So What is the Patriarchy Anyway?

I have to say there is one thing I didn't particularly like about the readings for this week. This "thing" is that these articles open up whole other cans of worms than what we, as a class focusing specifically on authorship, are able to deal with.

There are so many side issues dealing with, for example, what exactly is feminism? why does it exist? what about the continuing issues of racism as a hegemonic imbalance of power, as Bell Hooks deals with? I find it problematic that (despite the fact that I, as someone who personally finds these issues relevant and therefore has some background in these things) we're given these readings and left to just take at the author's word that these issues are real, and exist exactly as they are described.

Both authors talk about the importance of being considered in the wider culture as a specific individual with specific things to contribute, and with such a perspective to consider, we as readers must also consider that what these authors are expressing might be something that they express and contribute as individuals, but that they cannot speak for everyone who feels oppression under the system of white, patriarchal hegemony that they both cite.

I realize that this is something we can't afford to rectify given the focus of our class, but it bothers me that we are trying to address these issues of oppression without first ensuring that everyone is on roughly the same page in terms of what is broadly considered characteristics of the oppression being discussed. I think that this fact might be part of the reason that so many people have had trouble understanding the Marchessault.