Men’s Rights Activists have scored yet another major victory over the imaginary feminists who live in their heads. On Facebook today, the moderator of the A Voice for Men page asks a question that no straw feminist can answer:
CHECKMATE FEMINISTS, in your FACE, there were QUEENS, where is that EVIL PATRIARCHY NOW???
Well, pretty much where we left it. Apparently AVFM’s Facebook admin has never actually bothered to read anything feminist scholars have ever written about patriarchy. Or even a dictionary definition of the word.
Because, guess what, AVFM admin? “Patriarchy” doesn’t actually mean that women have zero power or influence in society, but rather that men (as a class) hold much more power in society than women (as a class).
Here are a few definitions of “patriarchy” I found on the internet with a couple of basic Google searches:
“control by men of a disproportionately large share of power”
You will notice that all these definitions include qualifications to them: disproportionately, largely, more likely.
While the term patriarchy does describe societies in which women as a class are subordinate to men as a class, feminist historian Gerda Lerner has noted, it “does not imply that women are either totally powerless or totally deprived of rights, influence, and resources.”
In other words, feminists are indeed aware there was a Queen Victoria.
But ask yourself this, AVFM admin: How did she get the power she had?
While royal succession can be weird and complicated, the basic rule — and it’s a pretty patriarchical one — is that when the king dies, the job goes to the oldest legitimate son.
Princesses are promoted to Queen only if there are no legitimate male heirs. The job goes to a woman rather than some less-directly related man because, within the largely patriarchal structure of the monarchy, preserving the bloodline is more important than making sure there’s always a man in charge.
In the case of Queen Victoria, Wikipedia notes,
She inherited the throne aged 18, after her father’s three elder brothers had all died, leaving no surviving legitimate children.
So three guys had to die for her to get to the front of the line.
The existence of queens doesn’t prove that patriarchy is a myth; it just shows that patriarchy is more complicated than the simplistic caricature that antifeminists like to pretend is what feminists believe.
Patriarchy is never the whole story. There have been, and still, a number of other power structures in society and culture that intersect with patriarchy in complex ways. Feminists have been talking about these intersections for decades now — that’s what intersectional feminism is.
But MRAs aren’t actually interested in the details of feminism. After all, straw feminists are a lot easier to debate.
If evolution was real THERE WOULD BE SUPERDOGS
So Queen Victoria — who is seen as a motherly figure who oversaw an entire era! — actually killed three guys so that she could get to the front of the line!
And I thought that Hillary was cutthroat!
This is why the patriarchy has wisely restricted female power for 6,000 years now. And when the patriarchy takes its eye off female power for just a moment — to start a war or unseat a democratically elected leader or some such — bloodthirsty women (and women with blood coming out of their whatevers) ascend to the throne. Or the White House. Luckily, the Orange Man is now the celebrity spokescreature for the patriarchy!
The whole argument is specious. When we talk about ‘holding office’, we’re talking about elective office, not inherited positions within a monarchy. I think we can safely assume that the AVFM commenter is also unaware that Victoria’s reign was within a constitutional monarchy, so even her position as ‘head of state’ was more about ceremony, and the power she had wasn’t granted her by a voting citizenry, but rather came from her wealth and position within the British-European aristocracy.
FWIW this is the AVFMer’s “smoking gun.”
Once again, the MRAs prove they have no grasp of history or reality with this comment about queens in the monarchy and assume that all other nations in the world are exactly like this tiny little back-ass backwards nation of the Separated States on the North American continent between the nations of Canada and Mexico.
Likewise, one doesn’t realize that Queen Victoria was under a lot of scrutiny during her reign because her forefathers were incredibly incompetent and that you know, the whole age of imperialism was seriously screwing many people over, even those in England itself.
Russian Tsars originally chose their successors, but after Catherine, the law changed to the eldest male heir. Why do you think? If you guessed that it was to prevent any more feeeemales from taking the throne, you are correct.
It could be argued Catherine the Great had the support of the Russian aristocracy, but it was largely to do with widespread resentment towards Peter III.
Re: that case
It’s actually from 1788, not 1808, but I have now found it.
Sorry ladies, but before you all rush off to become Commissioner of Sewers, you need to read this bit that they didn’t quote:
So that may explain why history isn’t littered with examples of women holding the high offices referenced.
It is an interesting case though (some class issues too) but apart from the above hurdle it also makes clear that the reason women can hold certain offices is that they can appoint a qualified* deputy to actually carry out the office.
You’ll be pleased to know though that Alice Stubbs (the lady they’re taking about) was allowed to be commissioner for the poor in her village.
(* qualified = having boys’ bits)
I highly recommend the series She Wolves BBC – I think, but available on Netflix in the UK for the moment. It covers in three shows the English Queens (with a bit of a mention of Mary Queen of Scots) and their struggles with power and convention.
It should also be noted that while in Great Britain women could succeed the throne if there’s no one (anyone, someone?) male with a hint of a claim, in some other European countries women could NOT be in the line of succession at all, for any reason.
@ rubiyogi
There was a lot of fascinating legal debate about the exact meaning of the primogeniture rule during the Wars of the Roses; and it changed a few times.
Basically the argument as to whether a man always trumped a woman in terms of succession, even if the man was born later, was challenged by certain people.
Mainly those people who would be in line to be king if that rule wasn’t applied (i.e. the sons of the first born woman, rather than the second born son)
@ Paradoxy
This one is definitely verified (on rejecting another suitor). Ouch!
My husband’s friend has primary custody of his three children, so checkmate MRAs, gynocentric bias against men in family courts doesn’t exist.
But of course, it’s feminists who can’t do logic.
Since the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, a male child not longer takes precedence over an older female sibling. Looks like the feminist-SJW menace has infected the heart of the British establishment 🙂
The most baffling thing about this is it appears a meninist read an actual historical document. Mangled the context, yes, and proved the usual complete lack of comprehension, perspective and knowledge of the world as it exists – but somehow he read something that wasn’t a mangled third hand quote from Breitbart. Isn’t that Misandry?
@ WWTH
You may enjoy this Superdog! story….
http://mestreacasa.gva.es/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=500010784853&name=DLFE-516800.pdf
The MRA version of a matriarchy:
Women are allowed to hold office if no man is available to hold said office.
Or
Women are allowed to hold office but must deputize a man to do the actual work.
Now I’m scratching my head. Why the heck did I think we needed feminism?!
You know it really bugs me that these groups tend to insist that the real reason women/non-men/non-whites don’t hold equal amounts of capital/jobs is because they are naturally inferior. Because somehow that’s easier to believe than a social system that has been in place for many generations that has maybe influenced how we act. That’s all this says to me, is they’re trying so hard to convince us (or themselves) that it’s all made up and if only we tried a little harder we could succeed like the menz.
Edit to add: on the topic of giving birth to sons, I always love how statistical probabilities work out IRL, like how supposedly boy/girl is a 50-50 chance but my mother had five girls between her first husband and my father, whereas my fathers first two children with his first wife were boys! Maybe my mother is magic and made sure to have daughters because women clearly have it easier in this gynocracy.
@ kat
I can probably get you that sewer gig.
So long as you’re a ‘substantial householder’. (As mentioned, interesting class issues too)
In re succession rules for European monarchies:
I believe there has only been one pre-20th century monarchy in Europe that operated under absolute cognathic primogeniture rules (ie. the eldest surviving child, boy or girl, inherits), namely Navarre. Of course, that kingdom ceased to exist some three centuries ago, but they did exist.
Interestingly, even Sweden, that well-known bastion of equality, only changed their royal inheritance rules in 1979, when the second child (Carl-Philip) of the present king was born and the old rules would have placed him above his older sister in the inheritance.
Not to mention that Henry VIII was so scared of letting one of his daughters rule that he freakin’ made his own religion so he could justify dumping his wife for her servant who was more likely to give him a boy.
And into the Victorian period people were STILL sending Victoria “condolences” cards whenever she gave birth to a girl.
When Kate was pregnant with George, before the public knew the sex of the baby, they did change the rule, so now it goes in strict age order without reference to gender, which I was very happy to hear.
Not only did three guys have to die before Victoria became Queen, but numerous women not the daughters of royal men had to be dispossessed, branded “whores” and their children illegitimatised, a royal woman had to be mistreated and stigmatised and a princess had to die young in childbirth.
Most of George III’s numerous sons had marriages or relationships which were not recognised by the Crown, but which produced a lot of children.
The eldest son, George IV, was bribed to set aside his wife (she was a Catholic, and a commoner, and her tomb in Brighton has an effigy of her wearing her wedding ring, just to make the point) to marry the daughter of another royal German male. It didn’t go well: they couldn’t stand each other, and separated as soon as she was pregnant (with a daughter, as it happened). He tried to get rid of her by trumping up charges of adultery for a divorce, which were so blatantly fake that the House of Lords refused to grant it. But she was never allowed to see her daughter Charlotte again, even when the daughter was dying, and was refused entry to her husband’s coronation. Charlotte was pushed into a royal marriage as soon as possible (so that the heir would have an heir) but died in pregnancy.
Immediately Charlotte died, most of the other sons of George III repudiated their commoner partners and children and stampeded off to the German principalities in search of the daughters of royal men. Mrs Jordan, William IV’s wife, was forced to live abroad and their ten children forbidden to visit, or even to write to her – on the grounds that such women were immoral and it would be a “contagion” for her own children to know her.
“Victorian hypocrisy” didn’t start with Victoria.
Hashtag NotAllNineteenthCenturyWomen.
Still, we’d come a long way since our first ever Queen in her own right, Matilda, when there was an actual civil war to prevent her ruling which didn’t end until her son was old enough to look plausible instead – 14 or so.
Edit window closed before I could add that Matilda is always referred to as “the claimant” to the English throne.
She wasn’t, she was the freakin’ heir!
Not just the only surviving child of the king, but nominated heir by him and sworn in by the entire court in his lifetime.
And the actual claimant, Stephen of Blois, got his entitlement through his mother, at that.
Bah, humbug!
@ bluecat
I’ve mentioned before that Matilda insisted on being called “King” which pissed a lot of people off. 🙂
(The punk in me loves the fact that that period of history was called “The Anarchy”)
@ Alan – I didn’t know that. 🙂 I know of her mainly as “The Empress”.
Elizabeth I often referred to herself as a “Prince”, I believe.
@ bluecat
Indeed she did. You may be familiar with this one: