This is a comment by Zek J. Evets on the post “The Retributive Nature of ‘Girl Power’“.
Ehh… I’m inclined to disagree that there’s one social label which governs everything, because if that were true, Henry Louis Gates Jr. wouldn’t be stopped outside his house, would he? Rich People of Color wouldn’t still face structural racism, would they? Shoot if money was the only thing that mattered, many of my fellow Jews would have long since seen an end to anti-Semitism.
Seems to me the proper term is “kyriarchy” if you want to describe the intersectionality of power as it is practiced. But if you want to describe it based on gender, then patriarchy is probably an accurate reflection of the faces in power — though not their sympathies, obviously.
But I do somewhat agree with Anthony that patriarchy is too vague a word to be useful, and it implies that men benefit even when they’re lower-class or part of an ethnic/religious minority. Certainly Black men do not benefit from “patriarchy”, as we’ve seen lately. That said, it can’t be an oligarchy either because that presupposes that power remains in the same hands over time, which it does not as we’ve seen from the dynamics of gobalization and the spread of technology.
Personally, I feel that power is circumstantial—gained by fortune or conquest, or other methods, and lost far more easily. But the people in power do share similar traits; they just aren’t socio-cultural labels. They’re similar because they’re all in power, and proponents of controlling those who are not.
Photo credit: Flickr / epSos.de