#its the patriarchy

[justabittraumatized]

revelation of the day: women who experienced a prolonged loss of girlhood and had their childhood innocence robbed are often the bitter mothers obsessed with “the feminine” and passing their flawed notion of femininty onto their daughters. this of course also applies to women who were exposed early on to society’s ideas of femininity 

[kvetcher2]

by getting botox and fillers and cosmetic surgeries you are actively participating in making the world a more hostile place for the women who choose not to do those things. you are actively applying pressure on those women. you are creating a world where women who don’t do those things are told they are “aging like milk” because no one knows what a normal, unaltered female face looks like anymore.

[mummer]

rhaenyra outsourcing motherhood to rhaena and assigning her that passive feminine role was REALLY interesting….. rhaenyra as a character is at her most fascinating when she is forced to navigate and ultimately perpetuate the gendered structures she despises and wishes she could transcend— the seeds of her tragedy already sewn here. just great character work

[casualfoxwitch]

guilty

[darklight-owl]

"Mom, why did you give birth to me?" "To survive." how did this exchange come out of a shonen anime. The shonen genre is known for being sexist as Hell how does this one just Get It.

[bardicbird]

personal opinion but thinking about it now. i do also think the Nanami Cow Episode is both like. intentionally silly goofy weird and maybe not as suuuuper deep as some people make it out to be, but there are *some* things i think we can genuinely take from the episode. maybe less as a general statement about patriarchy as a whole and more about the characters (namely, nanami/anthy) and how *they* react to the patriarchal overtones of the setting. does that make sense?

like, i don’t think nanami’s fear over becoming a cow that then gets butchered for meat and eaten by her brother is a statement about how all women feel in society, but instead is very specific to her relationship with touga. she’s afraid that he doesn’t see her as someone special to him, that she won’t always have his affection. if she somehow does something to mess things up (embarrass him, fade into the background, etc) then she becomes inhuman and unimportant—or alternatively, something to be mocked. if she can’t establish herself in a forever Little Sister role, then she becomes yet another woman for touga to consume and forget about. also, she’s like 13 and wants to look cool in something *designer* (status symbol) but unfortunately she’s not very smart lmao.

anthy, as the person who causes the whole cowbell shenanigan, is using her influence over ohtori (and nanami specifically) to assert power in a setting where she is frequently denied agency. she intentionally sets up humiliating scenarios for nanami, probably for equal parts entertainment and resentment. she *cannot* fuck with the men in her life that have hurt her the most and so she goes for the easier target: a girl who reinforces the oppression *anthy* has to go through by slapping her, by trying to publically humiliate her at the dance. both nanami and anthy are girls who objectively get treated like shit by the people they devote themselves to, so a fun little reprieve for them is to hate each other as narrative foils.

that being said i have no fucking clue what’s up with the nanami cow scene in the movie.

[comeplaym3]

its crazy how if a guy just keeps giving simple tasks a dumb slut just ends up becoming his servant

[genderkoolaid]

really like viewing anti transmasculinity through the lens of consumability. because ive seen so often things be framed as "transmasculinity isn't as interrogated because masculinity isn't as scrutinized" but I think it's much better to view it as transmasculinity being unpalatable to transphobic misogyny. like part of how the patriarchy constructs womanhood is that it is inherently desirable in the sense that women Must be something to be consumed. any part of woman(-ified people) that isn't palatable (body hair, bodily functions) is erased.

[3liza]

I think it must be for the lack of going outside of your room on this website that debates about personal presentation and appearance literally never have any material analysis. sorry it's counterrevolutionary to shave my legs or wear makeup or a bra or style my hair in certain ways or "worry" about visible signs of aging but have some of you just never encountered real world situations where those things caused measurable problems dealing with other people, jobs, money, respectability, access to resources, or the ability to influence important situations? this starts happening when you go outside a lot. there's a debate on my dash rn about balding and finasteride in which not a single person has mentioned the potential negative social outcomes of losing your hair and how that can affect socioeconomic status and personal risk. maybe someone doesn't need to be "vain" to care about keeping their hair and consider the risks of medication for it. maybe they've seen how bald people get treated and referred to and made a cost benefit calculation that they can't afford, sometimes literally, to eat that cost, with everything else they've got going on. maybe I wear makeup when I have to go talk to doctors and other gatekeepers because people make assumptions about your class and mental status when you have "bad skin" and "eye bags". maybe a lot of women who wear uncomfortable restrictive bras and shave whatever and buy skin products and do gua sha have already been sharply punished when someone saw leg hair or a mustache or puffy greasy skin or god forbid their nipple through their shirt. not everyone can just say "fuck it, I can afford to eat one more social cost that will measurably impact my ability to get medical treatment or pay rent". sorry this sounds like an economics lecture, that's because it is

if you are about to tell me a long story about how you personally have not been affected by perceptions of your appearance actually so you can conclude it never happens at all, please don't. sometimes you get lucky, that's it. and on this website I think it's less likely that you're lucky and more likely that you're oblivious

[casualfoxwitch]

[nomsfaultau]

The Lambs Wolves Wear!Philza and Gendered Horror

This is an essay detailing my thoughts on gendered horror in my fic The Lambs Wolves Wear, wherein Philza’s children are replaced by monsters and he’s forced to maintain the mask of a family to survive. And I’d just like to put a disclaimer for tumblr “reading comprehension” dot com that I’m not a raging misogynist that believes men and women are separate species with no experience overlap, but instead observing societal expectations.

Gendered horror is about who is allowed to experience fear. The archetypical example being a final girl, as women are allowed to be emotional and scared and crying when being murdered, but men are often not afforded that. Because of societal pressure to repress their emotions, men are allowed fear but not allowed to show it. Furthermore, gendered horror is about what types of fears are narratively allowed to be done to different genders. This is blatant in topics like sexual violence, but it goes far deeper into the themes horror explored through different genders. Thus, I see merit in examining the types of horror Philza experiences in The Lambs Wolves Wear through a gendered lens, particularly as it pertains to his role as a father. This essay is going to be centered on the traditional Western paradigm of fathers as bread winners/protectors and mothers as nurturers/homekeepers, and how that pertains to gendered horror.

At the start of the story, Philza does not fall cleanly into the false societal dichotomy of father/mother roles. He can’t, given his status as a single parent, forced to provide both physically and emotionally, and excelling at both. Thus, he is in a position to explore horror from both the roles of father and mother within their societal archetypes.

Philza’s story is about the horror of failing to be a father.

Imbedded within the very premise of The Lambs Wolves Wear is Philza’s failure as a father to protect his family from external threats. He has already lost. He could not prevent his children from being taken, either through violence or threat thereof. Finding himself within the archetype of a vengeance hero with a classic slaughtered family, Philza naturally seeks violent retribution as is expected of him. However, it is not something he can deliver. Every second is a constant pounding reminder that he’s both too weak to protect his family and too weak to avenge them. Even worse, as time goes on he finds it increasingly difficult to even want to fulfill this expected violence in a deep betrayal of his missive to protect. Not only is he physically weak, but morally so as well. It’s an incredibly emasculating experience for him.

Second, as the damage the monsters inflict mounts, Philza loses the ability to provide sustenance to his family due to the razed cropland and slaughtered livestock. He is cut off from his work and left without a way to fulfill his family’s needs. This represents a second failure in protecting his family, albeit from a non physical threat. This aspect of fatherhood he weaponizes against the monsters, admitting his insecurities to manipulate them. It is the only grief that Philza is actually allowed to express, becoming an outlet for some of his fear. But not much, because men are expected to be unwavering and shoulder the responsibility without appearing weak. As a father he is not meant to be scared. But Philza spends the entire story so deeply, harrowingly afraid. This is the only place he succeeds as a father, in suppressing his emotions so others don’t know how badly he’s doing.

Still, Philza ultimately fails his duties as a father, unable to provide safety, physical needs, or vengeance.

Philza’s story is about the horror of being a mother.

First, establishing he fills an archetypal female role. While Philza outwardly suppresses emotional displays of fear as is expected from him, as the reader we’re privy to his harrowing terror and imposing sense of helplessness, which means from a narrative standpoint he’s still failing to hide his emotions. This emotional vulnerability is more permitted with women. Next put a check mark next to physical weakness compared to giant hellbeasts and undead armies. While male weakness compared to a foe is often explored given the aforementioned duties of protection, as a man Philza is still expected to try to fight back. He doesn’t. This emphasizes his powerlessness. And lastly, he is expected to preform massive amounts of emotional labor and other duties associated with motherhood. So, he is well positioned to explore certain (societal) aspects of female horror (though obviously not all).

The sole thing Philza can provide is emotional comfort, which falls within the traditional motherly role of nurturer. It becomes his only use, stripped of independence from the loss of his livelihood and the strict expectation that he will be a good parent (or else). He is put on a pedestal, expected to have no flaws, to never get angry or frustrated or overwhelmed, to have desires or ambitions outside of a motherly role. The wants of his “children” always comes first, even when it’s destroying him by violating what he needs. His only use is as a mother, and so he must be a perfect one or die. This aligns heavily with classic females roles in fiction (Being thus: Mother, damsel, whore, witch). Mothers in fiction are typically defined exclusively by what they provide for their far more important children, or what they fail to provide through their death. They are not people outside of their defined role. Philza is allowed no identity outside of nurturer.

Where once Philza had a role as a breadwinner, he is quickly stripped of that work, his domain becoming the household. He cannot leave, because why would he need to? That would get in the way of always being present and emotionally available to help his “children”. This cuts Philza off both from his community and from independence, as he is now reliant on the “children” to bring in food and water. Furthermore, the “children” are questionable providers yet Philza doesn’t have any other means of securing resources. This reflects the financial dependence that many women have been trapped in due to societal constraints limiting/forbidding jobs, bank accounts, being single/familyless. With no other option of survival, Philza has to pretend to be in love or be destitute (or murdered). The domestic abuse he experiences is endured because he is utterly dependent on the “people” abusing him, much like many, many, many women. And even should he escape, Philza was a subsistence farmer dependent upon his land, now the territory of the “children”. Razed as it is, it’s still the only means of survival he knew before he was forced to become a stay at home dad. So he stays. Home is a prison, but it is the only way he can survive.

Philza is forced to be responsible for the emotional state of others at the cost of his own mental health, and is expected to be perfect and exclusively dedicated to nurturing. He is controlled through dependence, isolation, the thin veneer of a family unit, and physical intimidation/abuse, which are themes deeply related to the horror of motherhood.

Closing thoughts:

In general media, there is a trend I’ve noticed in one gender adopting the role of another, specifically not in a trans context. A woman adopting a man’s role is empowerment. This is the marvel action girl heroes, the girlbosses, the ‘I learned to fight from my brothers’. But a man adopting a woman’s role is horror. It is the fear of the oppressor that they could be oppressed. Male horror is becoming dependent, the assumption dependence is inherently horrific because it can be abused so readily. And so in male horror, being a final girl is not just the horror of the experience, but of physical and EMOTIONAL weakness. Becoming a final girl -becoming a girl- is an unimaginable horror. If and only if you define womanhood as weak, crying, fragile, dependent, and identity-less outside their singular archetypal role.

The Lambs the Wolves Wear concerns itself with exploring those power inversions, a parent being abused by children, a father discovering the horror of motherhood. And. Well obviously I’m trans, so the message isn’t preventing said gender role transitions (well perhaps dismantling the roles into something healthy each individual decides but! Not the essay for that!). Similarly, children become caretakers for their elderly parents, or become parents themselves. It is a hierarchy that already naturally subverts itself. The horror is not from change, it is from power and lack thereof.

Crucially, as Philza desperately reaches for the vengeance hero archetype, we will likewise explore the horror of trying to maintain the man>woman and parent>child power hierarchy/expectations. The question becomes not forbidding these dynamic shifts, but how to facilitate them. How to REMOVE the horror, remove the abuse of said power dynamics both in their status quo and in their subversions.

So yeah. the gendered horror of Philza Minecraft, everyone.

[gh0st-patr0l]

The build for this AR Nick match is deeply funny btw. Like AR is supposed to be the face and Nick is the heel. And like yes Nick is a bitch and a brat rn hes Obviously a heel just in general. But like. AR Fox DID break into his dead father's wrestling school and beat him until he was lying in a pool of his own blood. And carry around the tanktop he wore that was stained with Nick's blood for weeks afterwards. That DID happen like we all remember that right. And to be quite honest? I think I'd stay mad abt that for a little while too

[liquidstar]

maybe im overthinking, but do you ever think abt how in episode 1, utena justifies wearing the boys uniform by saying its not against the rules? while this was clearly a "gotcha" moment against that stuffy teacher, i feel like it also shows how shes still functioning within the parameters of the ohtori system. like, yeah, shes being rebellious, but its a form of rebellion that isnt actually revolutionary- shes still following the rules propagating the structure built around the patriarchal prince, shes just doing it in the "opposite" way of whats expected, but shes not actually fighting it. though, of course, even this much deviance still tries to get corrected... its still not against the rules. i feel like from the beginning we're told aspiring to princedom isn't a noble goal, and that utena is still part of the system as long as she pursues it

[serpentface]

What's the Wardi cultural take on Akoshos sleeping with/partnering with/marrying other Akoshos?

It's not highly regulated to a degree that there are overwhelming cultural norms about it. There's a lot of societal focus on akoshos being theoretically suitable sexual partners for both men and women due to being dual-gendered, but not to an extent that relationships with One Another are stigmatized.

They also largely get to escape from the most severe concerns about penetrator/penetrated power dynamics because they're not regarded as Men (they're regarded as dual-gendered, and they're a female social class on every practical level), there's no status of manhood to Lose by receiving sexual penetration. The only real thing you see in that department is people assuming that one acts as 'the man' and one acts as 'the woman', but this is largely due to preoccupation with a notion of sex being Penetration With A Penis (and that Penetration With A Penis means that one person is in a Man's Role and one person is in a Woman's Role). But this will not be regarded as unnatural as in same-gender male relations, akoshos will Have to take up a position in this sexual dichotomy if they want to have Real Sex (Penetration With A Penis) with each other, and this is not unnatural and doesn't involve gaining or losing status since they are simultaneously male and female, not men.

So like you might see individual culture critics finding stuff to nitpick about it as their annoyance of the week or a singular Guy here or there who thinks it's weird, but this isn't a widespread norm. The vast majority of people don't give a shit about akoshos having sex with each other. The worst thing you're likely to experience Solely by virtue of being in an akoshos-akoshos relationship is someone asking you (probably with genuine curiosity) which one does the man stuff and which one does the woman stuff.

Akoshos also don't experience Hard expectations for marriage (though there are societal pressures that make marriage an attractive safety net all the same, ESPECIALLY marriage to a man) so unofficial life-partnerships between akoshos are pretty much the Only same gender partnerships between unwed people that are going to go unquestioned. ((Sworn brotherhood is technically a same gender life partnership for men that is Functionally similar to marriage (in that it's a kin-making practice between unrelated adults), but the tradition is Built upon the assumption that both parties will be married to women and that a primary goal of this kinship is to provide security for both parties' wives and children)). Marriage obligations in general are more lax in the economically secure but not Wealthy lower mercantile classes (as obligations to support and perpetuate one's family are universal, but these obligations can be filled simply by having at least One son who can get hitched, and marriages in the lower classes have no political functions and therefore there's less reason to ensure All your children are wed (there's still incentives like dowry, but this is not desperately needed when a family is economically secure)). So akoshos in this class group tend to have a Lot more freedom in terms of their life arrangements and chosen partners (though still experience the limiting frameworks of structural misogyny in other capacities).

The only thing that is out of the picture is akoshos/akoshos marriage. Marriage in this society has a predominantly reproductive function, the concept of reproductively non-viable marriages is generally considered absurd. This is not JUST this culture's form of homophobia, as marriage is a very practical arrangement at its core - both in a reproductive capacity and as bedrock for the patriarchal blood-kinship family system that forms the core social unit. The idea of same gender marriage isn't just absurd because 'ewwww weird' it's like, that Cannot work within this system, it Cannot fill core functions of what a marriage intends to do here, the ways on which marriage and kinship are BUILT makes same gender marriage practically (rather than just socially) untenable.

The sole exception to the 'marriage = reproductively viable" rule is that akoshos can be married to men (which in practice is almost always as a remarriage after a man has secured At Least an heir). This has a Little bit of internal logic here in that they perform predominantly female social roles (thus are suited to being a wife, even if they can't bear children) (and also on practical levels of them having the same legal status as women) but it's really more of a 'this is just how it's always been' kind of thing. A lot of the older pre-Wardi identity dual-gender roles that got mashed together under the 'akoshos' name would have involved marriage to a man as a second wife/concubine, in addition to his primary wife who would bear his children. Men potentially having multiple spouses has not been retained as a cultural practice, but the notion that an akoshos Can be a wife to a man has survived into modern day legal and doctrinal practices around marriage.

So like this being said, marriage as it is legally defined is only between a man and a woman, a man and an akoshos, or a woman and an akoshos. In practice the latter two are comparatively VERY rare- a man/akoshos marriage cannot provide children (though an akoshos can practically fulfill all other obligations and duties of a wife), a woman/akoshos marriage Can provide children (and while akoshos cannot function as a male heir, these children Will take their akoshos-parent's family name (though the wife retains her father's family name)), but akoshos are legally grouped with women in terms of rights and privileges (including being permanently under legal domain of their father unless they have been legally handed off to a male husband) and Cannot provide hard power patriarchal support that this family system is built upon and therefore depends upon, which makes these marriages socio-economically insecure. They can obviously still be a good partner and parent, but this is not the same as having the Legal hard power of a patriarch.

Akoshos marrying each other would be reproductively and socially nonviable, and is treated as a similarly absurd concept to a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman. It's just not a part of the marriage and kinship framework, it's not a thing that you can Do.

[opalsiren]

'sabrina carpenter is soooo male gaze-y' okay name one female public figure who doesn't have to cater to the male gaze, at least to some extent, in order to maintain their position in the public eye. if you don't like her make-up or costumes that's fine but don't act like it's some salient feminist critique to say wearing lingerie makes you an instrument of patriarchy when every single female popstar has to conform to a certain standard of femininity to reach acclaim. there is certainly room for a convo about why we only listen to music and watch films when the women creatives involved have flawlessly styled hair and a full face of make-up and impracticable clothes on 25/8, and how these standards implicate women in general. but critiquing this one single individual woman for being an arbiter of patriarchy smacks of weirdness. like just say you don't like her hair and go we don't need to act like sabrina carpenter herself invented patriarchy

[lilietsblog]

the patriarch

So I saw on my dashboard a question someone asked someone else along the lines of "who is patriarchy? who is doing the oppression"?

The answer was basically "patriarchy is not a who", which is of course semantically correct, but. Yeah there is actually a "who" figure involved! The person noun patriarchy is derived from or derives from itself: The Patriarch, literally "the father who rules". I'm sure this word is familiar to most of the audience, though I've seen "matriarch" come up more, recently, Encanto and all. That means "the mother who rules", and it's actually a very simple riff on the same basic patriarchal concept, though I'll get to it. Who is the patriarch?

Let's start from the top: the ultimate patriarch is, of course, the Christian God, our Father who is in Heaven*. He's in charge of the universe because he made it, and he's the ultimate moral authority. He decides what's good and what's bad, what's right and what's wrong. Disagreeing with him is heresy; saying mean things about him is blasphemy; holding someone else as a greater authority is idolatry. All of these things are bad, not because of some consequence they have, but definitionally, in themselves. Obeying God is what "good" means, disobeying God is what "bad" means. When you're Christian, you argue about other things being good or bad on the basis of whether you think they go against the God's plan or are an indelible part of it. It's not up to real discussion whether or not God's plan is good, like you can discuss why some parts of it suck, but all of it comes with the understanding that the fundamental axiom is that the plan is good, it's what good is.

*obviously other cultures with other gods exist, but I'm not familiar enough to weigh in, so let's just take this as an example, ok?

The next level down we have the Divine Right of Kings. A king is in charge because God said so; authority flows top down. A king being in charge is definitionally good, disobeying the king is definitionally bad. An usurper or pretender to the throne is bad not because of what they did in the process or once they have power, they're bad because they're defying the order of the rightful king being in charge, which is again definitionally bad, in itself. Restoring the rightful heir to the throne is definitionally good and doesn't require any justification, it's right there in the word "rightful". It's just right.

(I am skipping, like, the church hierarchy, the noble hierarchy, all that good stuff, because they are basically more of the above echoed further down, not a separate thing to look at)

Then we have the original in terms of human history, the most fundamental unit: Family. Patriarch means the Father who rules, and if there's any justification behind God being in charge, it's that he's all of our father: and so, the father rules definitionally. "Head of the household" has historically been a legal concept: there's one person that the rest of the household belongs to, literally as his property that he can do with as he sees fit. Slaves have historically (occasionally?) been counted as part of the family, because they also belong to the head of the household, and while there's legal distinctions in what kind of property they are, it's still really under the same umbrella. This is why there's a group of conservatives absolutely incensed about the idea of a wife voting differently than her husband in secret: under patriarchy, a wife is not a separate legal entity who belongs to herself, she's beholden to the head of the household, and if she has things of her own that's his wealth, extended.

Note that in a family, the patriarch isn't every guy. Each household has one head, no matter how many people are living together. The oldest living man of the seniormost generation, occasionally delegating to the next seniormost guy (his brother or son or son-in-law) if he's incapable or doesn't want to deal with it - but ultimately still holding the cultural + legal authority to contradict and punish this second guy if he's not living up to expectations.

You get to be a patriarch when all of the elder generation dies, or when you move out and start your own household - though depending on how far away you've moved and the exact influence/wealth/title dynamic you might still be ultimately beholden to the patriarch-er patriarch, in much the same way kings are beholden to god. The patriarch-er patriarch isn't really supposed to interfere with what's yours to be patriarch over, but he can absolutely order YOU around, and of course he can interfere with whatever he wants if he's really cross with you.

If you're a younger brother, a son, or god forbid something like a nephew, you're not a patriarch. You're a minion. You're a minion who will one day probably be a patriarch in his own right, which puts you in a different position than the women of the household, but this doesn't put you in charge except insofar as the actual patriarch authorizes.

Hey, remember when I mentioned slaves? There's yet another patriarchy-derived fundamental unit: the workplace. See, "companies" and "legal entities" and "corporations" are actually fairly new as a concept, historically speaking. In a more traditional view, any sort of business is associated with one specific household and one specific person who's in charge of that household, aka, one of the patriarchs I'd already brought up. The business and the family are not fundamentally distinct: sure they strictly speaking are, but your apprentice depending on the culture might literally be considered one of your children / a sibling to your children (Ace Attorney fans, shoutout to the von Karma family, hey!), and you probably want to marry them (him) to your daughter to secure the connection. Anyone who's working for you, be they a maid cleaning your floors or a hired worker striking metal in your forge, are subordinate to the same you the patriarch. If your son has his own independent business, that means he's moved out - if he has one while still in, that's something under your authority that you're just graciously allowing him to handle. The boss and the head of the family are the same concept.

(Meaning, once again, that "the patriarch" is not every man working in the place, but the one very specific guy, even if they might be patriarchs of their own families outside of the workplace)

(And then we have the concept of serfdom, where the boss owns you and your family actually in a literal way, with variedly little distinction from slavery proper. I'm sure you can follow the patterns)

Where does the matriarch all come into this? Well, patriarchy involves choosing who rules based on two criteria: gender, and generational seniority. And sometimes the two come into conflict! If there's a mother and a young son, of course the mother is in charge. If there's a mother and adult daughters, of course the mother is in charge. What if there's a mother and an adult son, what then? Well, that's going to depend on the legal system of wherever this situation is taking place, but culturally, this is going to hugely depend on the personalities involved. A sufficiently bossy woman who doesn't have a husband or father to override her decisions with the cultural authority of the actual patriarch (even if he's cowed and emotionally abused and under her heel, if there's a conflict the rest of the family is going to recognize his authority to override her on a technical level) - a sufficiently bossy woman who doesn't have a man to override her becomes a matriarch.

A matriarch still benefits from the fundamental ideas of patriarchy: it's wrong to contradict her because it's wrong, definitionally. Creating you / being your parent means having a legal and ethical right to you. If you're a serf or a slave or a hired worker, you belong to her household and she has a mother's authority over you to whatever degree you fail to hold on to your boundaries or to whatever degree she's actually legally entitled to it. Depending on the exact culture and time period involved, the legal system may well privilege the matriarch to the same degree as the patriarch, in absence of an actual local patriarch to hold the authority. The only truly independent woman is a widow, I'm sure you've gotten some cultural echoes of this over your life.

And depending on the exact patriarchal culture, it might well be possible for a woman to be culturally recognized as the head of a particular household even while married. Some cultures' patriarchy is more weakly gendered, and is more about the core concept: parents rule. Someone is fundamentally, definitionally in charge, and gets to decide what is good and what is bad for those in their authority. Going against them is definitionally wrong. They are entitled to you and everything you own.

(Ukraine, both modern and historically, as far as I know, has this more weakly gendered version. It's just as wrong to go against your mother as against your father. A woman beating her husband with a cast iron pan or rolling pin because he's drinking is a core cultural image, and not portrayed as necessarily wrong - it's more of a comedic image, which ties back into sexism and "women can't hurt men meaningfully", because while sexism and patriarchy are closely related they are ultimately two different things about two different questions: sexism asks "what are men and women's differences" while patriarchy asks "so who's in charge here". A woman may well be in charge here; a large, muscled, tall woman who is physically stronger than her husband is a reasonably accepted idea. This actually boils back over into sexism and invisible household work: a woman in charge of the household holds a job (thanks soviet union) AND cooks, cleans, handles finances etc (thanks soviet union's fundametal failure to dismantle the concept of family and handle everything communally instead, because that's not how humans work no matter what communism as a philosophy says) (seriously, they tried, there are apartment houses to this day where the kitchen is combined with the bathroom in the floor plan because nobody's supposed to cook at home, you eat at work / in the age-appropriate looking-after-children institution) and yes of course she's the ultimate authority over the household. Russian and Ukrainian have two gendered versions of the word meaning "master / host / owner", male and female, where both have give-or-take equivalent authority over household matters. It's complicated and really interesting in a comparative analysis to US's culture)

tl;dr, the intended takeaway: under patriarchy principles, not all men get to be patriarchs.

(This is why "men are also oppressed under patriarchy" is fundamentally true, not as some sort of weird exception or unintended blowback. Patriarchy is the older generation having morally fundamental, unquestionable authority over the younger generation. That's not gendered, just the exact consequences are)