Anti-feminists who call The Patriarchy a paranoid conspiracy theory don’t understand what we mean by “patriarchy” as a term of art.
Except the market failure in women’s clothing with pockets does make me wonder.
Conversation
Replying to
I'd say that depends on which conception of feminism they're collecting it from.
I've seen more than one objectionable take within feminism.
1
1
Replying to
Sure. But antis generally respond as if “patriarchy” means a group of men who run everything instead of a convenient name for the systemic process which maintains sexist injustice.
2
2
Replying to
Which, I think you'd agree, is a very convenient way to shift the discussion in their favour.
If they are aware of doing so... I guess it depends on their intellectual sophistication. Many are fully cognizant of the deception.
1
I've debated several to the point of complete refusal to differentiate between radical feminism and only-a-flaming-misogynist-would-disagree-with-this-feminism.
They're trolling.
1
Replying to
Well, yeah. I was leaning on that to make a joke about how the absence of pockets in women's clothing is strange enough that it does suggest that there is a conspiracy.
1
Replying to
Ah, now I see, though that leaves you open to the inevitable counter-joke about how men's jeans & boxers are part of a secret feminist sterilization program.
1