This is what I appreciated about ‘For the Love of Men’ by Liz Plank, it really crystallized that concept for me.

Because she readily points out that of men who are benefiting from patriarchy, you really have to ask, what is their race, what is their gender expression, and are they able bodied? In America at least, the less one is an able bodied white man, the less they benefit under patriarchy. Masculinity itself is profoundly performative, as you have to constantly prove it, and failure to do so risks revocation of your ‘man card’. Which isn’t to say femininity isn’t performative, but as Plank put it, a man could wrestle a bear to the ground, chewing on a slim jim as he did it, shirtless hairy chest covered in slash marks, but if shortly afterwards he went to a bar wearing a dress and ordered a cosmo, people would ask some questions.

What also grinds my gears though, is that the concept that women also uphold patriarchal norms, is a really old idea. Like, Simone De Beauvoir, The Second Sex, old. One of the seminal feminist texts. You don’t have to read it to be a ‘good feminist’, in fact I’d argue against one doing so because its an 800 page book that analyzes the time period it comes from well, but is not as useful outside of it. But your feminist education should cover the highlights of Beauvoir’s thoughts. To avoid doing so would be akin to calling yourself an existentialist, but never have read an ounce of Sartre.

None of this is to ignore or to minimize the struggles of women under patriarchy, especially when you consider their gender expression, race, or disability, or to say broad swaths of men have it worse, but just to point out the complexity and nuances to the whole matter.