resocializing both sexes to share date initiative taking and date paying so that both date rape and date fraud are minimized. We cannot end date rape by calling men “wimps” when they don’t initiate quickly enough, “rapists” when they do it too quickly, and “jerks” when they do it badly. If we increase the performance pressure only for men, we will reinforce men’s need to objectify women – which will lead to more rape. Men will be our rapists as long as men are our initiators.…
Laws on date rape create a climate of date hate. (p.340)
I don’t even know where to start with all that. That is just one giant steaming heap of nonsense. To put it as politely as I can.
Oh, in case you’re wondering, Farrell also thinks that a lot of what’s called spousal rape is really “mercy sex,” because people who are married to one another often have sex when they don’t want to — and that’s the way it should be, since “all good relationships require ‘giving in,’ especially when our partner feels strongly.” Sex you don’t want is just part of what makes a happy marriage happy!
The Ms. survey can call it a rape; a relationship counselor will call it a relationship.
Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen. (p. 338)
So, does putting Farrell’s “we called it exciting” quote in context transform it into something innocent and understandable and not-rapey?
I think it’s pretty clear that the answer is no.
But not everyone agrees with me on that. When someone on the Man’s Rights subreddit recently provided some of the context for Farrell’s quote, the assembled Men’s Righsters mostly thought what he was saying sounded fine to them, arguing that he brings up some very legitimate points, attacking feminists for quote mining, suggesting that “feminists don’t reality” and that the Feminist machine slanders anyone who gets in their way. Heck, one fellow even suggested that he had gotten the distinct impression that Feminists want to create more instances of “rape-by-misunderstanding” in order to punish men. Oh, and then one of them attacked my previous post on Farrell’s disturbing views on incest.
This whole thing by Farrell about rape, not being rape is bad enough, but his “Estrogen in the water is making men stupid.” (paraphrase) speech he gave at the Canadian Association For Equality, regarding why boys get bad grades, really took the cake. People just can’t figure out why I would never pay to go see this guy… lol.
Hey URR, why did you post your tl;dr screed in a post about a man trying to justify rape? Are you really so self-involved that you think your little rant is more important than RAPE, which is the topic of this post?
“Uh, Dr. Farrell, I’m pretty sure that women are still allowed to say no to sex even if they are kissing a man. Either partner, of whatever gender, is allowed to stop sexual activity at whatever point they want to, for whatever reason they want to. That how consent works.”
I agree with you there.
“Yep. Paying for a woman’s dinner and having a pleasant conversation with her, only to have her refuse to have sex with you, is in Farrell’s mind just like being raped.”
I agree that he probably made a bad comparison (I don’t know what date rape is like from a female perspective, hence I say probably) there.
“”Oh, so because some women enjoy fictionalized rape fantasies, real non-fictional date rape is therefore “exciting?””
No. He indicates the past tense two times in the first line of that paragraph, the word “began” to indicate how we now regard such a situation, and consequently does not imply an assertion that “date rape is therefore “exciting” as your rhetorical question does. The first line of that paragraph says “We have forgotten that *before* we *began* calling this date rape and date fraud, we *called* it exciting [empahsis added].” So, you’ve quoted him out of context here.
“Three things. First: If the “conflict” is as Farrell sketched it out above — a woman saying “that’s far enough for now,” while kissing with “tongues still touching” — there is no conflict. Kissing, with tongues or without, does not give a man permission to put his penis in a woman. Reciprocal kissing gives you permission for … reciprocal kissing.”
I agree with that. However, does it not hold that a picture is worth a thousand words? That physical signals, in general, communicate more information than verbal signals? If nonverbal yeses exist whatever they may be (and if they exist, they probably vary from person to person), and those nonverbal yeses conflict with verbal noes, and a pursuer chooses the nonverbal yeses over the verbal noes, why should the pursuer get put in jail for going with the nonverbal language instead of the verbal language? How could that come as moral?
“Second: when the alleged nonverbal “yeses” and the verbal “noes” conflict – or you think they do – here’s an idea: RESPECT THE VERBAL NOES. Err on the side of NOT-RAPE. If she says no, assume she means no, until she uses ACTUAL WORDS to say yes. Strange but true: woman can actually USE HUMAN LANGUAGE to express what they want.”
I don’t disagree with your advice, especially given the current political context.
But also what if the woman is mute? What if the man and the woman literally speak in different languages? How can consent happen in either of those cases? I’m not saying most cases are like that, but if you want to understand what Farrell probably intends with this passage, you probably would do well to consider scenarios like that.
“So going on a date with someone and ostensibly making a “choice to explore sexual possibilities” means that it’s ok for people to force sex on you against your will later in the evening? Uh, Dr. Farrell, how exactly is this not rape? How does the fact that two people went to a movie beforehand turn coerced sex into not-real-rape?”
You didn’t quote the whole paragraph and took it out of context by missing it’s intent. Farrell ends the paragraph saying “In this respect, date rape is really quite different from acquaintance rape and the terms should *not* [emphasis in original] be used interchangeably, as they often are.” So, the intent of his paragraph lies in trying to distinguish between acquaintance rape and date rape. Farrell does NOT deny that date rape is a type of rape. The phrase “rape is rape” at least comes across as meaning that all types of rape come as the same. Farrell argues that acquaintance rape is different than date rape and that we shouldn’t use them interchangeably.
I find Farrell’s method of differentiating “date rape” and “acquaintance rape” poor. That doesn’t mean it can’t get done though.
No, Spoonwood, I’m not going to give your scenarios credence, because they are so unlikely to happen. Stop thinking men are so dumb that they can’t read women’s body language when they can read the body language of men just fine.
Also, context really doesn’t help Farrell. You should know this, but you’re too busy justify rape.
Oh, well, if Warren Farrell was only trying to justify raping women who can’t speak or speak a language different than their partner, then soldier on, Doug. Obviously everyone here is OK with some types of women getting raped.
Seriously, did you think that argument was going to convince anyone, Doug? Really?
Hey Doug,
Here’s a good rule of thumb: take women at their word, regardless of body language.
Clears up a lot of unnecessary confusion. Efficient and considerate.
Why do you guys find this so difficult?
No. You have that backwards. If the only way to read the rape out of his statements is to consider the exceptions that he does not address you are as full of mendacity as he is.
I really, really don’t understand all this preoccupation about paying for dates coming from MRAs. Seriously.
I’m a white man, and after an extremely socially-isolated childhood, and spending much of my college years and early years of my career starting to become comfortable with social situations, I’ve put myself on the dating market. I’ve talked with quite a few women, dated several of them, and no woman I have met so far has simply EXPECTED me to pay for the date. I was a little nervous over this when I started dating, since I was socialized to understand that men pay for dates, and I don’t make all that much money yet, but it has been a non-issue, generally. Everyone has just assumed that we were going dutch. That’s how it works. It has mostly been a pleasurable experience. I’ve been meeting and talking with some interesting people I wouldn’t normally meet. It’s been about meeting new people for me, and I’ve made some friends, though no long-lasting relationships yet.
There was one exception. One woman I met wanted to get more serious with me, and then the gender expectations started coming in. I’m not exactly the most traditionally masculine guy, and she kept implying that I wasn’t really masculine enough in many ways. Like, for example, I didn’t really take advantage of the fact that she clearly was interested in me sexually, and I wasn’t always interested in sex (In part because I’m still overcoming my own social awkwardness, as it relates to sex). She seemed to want some romantic, ‘manly’ guy who was going to sweep her off her feet. And being a bit of a shy nerd, that’s just not going to happen with me. And apparently, not paying for dates wasn’t manly either, and she asked questions about that which were implying that she thought I should be paying for some of our dates. For these sorts of reasons, we drifted apart, though we still talk. (Yes, MRAs, I ‘friend-zoned’ her. How horrible of me!)
And you know what? I don’t blame ‘feminism’ for this bad experience. This happened because of someone trying to apply the traditional ‘masculine’ gender role to me, and I didn’t fit that. Feminism dislikes the idea of the traditional gender roles, and every feminist I’ve ever met dislikes the standard arrangement of ‘men pay for dates’.
I really have no idea what the hell these MRAs are doing that make them think that women are out to extort free drinks and meals from hardworking men. Maybe it’s because they are coming at dating with the explicit goal of having casual sex, and they are rejected? What’s with the fear of rejection, anyway? Speaking as someone who is recovering from social isolation and a bad childhood, even I don’t fear rejection that much. I’ve rejected people, they’ve rejected me and we’ve moved on.
Sorry for the tl;dr rant. This whole thing just struck me, and I thought I would share my experiences with this.
@dougie
“I agree with that. However, does it not hold that a picture is worth a thousand words?”
You through this fucking quote out to ignore consent? This isn’t art(or whatever the fuck that originally applied to) these are people’s lives, you fucking shit stain. And putting that quote up does not an arguement make,
“That physical signals, in general, communicate more information than verbal signals? If nonverbal yeses exist whatever they may be (and if they exist, they probably vary from person to person), ”
And right there you say they vary from persn to person, which means that even if your shitty little talking point about someone meaning yes when they said no is true (spoiler, its not) it goes out the fucking window, because a no is clear everywhere, but guessing which body signals mean’fuck me now you stud’ is not clear.
“and those nonverbal yeses conflict with verbal noes, and a pursuer chooses the nonverbal yeses over the verbal noes, why should the pursuer get put in jail for going with the nonverbal language instead of the verbal language? How could that come as moral?”
The RAPIST should go to jail for RAPING SOMEONE because they chose what to ignore to prove the other person wanted sex, even when they heard the fucking answer the whole time. If you aren’t sure, err on the side of not raping someone. A no is not ambiguous. It is not up for interpretation for men (well, mostly men) to think of some cutesy way to ignore what others want.
“But also what if the woman is mute? What if the man and the woman literally speak in different languages? How can consent happen in either of those cases?”
If the woman is mute, she hopefully can use other ways of communications (idk. Writing? Sign language? This isn’t my area of expertise) But if both people cannot communicate with each other, I can’t think of a good way for them to have sex. Not having sex is way fucking better than raping someone.
If you want to have sex with someone, you should at least ensure that you know how to say “yes” and “no” in their language (and that includes signed languages). That’s really not a particularly hard condition to meet.
BTW I really don’t have a lot of faith in the earnestness of a commenter going by “Doug Spoonwood.” That is a trolly troll trollerson ‘nym.
Hi Nekora,
I have some similar experiences, though I apparently come off as traditionally masculine these days without ever having set out to be so. On the inside, I still feel like the socially-awkward comic book/D&D/Doctor Who nerd I was in throughout childhood and high school.
Whenever I arrange a date with a woman (regardless of who asked, though it’s usually me), I discuss payment with them beforehand. Most of them appreciate this, and it’s never a big deal. I’ve never felt pressured or extorted, and I’ve never expected (though I have often wanted) sex on a date.
Even when I was more socially-awkward than I am now, nothing in Farrell’s essay above would have resonated with me. Frankly, I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about, and I really take exception to his presuming to speak for me. I just find the whole thing stupid and offensive, and more than a little rapey.
I’ve been on bad dates. I’ve been a bad date. None of it is feminism’s fault. It just turns out that way sometimes.
There is no other motivation for bringing up the fact that it was thought of as “exciting”* except to glorify date rape and “date fraud” as cultural norms.
Even if that were true, you should still avoid reading physical signals as “yes” until you’re absolutely sure. But it’s not true – both forms of communication are equally significant. You also must keep in mind the fact that, just because you think that she wants you because you see it in her body language, doesn’t mean that she does.
Do you even know what enthusiastic consent is?
Then you don’t initiate. That’s the “inconvenience” you have to deal with if you err on the side of not being a rapist.
Yeah. And it does, in fact, happen to be the case
There is no meaningful moral difference between date rape and acquaintance rape. Sorry.
Off topic, but I have just had the worst weekend ever. I’m on a referee exchange and my host is racist, sexist and homophobic. RAAAAAAAAAAGE.
He told a joke about head referee Lyndon Bray where the punchline was “he’s gay!” – and when no one laughed he assumed we hadn’t got it and told it again.
“You also must keep in mind the fact that, just because you think that she wants you because you see it in her body language, doesn’t mean that she does.”
YES. Seconded.
Also, maybe I’m overreacting here a bit, but am I the only one creeped out by Farrell keeps talking about “tongues touching” as an example of non-verbal consent? What’s with the detail? I don’t have a problem with any consensual sex act, but the fact the just has to keep bringing up that example is just creepy. It just feels wrong and rapey in a way.
@Bob Goblin,
I tend to LOOK traditionally masculine (I’m a pretty big guy, and these days I have a pretty good amount of muscle mass, since I’ve been taking care of myself and exercising and lifting and all that), but I, too, am still the socially-awkward nerd inside. People tend to be surprised that I am a nerd. I think I get that more ever since I started shaving my head and putting on some muscle. Apparently shaved head + square-goatee makes people think I’m ‘manly’.
But yeah, I’ve discussed payment with women I’ve dated beforehand, and it’s never been an issue. Some of them were surprised that I even asked or thought that we would possibly do anything BUT go dutch.
I think a lot of MRAs end up on bad dates and blame women and feminism in general, when it’s just a fact of the matter that there are awful people out there of BOTH genders, they just don’t get all vindictive about asshole men because they’re not trying to have sex with them.
@weeboy
Jedi hugs if you want them for you horrible weekend. And
“He told a joke about head referee Lyndon Bray where the punchline was “he’s gay!” – and when no one laughed he assumed we hadn’t got it and told it again.”
Sounds like something my dad does.:/ worst example though, comes from his fiancé, who while showing us ‘funny’ ringtones played her favorite one(barf) that was really fucking ableist…twice. That was not a good evening.
Anyway, sorry you had such a shitty weekend 🙁
Much of human existence involves resolving disagreements between our bodies and our minds, between our animal urges and our rational thoughts. My animal brain wants to eat the whole plate of cookies, but my rational brain steps in to remind me that it’ll make me sick, and ultimately I choose not to have all the cookies. Similarly, my animal brain may be aroused and want to fuck this guy I’m making out with, but my rational brain is there to remind me that I don’t know him that well, or that my partner and I agreed not to do more than make out with other people, or whatever, so I tell him we will not be doing anything more than kissing. In this scenario, I may be sending out physical signals of interest in sex, but I have made a rational decision not to indulge that desire, and communicated it to his rational brain with spoken language.
See. sometimes, what our bodies want isn’t good for us, and we’re fortunate to have rational minds to help us make better decisions. Are you really going to argue that grown-ass human adults don’t know this, and that a man can’t be blamed for deciding that a woman’s physical signals trump her stated preference? I mean, is that a thing you expect anyone to believe?
Okay, I have a migraine and super fibromyalgia pains right now, so excuse me for being extremely short with you.
MEN. ARE NOT. MIND READERS. THERE IS AMBIGUITY WITH NON-VERBAL SIGNALS. THERE IS LESS AMBIGUITY WITH VERBAL SIGNALS. HE SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE HE WOULD BE RAPING SOMEBODY. ASSHOLE.
What if this is a really stupid hypothetical situation?
My ‘fuck me now you study’ body language is I levitate in the air and my head spins around 360 degrees.
I get laid less this way.
Heck, I bet five minutes of google can get yes and no in sign language, and lots of other languages, too.
Ouch. Sympathies.
@fade
“My ‘fuck me now you study’ body language is I levitate in the air and my head spins around 360 degrees.
I get laid less this way.”
For some reason, I cannot help but approve.
@Viscaria – sorry, my bad, I didn’t know you were involved in the split!
@WeeBoy – gah, internet hugs if you want them, that host sounds vile.
@the trolls – yeah, right, body language is so much more important than women speaking, isn’t it? Never mind the fact that it’s been shown rapists – you know, those ones who like to claim that they don’t understand women’s body language, or verbal language, that the signals are just too confusing – are deliberately ignoring messages they don’t like (“no”) to commit rape.
Go fuck yourselves, disingenuous rape apologists.
@Fade – “My ‘fuck me now you study’ body language is I levitate in the air and my head spins around 360 degrees.
I get laid less this way.”
It’s probably the vomiting pea soup at the same time that’s putting your dates off. 😉
Because privileged whiny ding-dongs are always ready and willing to be loud and obnoxious at the first sign of their power diminishing.
Can’t read the language and Google translate isn’t working, so can’t comment.
Since you don’t cite this claim, I’m not especially interested in debunking it, but one of the top hits I got for “engineering gender norway” is this article praising the Norwegian policies in favour of gender balancing: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/how-norway-led-the-way-in-gender-quota-success-a-835738.html
First, “feminists lack majority support” is not a compelling stand-in for “feminists are wrong.”
Second, I suspect various economic problems to be a more likely reason for the switch than widespread disapproval of feminism.
They didn’t.
Oh, Christ. Yes, it’s just that men want to make more money!
No.
Women don’t choose to avoid dangerous jobs – they’re kept out of them. Women don’t choose to avoid high-paying careers – they’re passed over for promotions. It’s true that women are more likely than men to prioritize child rearing over a career, but guess what, ding-dong – that’s because of pernicious sexist pressures placed on women by society.
Haha sure, it couldn’t possibly be that several studies actually support feminist conclusions in this area.
Because every movement has stupid ding-dongs. No one ever said ONLY smart people identified as feminists.
Because very few MRAs espouse “moderate” views, none of them prominently, and the few “moderate” MRAs have made no effort to condemn or ostracize the racist, misogynist ones. Maybe if you didn’t want to be accused of tacitly endorsing hate speech, you should not allow hate speech on your sites? Just a suggestion.
About feminists being assholes… yeah, some feminists are assholes. But I’m not seeing a broader trend of feminists being cruel to those affected by suicide. Feel free to provide proof of one.
I have no idea what pregnancy or biology has to do with anything. Do I think culture and religion had anything to do with modern society? Uh… yes? Obviously? I don’t think any feminist ever has said differently? That doesn’t mean sexist systems were the best way to build a society, and even if they were it doesn’t follow that we should hold onto them now.
And no, obviously patriarchy didn’t come about because a cabal of evil men decided to make life miserable for women. Either you are entirely ignorant of feminist theory or you are determined to misrepresent it if you think that is the claim being made.
Since literally none of your sources have proven what you said they did, I find it hard to credit this “super VAWA” claim.
Oh, the irony.