feminism – Chasing Tales

An acceptable genocide

The past
In Karachi, the Edhi Foundation— Pakistan’s largest social welfare organisation — installed cradles outside the gates of its orphanage with a sign reading: Don’t kill the baby, leave the baby alive in the cradle. A newborn girl was found in one of those cradles. Her entire body was blackened. She had been burnt alive, umbilical cord still attached.¹

Of the babies recovered from those cradles, more than 90% are girls.²

In 1990, the Indian economist Amartya Sen published an essay in The New York Review of Books titled “More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing.” The phrase was new. The practice was ancient.³

Sen had noticed something in the census data: across Asia, there were far fewer women than there should be. Women who should have existed did not exist. They had been removed. Female infants are more resilient than male infants, and women outlive men on a level biological playing field.³ Sen called this “missing”. By his original estimate: 100 million. Later research revised the figure upward.

In Classical Greece, fewer than 1% of families documented at Delphi around 200 BCE had two or more daughters.⁴ Daughters were exposed — left outside, on hillsides and in public places, to die of cold and hunger.⁵

In ancient Rome, the practice was routine and documented without shame. In 1 BCE, a Roman man named Hilarion wrote a letter from Alexandria to his pregnant wife Alis. The letter was found on papyrus in Egypt, preserved by dry sand for two thousand years. It reads: if it is a male, let it live; if it is a female, expose it.⁶

In China, Christian missionaries in the sixteenth century documented newborn girls thrown into rivers. In Qing dynasty texts, the term ni nü — “to drown girls” — appears as a routine domestic description.⁷ Drowning, suffocation, starvation, and exposure in baskets placed in trees were all documented methods of eliminating female newborns (A caveat: western missionary accounts, particularly Gabriel Palatre’s widely reproduced 1878 statistics, have been shown to be significantly erroneous — shaped partly by an exoticizing Western gaze that made female infanticide into a “totemic marker of Chinese society.”⁸

The Quran explicitly prohibits female infanticide. It prohibits it perhaps because it was common enough in pre-Islamic Arabia to require prohibition?⁹ The Vedic and ancient Hindu texts of India reference son preference.¹⁰ ¹¹ ¹² Roman law referenced it (it went from a father’s right to capital crime).¹³ ¹⁴ The practice predates every modern state, every modern religion in its current form, and every technology we associate with it.

Sex-selective abortion leaves a specific statistical signature that makes it distinguishable from random variation. In families practising sex selection, ratios at first and second births tend to be close to normal. The distortion appears and amplifies at third and fourth births — specifically in families that have not yet produced a son.¹⁵ ¹⁶ ¹⁷

A five-year study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences¹⁵ in 2019 compiled 10,835 observations across 202 countries and identified twelve countries with statistically significant sex ratio distortions attributable specifically to sex-selective abortion: China, India, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, South Korea, Hong Kong, Montenegro, Taiwan, Tunisia, and Vietnam. Of 23 million¹⁸ girls selectively aborted since 1970, 11.9 million were in China and 10.6 million in India. In 2017 alone, 800,000 girls were aborted in China and 671,000 in India. The most recent count, tracking the accumulation since 1970 across twelve countries, is an estimated 142 million “missing” girls and women.¹⁹

Across centuries and cultures, societies have eliminated girls and women.

The logic
In research from 2008, the economist Nancy Qian studied what happened in rural China when the market price of tea rose — because tea-picking rewards the fine motor skills at which women are thought to excel. When female income increased by US$7.70 — roughly ten per cent of average rural household income — the survival rate of girls rose by a full percentage point. When orchard fruit values rose in regions where men dominate the labour, no equivalent improvement occurred.²⁰

Esther Duflo, in her 2012 survey of the relationship between women’s empowerment and economic development published in the Journal of Economic Literature, documented the same mechanism from the other direction in research which also synthesised from Elaina Rose’s 1999 paper “Consumption Smoothing and Excess Female Mortality in Rural India”.²¹ ²² In India, excess female child mortality — deaths of girls that would not have occurred if girls received care equal to boys — spikes during droughts.²³ When a household faces an income shock, girls are the first to be deprioritised.

Most of the 142 million were not aborted. They were neglected into death after they were born — fed less, treated less, counted less.

Abhijit Banerjee and Duflo’s research on how poor households actually make decisions — rather than how economists assume they do — found that the logic driving these outcomes is not irrational within the terms of the society producing it.²⁴ A son carries the family name, inherits property, provides old-age support, and stays. A daughter, under the systems of inheritance and marriage that govern the societies where missing women cluster most densely, functionally becomes the property of her husband’s family upon marriage.²⁴ The parents who fed and educated her receive nothing.²⁴

Their conclusion, after reviewing decades of evidence, is that economic development alone does not fix this. Economic growth does not automatically raise the value of girls. In India, the sex ratio distortion has been worst in the wealthiest states. Punjab and Haryana — India’s richest agricultural states — have among the lowest sex ratios in the country.²⁵ Ultrasound arrived with prosperity, and prosperity enabled families who previously killed girls after birth to instead eliminate them before. Sen called it “high-tech sexism”.²⁶ Duflo characterises it as a market failure that requires “continuous policy commitment to equality for its own sake,”²⁷ because no invisible hand will correct it.

The numbers are not abstract.

In India — where Duflo documented girls being deprioritised first in every household income shock — the national sex ratio is 900 girls per 1,000 boys;²⁸ in Haryana, India’s wealthiest agricultural state, it is 831;²⁸ India’s own Economic Survey counts 63 million missing women,²⁹ and every year 239,000 girls under five die because of their gender (2000-2005).³⁰
In China, the one-child policy combined with ultrasound produced sex ratios of 117 males per 100 females in 2001;³¹ an estimated 11.9 million girls were selectively aborted between 1970 and 2020;¹⁵ the total missing across all causes is 40 million; and the demographic surplus of men left behind has a name — guang gun, “bare branches,” men who will never find wives because their generation’s women were removed before birth.³²³³
In Pakistan, 18% of survey respondents said they did not want even one daughter; the average desired number of sons was 3.05, the average desired number of daughters was 1.15.³⁴ ³⁵
Vietnam’s sex ratio reached 112 in 2006, rising from a natural baseline of 105 in just five years — faster than China or South Korea at their peaks.³⁶
Azerbaijan reached 116 males per 100 females. Twelve countries across five continents, four major religions, every income bracket.³⁷ ³⁸

The variable they share is not poverty, not religion, not geography. It is the uncorrected price of a girl.

In October 2023, the UK Office for National Statistics published data analysed by the Department of Health and Social Care.³⁹ Other research found a statistically significant imbalance in births to Indian mothers in the United Kingdom between 2021 and 2025: 118 boys born for every 100 girls, against a national average of 105. At third births specifically, the ratio reached 118:100 in both 2023–24 and 2024–25.⁴⁰ Researchers estimate approximately 400 sex-selective abortions occurred in the UK between 2017 and 2021,³⁹ a statistically significant imbalance consistent with patterns of sex selection.

The present
South Korea is the one country in the twelve that has demonstrably reversed the trend.⁴¹ A sustained government campaign, legal enforcement against illegal sex determination, and a genuine cultural shift in women’s economic participation produced a measurable normalisation of its sex ratio.⁴² It is the evidence that this is reversible.

The burnt girl in Karachi was the inheritor of her foremother’s legacy of being burnt for being women- whether at the stake, or on their dead husbands’ pyres. But something new happened in South Korea. The women who were not eliminated made a decision: They called it the 4B movement: bihon, bichulsan, biyeonae, bisekseu — no marriage, no childbirth, no dating, no sex.⁴³ South Korea’s total fertility rate fell to 0.72 in 2023 — the lowest ever recorded by any country on earth.⁴⁴ The UN projects its population of 51 million will halve by the end of this century.⁴⁵ The government has spent over $200 billion in sixteen years on pro-natalist policies — childcare subsidies, mortgages for newlywed couples, extended parental leave.⁴⁶ ⁴⁷ The women are not interested.

Sources

The Finrod-Eöl scale

As any Tolkien nerd knows, first age Tolkien characters (and storylines) are a goldmine of layered characters, events, and rich psychology. One never knows what they’ll discover in the books themselves, and what that will change in the reader as an individual. Here are a couple of things I’ve come up with.

The Finrod-Eöl scale of male behaviour
The golden Finrod Felagund represents the idealized “good man” archetype in Tolkien’s legendarium. He’s the eldest son of Finarfin, the King of Nargothrond, and exemplifies noble masculinity: he is described as wise, generous, and uniquely disposed toward friendship with humans. His story culminates in ultimate self-sacrifice when he dies protecting Beren from a werewolf, using only his bare hands, fulfilling an oath he had made. Finrod embodies compassion, cross-species alliance-building, emotional depth, and willingness to sacrifice power for ethical principles. He is frequently characterised as saintly, keeping his oaths no matter the cost and loving those around him even when they were undeserving. His actions demonstrate a form of manhood that resists some aspects of patriarchal dominance. He’s even Galadriel’s big brother.

Eöl the Dark Elf is the other pole of the scale, and is characterised by isolation, misogyny, control, and violence. He traps the lovely Aredhel in the forest of Nan Elmoth and “marries” her in what multiple scholars have interpreted as a relationship founded on coercion and violation. He attempts to control every aspect of Aredhel’s life, forbidding her contact with her kin and the Noldor. When Aredhel and their son Maeglin, born of her rape by Eöl, escape to Gondolin, Eöl pursues them with murderous intent, throwing a poisoned javelin that kills Aredhel when she shields their son. Before his execution, he curses Maeglin, demonstrating profound vindictiveness even in death, even against his own child. He represents violent, controlling, possessive masculinity that views women as property.

In the Finrod-Eöl scale of male behaviour, I posit that Earthly male behaviour is distributed across this spectrum, with most behaviours occupying positions between these extremes. Men’s behaviour isn’t stuck in one place. Each action, each relationship, each choice lands somewhere on this spectrum, with most actions and indeed most men falling between the two poles like any normal distribution. This reflects Raewyn Connell observation that hegemonic masculinity—the culturally idealised form that legitimises patriarchy—is not “normative in the numerical sense, as only a small minority of men may enact it”: few men fully embody either Finrod’s exceptional virtue or Eöl’s extreme toxicity.¹ ²

I want to reiterate this is explicitly about male behaviours, not about male identity or being. This is not about fixing men in permanent positions on the scale. Rather, each behaviour or act can land at a different point on the scale, and whilst each man will find himself at a particular position, this is due to their personal actions overall clustering around that part of the scale. This conceptual scale is supported by both the existence of multiple concepts of masculinities,³ such as hegemonic, complicit, subordinate, and marginalised, as well as by research on masculinity norms.

Besides, identity is fluid.

This is demonstrated by the “Man Box” study, which found that young Australian men who endorsed dominant masculinity norms (inside the “Man Box”) were significantly more likely to perpetrate violence: 47% had perpetrated physical bullying in the past month compared to 7% of those outside the Man Box, and 46% had made sexual comments to unknown women compared to 7%.⁴ That is to say, masculinity is a scale. Most men practise what Connell terms “complicit masculinity,” in which they do not fully embody hegemonic ideals but “still benefit from the ‘patriarchal dividend’ that advantages men in general through the subordination of women”. These are men who may not personally engage in the most extreme forms of masculine domination but who tacitly support the system that enables it.⁵

The Core Thesis: How “Finrods” Benefit from “Eöls”
My central argument is that men positioned toward the Finrod end of the scale—those who exhibit more prosocial, egalitarian, or feminist behaviours—derive systematic benefits from the existence of men at the Eöl end. Relative comparison (moral and social) becomes a mechanism that sustains patriarchy, even among men who see themselves as “progressive”. This operates through several mechanisms:

The Relativity Advantage:⁶ Egregiously bad actors make average male behaviour seem exceptional by comparison, granting unearned credit to men who are merely ‘not-Eöl.’
The Deflection Function: The existence of extreme cases allows men across most of the spectrum to deflect responsibility for systemic gender oppression. That is, by pointing to Eöls, men on the Finrod side of the scale, and those in between the poles, can maintain that they are fundamentally different, obscuring the ways they may still benefit from and participate in patriarchal systems.
The Patriarchal Dividend:⁷ ⁸ ⁹ Another of Connell’s theories, which says that “men benefit from the overall subordination of women” regardless of their individual beliefs or behaviors. In patriarchal systems, “all men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy”. Even men who genuinely oppose gender inequality receive material advantages—higher wages, freedom from fear of sexual violence, presumed competence in professional settings—that flow from systemic structures maintained by the more overtly oppressive behaviors of men further along the scale toward Eöl.
The Protection Racket:¹⁰ ¹¹ ¹² Men who present as “good” often receive trust, access, and emotional labour from women specifically because they are perceived as safe in contrast to dangerous men. The fear women experience from the Eöls of the world makes them grateful for and dependent on the Finrods. This manifests in what scholars call “protector masculinity,” where men gain status by positioning themselves as guardians against other men’s violence, which “affirms femininity as subordinate and lacking in agency”.
Structural Complicity:¹³ ¹⁴ ¹⁵ ¹⁶ ¹⁷ ¹⁸ ¹⁹ All men benefit from economic, sexual, emotional, and/or psychological benefits from the overall subordination of women regardless of their individual beliefs or behaviors. Even men who genuinely oppose gender inequality receive material advantages—higher wages, freedom from fear of sexual violence, presumed competence in professional settings—that flow from systemic structures maintained by the more overtly oppressive behaviors of men further along the scale toward Eöl.
Male solidarity: Men across the scale often maintain solidarity with one another through silence about other men’s problematic behaviors. This silence remains common because it preserves male homosocial bonds. The “good guys” benefit from not disrupting male solidarity, even as this silence enables the “bad guys” to continue harmful behaviors (you may have heard that German saying about how if there is 1 Nazi at the table and 9 other people not refuting the Nazi, there are actually 10 Nazis at the table. The male solidarity I’m talking about is something like that).
Reputation Without Transformation: The scale creates a reputational economy in which men can gain feminist credibility through relatively minimal actions. The bar for male allyship is lowered by the existence of egregious actors, such that basic respect for women’s autonomy or basic emotional competence becomes praiseworthy rather than normal.

Patriarchy: the Money-Labour-Violence Pyramid
But first: does the patriarchy even exist? I’ll prove that it does in three points. But first, is there a widely agreed definition of this patriarchy?

Patriarchy is defined by the United Nations and international organizations as a social structure in which men and boys hold primary power and privilege in families, governments, and social organization, while women and marginalized genders are subordinated and structurally disadvantaged. Sociologist Sylvia Walby characterizes it as “a system of social structures and practises in which men dominate, oppress, and exploit women”.²⁰ ²¹

So now, about the proof. According to this widely accepted definition, patriarchy is a pervasive social power structure. Now let’s analyse whether the evidence supports the existence of such a system by looking at three key dimensions:
1. Money is power: who controls wealth and property;
2. What is paid: who performs labour that sustains the system; and
3. Power is power: how that power is protected.

If money is power, then the global distribution of wealth reveals who holds structural power:

Men globally own $105 trillion more in wealth than women—a gap equivalent to more than four times the size of the entire US economy.²² ²³
Women own less than 20% of the world’s land globally, with this figure dropping to as low as 10% in some regions.²⁴²⁵
Only 15% of agricultural landholders worldwide are women; 85% are men.²⁵
In India, despite progressive legal reforms, women constitute only 14% of landowners and own just 11% of agricultural land in rural landowning households.²⁵
Only 15% of the world’s 100 richest billionaires are women, and most inherited their wealth rather than creating it themselves.²⁶
The 22 richest men in the world have more wealth than all the women in Africa combined.²⁷

Even among the poorest populations (bottom 25% of wealth distribution), the gender gap persists:²⁷

Poorest men hold median wealth of €1,755.92
Poorest women hold median wealth of €171.11
This means poorest men have approximately 10 times the wealth of poorest women.
Among the extremely poor living on less than $1.90/day, there are 122 poor women for every 100 poor men in peak working years (ages 25-34). This proves patriarchy isn’t just a “rich woman’s problem”—it’s a structural feature that disadvantages women at every economic level.²⁸ ²⁹

The concentration of wealth in male hands isn’t accidental—it’s the result of centuries of legal restrictions that prevented women from accessing, owning, and controlling economic resources:

United States:³⁰

Until the 1960s, women could not open bank accounts in their own names.
Until 1974 (Equal Credit Opportunity Act), single women almost always needed a male co-signer to obtain credit, and married women were routinely denied credit cards and loans.³¹
Before 1848 (Married Women’s Property Act in New York), a married woman’s property automatically became her husband’s property upon marriage.
1839: Mississippi became the first US state to allow women to legally own property in their own names.

Europe:

France: Women were not allowed to open bank accounts in their own name until 1881.³² ³³
United Kingdom: The Married Women’s Property Act allowing women to control their own earnings was passed in 1870.³⁴

Current Global Restrictions (as of 2024):

In 34 countries, daughters do not have equal inheritance rights to sons.³⁵
In more than 30 countries, women do not have the right to inherit land, either because laws specifically prohibit it or customary practises override legal protections.³⁶
In 38 countries, inheritance laws for daughters and sons are unequal.³⁷
In 18 countries, husbands can legally prevent their wives from working.³⁸
In 17 countries, including Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, laws restrict women’s ability to travel outside the home.³⁸
In 32 countries, including Jordan, Haiti, and the Philippines, women cannot obtain a passport without male permission.³⁸
In 104 countries, women are prevented from working in the same occupations as men.³⁹
167 countries (88% of all countries surveyed) have at least one law restricting women’s economic opportunity.³⁹

So that’s the first part of my proof that the patriarchy exists. Now let’s talk about how this power structure is protected. Sociological theory establishes that social power structures are maintained through the monopoly and strategic deployment of violence. The state maintains its power through the “legitimate monopoly on violence”, and hierarchical social systems are similarly sustained through the threat and use of force.

Crucially: There are NO jurisdictions where men face equivalent legal restrictions on property ownership, banking access, or economic participation.

Inheritance laws are among the strongest structural evidence of patriarchy (because they document how wealth and property are systematically transferred through male lineages across generations):

Islamic Inheritance Law:

Under Islamic law, which governs inheritance for 1.8 billion people globally:
Sons receive twice the share of daughters (Surah An-Nisa 4:11: “to the male, a portion equal to that of two females.”).⁴⁰ ⁴¹
If a Muslim man dies, his wife receives:⁴² ⁴³ ⁴⁴
1/4 of his estate if he has no children
1/8 of his estate if he has children
The remainder goes primarily to his children and male relatives.
If a Muslim woman dies, her husband receives:⁴⁵ ⁴⁶
1/2 of her estate if she has no children
1/4 of her estate if she has children
Notably, her property can revert to her husband and his family, rather than to her natal family, however there is no blanket rule that her entire estate “reverts” to her husband and his family—her natal family (parents, siblings, etc.) can inherit if they are eligible heirs under Islamic law.⁴⁷
A Muslim’s will can only dispose of up to one-third of their property beyond these fixed shares; the rest is strictly governed by Islamic inheritance laws.⁴⁸
This legal structure ensures that wealth remains concentrated in male hands across generations, as women inherit less and their property flows back into male-controlled family lines (because sons receive double and husbands get a significant fixed share, it is often the case that more property flows back into the husband’s lineage or remains concentrated in the hands of male relatives across generations).⁴⁹

Hindu Succession Act (India), that is applicable to at least 1 billion people:

According to Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, when a Hindu woman dies without a will, her property (including self-acquired property) devolves in the following order:⁵⁰⁵¹⁵²⁵³
- First: To her sons, daughters, and husband
- Second: To the heirs of the husband (not her own parents)
- Third: To her mother and father
- Fourth: To the heirs of the father
- Fifth: To the heirs of the mother
- This means even property a woman earns herself is legally structured to flow back into her husband’s family or her father’s family—not through her maternal lineage. As expected, property she inherited from her father or husband automatically returns to those male lineages if she has no children.⁵⁴
- Since amendments in 2005, Hindu women have equal rights to inherit property, but upon their death, the succession order dictated by Section 15 preserves a male lineage priority, especially for self-acquired property.⁵⁵ ⁵⁶

Global Pattern:57

Men inherit earlier in life than women, giving them critical time to invest and grow wealth.⁵⁸
Men receive larger inheritances and more valuable assets (businesses, real estate) while women receive cash.
In families of large business owners, daughters are 18 percentage points less likely to receive business or financial assets than sons.

This systematic pattern of inheritance laws globally ensures that wealth, property, and economic power remain concentrated in male hands across generations—the operational definition of a patriarchal economic structure.

Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “symbolic violence” explains how power structures are maintained not only through physical force but through normalized domination. However, physical violence remains the ultimate enforcement mechanism:⁵⁹ ⁶⁰ ⁶¹ patriarchal theory sees violence as an extension of authority, control, and maintenance of the social order—especially when boys and men are socialised to see violence as a legitimate tool of power and when male-headed households wield disproportionate control over women and children. Sociological studies and UN definitions argue that “patriarchal violence is all violence that creates or maintains men’s power and dominance … the enforcement tool that sustains patriarchy”.⁶² ⁶³ ⁶⁴ ⁶⁵

If patriarchy is a real power structure, we should expect to see:

Men disproportionately committing violence to establish and maintain dominance
Women disproportionately targeted for control, especially in contexts related to sexuality, reproduction, and family
Consistent patterns across all cultures and jurisdictions, indicating structural rather than individual causes

The evidence overwhelmingly confirms this:

Defining Violent Crime and Crimes of Power/Dominance: Violent crimes include: homicide, assault, rape, sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping, and domestic violence—crimes involving the use or threat of force against others.⁶⁶
Crimes of power/dominance include: violent crimes committed to establish hierarchical control, assert authority, control resources or people, or subordinate victims. These include sexual violence, intimate partner violence, human trafficking, and gang/territorial violence.⁶⁷ ⁶⁸

Global Statistics: Male Perpetration of Violent Crime
Homicide (Murder):⁶⁶ ⁶⁹

90-95% of all homicide suspects globally are male, based on data from 193 countries.
80% of all homicide victims are male—but this reflects male-on-male violence to establish dominance and status in public contexts.
However, 82% of intimate partner/family homicide victims are female, while only 18% are male. Women are killed by intimate partners; men are killed by other men in public/gang violence.⁷⁰
In the US, recent data shows 51% of child maltreatment perpetrators are women, and 49% are men, largely because mothers are overwhelmingly primary caregivers. However, when looking at severe violence (serious physical and sexual abuse), men are overrepresented as perpetrators.⁷¹ ⁷²
Male non-parents (stepfathers, adoptive fathers, boyfriends, unrelated men) are much more likely to maltreat girls as compared to women perpetrators. Additionally, male offenders acting alone are more likely to target girls than boys.⁷¹

Rape and Sexual Violence:

99% of rapists worldwide are male.⁷² ⁷³
91% of rape victims are female.⁷²
The WHO confirms: “Intimate partner and sexual violence are mostly perpetrated by men against women” across 161 countries.⁷⁴
Victims span all identities—men, women, children, trans people—but the perpetrators are overwhelmingly male regardless of victim identity.⁷² ⁷⁵ ⁷⁶
Globally, about 90% of sexual abuse against children is perpetrated by men or male adolescents, and only around 10% by women or female adolescents. This pattern holds across institutional, intrafamilial, and online environments.⁷⁷ ⁷⁸
Key government reports in places like Australia found that 93.9% of institutional child sexual abuse was perpetrated by adult men.⁷⁸
Both male and female perpetrators victimize boys and girls, but men are more likely to target girls, while women (in rare cases) are more likely to target boys.⁷⁷
Studies consistently show that even when accounting for underreporting of female perpetrators, the vast majority of detected offenders are male.⁷⁷

Human Trafficking:⁷⁸ ⁷⁹

70-75% of all convicted human traffickers worldwide are men.
61% of detected trafficking victims globally are women and girls (39% women, 22% girls).
For sexual exploitation specifically: 98% of trafficking victims are women and girls.⁸¹

Sex Work and Commercial Sexual Exploitation:⁸² ⁸³

85-95% of customers/buyers of sex workers and trafficking victims are men.
In regions where sex work is criminalized, men comprise the overwhelming majority of buyers.
80-90% of prostitutes/sex workers globally are female, with an average starting age of 14.⁸⁴
Approximately 99% of forced prostitution or sex trafficking victims are female.⁸¹

These patterns demonstrate that:

Men systematically use violence to establish and maintain dominance—over other men (public violence, gang violence) and over women (intimate partner violence, sexual violence, trafficking).
Women are disproportionately targeted for violence in contexts of control—especially sexual and reproductive control.
The pattern is global and consistent, appearing across all 193 countries measured, all cultures, and all legal systems.

This is not about “men being bad by nature”—it’s about a structural system that allocates to men the role of using force to maintain hierarchies, and positions women as targets of control, particularly regarding sexuality and reproduction. Violence is not peripheral to patriarchy—it is the enforcement mechanism through which male dominance is maintained.

And now onto the backbone that sustains the pay and inheritance disparity, and feeds male violence: girls’ and women’s unpaid labour, or the systematic extraction of unpaid labour from women, which subsidizes the entire economic system while keeping women economically dependent and disadvantaged.

Globally, women spend 2.8 more hours per day than men on unpaid care and domestic work.⁸⁶
By age 29, women do over 3 times more unpaid care work than men: women spend 5.3 hours more per day on unpaid care work in Ethiopia and India, and 4.5 hours more per day in Peru.⁸⁷
Girls aged 17-18 spend an average of 5 hours and 15 minutes per day on unpaid care work—more than double the time spent on homework, and nearly 1 hour more than adult women globally.⁸⁸
When combining paid work + unpaid care work, women do more total work than men in every country measured.⁸⁷

Labour Force Exclusion:⁸⁹

708 million women worldwide are outside the labour force because of unpaid care responsibilities, compared to only 40 million men.
45% of all women outside the labour force cite care responsibilities as the reason, compared to only 5% of men.
This means unpaid care work prevents nearly three-quarters of a billion women from participating in paid employment.

If valued at minimum wage rates, women’s unpaid care work would contribute trillions of dollars annually to the global economy—work that is currently invisible in GDP calculations.⁸⁷ ⁸⁹

The gendered division of unpaid labour is not a natural outcome of preferences—it is a systematic pattern that:

Concentrates wealth in male hands: Men’s work is paid; women’s work is unpaid. This directly creates and maintains the gender wealth gap.⁹⁰ ⁸⁹
Restricts women’s economic independence: 708 million women cannot participate in the paid labour force because they’re doing unpaid care work, making them economically dependent.⁸⁹
Benefits men as a class: Men’s participation in the paid labour force is subsidized by women’s unpaid labour at home (cooking, cleaning, childcare, eldercare).⁸⁷ ⁸⁸
Is enforced through social norms and lack of alternatives: Women don’t “choose” to do 5.3 more hours of unpaid work per day—structural factors (lack of affordable childcare, social expectations, lack of parental leave for men) enforce this division.⁸⁷ ⁸⁸
Research consistently shows that mothers earn lower hourly wages than women without children. Nationally in the United States, employed mothers are paid just 62.5 cents per dollar paid to fathers. Mothers who work full-time year-round earn 71.4 cents per dollar compared to fathers. The motherhood penalty is responsible for nearly 80 percent of the gender pay gap, and each child under five years old is projected to reduce the earnings of a typical mother by 15 percent.⁹¹ (of course, for this society will have to first acknowledge that pregnancy and delivery is labour, parenthood is labour and of this latter form most of the labour is performed by mothers, not fathers).

Crucially, this pattern is consistent across cultures, religions, and economic systems, appearing in rich and poor countries, capitalist and socialist economies, individualist and collectivist cultures. This universality indicates a structural system, not individual choice.

Therefore, if patriarchy is defined as a social structure that perpetuates the dominance of one gender (men) over all others, and if we accept that:

Money is power, and
Power is maintained through violence and the threat of violence, and
Power is born and sustained through the extraction of unpaid labour.

Then the evidence is irrefutable:

We live in a patriarchy because:
Economic Power Is Concentrated in Male Hands.
This Power Is Protected Through Violence.
This power is sustained through systematically devalued and unpaid work done primarily by women, and women do more total work (paid + unpaid) than men in every country measured

These are documented facts from UN agencies, World Bank, WHO, UNODC, and national legal codes—not interpretations or opinions. The patterns are consistent across all 193 countries, all cultures, all legal systems, and all economic levels, from the richest to the poorest.

Empirical Support for Universal Male Benefit
Now back to my scale.

The proposition that all men benefit from patriarchy, regardless of their position on the Finrod-Eöl scale, finds support across feminist scholarship. Studies examining men’s attitudes toward gender equality reveal that men often recognize these benefits. One analysis notes that even men who intellectually support feminism may resist it because “men as a group are removed from their privileged position” under more egalitarian systems, which “does appear to be a net decrease” in their advantages. The research also demonstrates that patriarchy benefits men “more than it harms them,” creating rational incentives for men across the spectrum to maintain the system even when it also imposes costs.⁹² The idea is that masculinity as a whole conspires and works to maintain its empire.

We’re all caterpillars
Now here comes my second theory: all of us live in a cocoon of patriarchy- some of us more sheltered than others, men definitely more advantaged than women, but all of us inside the same social chrysalis.

No one is free.

In her 1993 book The Robber Bride, Margaret Atwood says “You are a woman with a man inside watching a woman. You are your own voyeur”. But I’d like to extend this and say, not even men are free from the male gaze: a Reddit discussion⁹³^{(I’m using Reddit as proof of culture, not as an academic source)}on whether men internalise the male gaze notes that “the idealized gym physique often appeals to men more than to women. The tough, muscular archetype they idolise tends to be more attractive to their male peers”. This observation is supported by research showing that men experience body-objectification, body shame, and self-surveillance when their physical appearance fails to fit unrealistic body ideals.⁹⁴

Men must constantly perform strength, emotional suppression, aggression, competitiveness, and other qualities appreciated by other men, not women, to maintain their position within masculine hierarchies and justify their own masculinity to other men, including, maybe, their own internalised male gaze that tells them what is or isn’t masculine. Even men who occupy the “Finrod” position on the scale remain trapped within these structures, performing “good masculinity” in ways that are still legible within patriarchal frameworks.

The panopticism is real.

Our circus and our monkeys
If we accept that the male gaze entraps everyone—women internalising surveillance from imagined male audiences, men performing for the approval of other men—then we must confront an uncomfortable truth: all of us are living in different layers of patriarchal cocoons. These cocoons are not uniform; they vary by gender, race, class, sexuality, ability, and other intersecting identities. As intersectional feminist theory teaches us, oppression is not “a one-size-fits-all scheme”. Different groups experience oppression differently, and these experiences are compounded by the “interlocking oppressions” of multiple systems of domination: women exist within patriarchal cocoons that constrain their movement, economic participation, self-perception, and bodily autonomy, and men exist within patriarchal cocoons that demand constant performance of masculinity, suppression of vulnerability, and adherence to hierarchical dominance structures. The cocoon that constrains men may offer more privileges and freedoms than those constraining women, but it is a cocoon nonetheless.

These cocoons are further layered by other axes of identity. Dalit women in India face oppression “differently” than upper-caste women, fighting not only sexism but “casteism and fetishisation of minorities”. Muslim women navigate “sexism in their community and outside the community, objectification of their Muslim identity”. Black women in the United States experience discrimination at “the intersection of two aspects of their identity; their race and their gender,” creating “a unique lived experience” that cannot be reduced to the simple addition of racism and sexism. LGBTQ+ individuals face subordination within masculine hierarchies that privilege heterosexuality.

Similarly, a wealthy white “Finrod” benefits far more from the patriarchal dividend than a poor Black “Finrod”, a Dalit man may be subordinated within caste hierarchy but still benefits from patriarchy within his community, and gay men face subordination within traditional heteronormative masculinity hierarchies but may still receive economic benefits if they’re white and middle-class, and certainly they will receive more “blind” privilege (that is, privilege for just being men when those they are interacting with are unaware of their sexual orientation) than women of the same or lower socio-economic classes, and sometimes even in comparison to women of comparatively higher SECs.

All this just means that privilege and disadvantages exist in complex webs of identity: A heterosexual upper-caste man may benefit enormously from patriarchy and caste hierarchy while still being constrained by the demands of his own internalised male gaze. A white feminist woman may fight gender oppression while benefiting from racial privilege that shields her from experiences faced by women of colour. “Privilege and oppression can exist at the same time”, creating what scholars call “intersectional” or “multiply marginalised” positions.

This also means that acknowledging the existence, protection and oppression of this patriarchal cocoon is the first step to liberation: after all, only those who recognise their own entrapment can free themselves of it. The cocoon cannot be pierced unless people can acknowledge it exists at all.

Madonnas and non-madonnas
The Madonna-Whore complex, first formally described by Sigmund Freud (though present in cultural thinking long before), describes a psychological splitting in which women are categorised into two mutually exclusive categories: the Madonna (pure, nurturing, asexual, maternal) and the Whore (sexual, promiscuous, degraded, dangerous). There is no middle ground. A woman cannot be both nurturing and sexual, both respectable and sexually expressive, both Madonna and autonomous agent. She is one or the other, and the split serves patriarchal interests.

So how do these fictional women compare with our fictional men? Well they don’t because first of all there is no scale, and my theory posits a scale. Secondly, and importantly, according to patriarchy women are either inherently Madonnas or Prostitutes, and are characterised so by men themselves based on how men feel about them (ever seen men turn on women they are pursuing and call them either unattractive or whores or both when those women reject sexual advances by these men?) The Finrod-Eöl scale is about male behaviour, not their inherent worth has humans, not their beauty, nor even their availability to female fantasies.

Patriarchy insists on creating splits- you as a person fit either one description, or it’s opposite- a forced bifurcation into nonexistent extremes. The Madonna-Whore split tells women: “You can be respected or sexual, but not both. Choose.” This constrains women’s freedom and keeps them divided (respectable women blame “sluts,” and vice versa). But the Finrod-Eöl scale says you can choose to behave in any way you like, and that behaviour will fall on a spectrum- but still be constrained within the patriarchy unless you work to dismantle it.

Sources (I’ve duplicated one somewhere, cannot find which one, apologies)

Share this:

Share this: