Recognition that the styles exist, that they have (whether they ought to or not, and whether also on some more fundamental level than culture or not) a cultural association with gender, and that the style associated with the feminine gender has in patriarchal societies been devalued -- even to the extent of being treated as invalid and unworthy of consideration -- is both progressive and, if not empowering in and of itself, a fairly important foundation for empowerment.
> That very idea is the most profound, insidious form of patriarchy there is. Think about it.
No, its not, and, you know, its pretty ridiculous to make that claim in a venue where the original text is accessible, so that it is obvious the way that you had to deliberately ignore the whole preceding and following parts of the sentence to even make the attack on the phrase you excerpt taken out of context remotely plausible.
Recognizing that patriarchy exists, and that certain associations exist in the context of patriarchy is not, itself, patriarchal.
Relax. I'm just trying to encourage you to think about your deeply held assumption, since you seem to care about women.
And no, I am not "deliberately ignor[ing]" nor taking out of context anything. Don't assume malice where simple disagreement may suffice.
I'm just claiming that the very idea that "[gender-associated] styles exist" is the most profound, insidious form of patriarchy there is. The rest of your qualifiers (viz. independence of whether or not they are cultural, or normative, and so forth) are immaterial: I'm claiming the very premise you start with is incredibly damaging, in profound and insidious ways.
Again, I invite you to think about it. Read Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer, but substitute the ζωή-βίος rift with a ζωή-ζωή (or βίος-βίος) rift. And see where that leads you.
> I'm just trying to encourage you to think about your deeply held assumption
What assumption are you talking about?
> I'm just claiming that the very idea that "[gender-associated] styles exist" is the most profound, insidious form of patriarchy there is.
The fact that they exist is certainly an aspect of patriarchy. The idea -- which is a necessary prerequisite to the ability to recognize, discuss, and alter the fact -- is not a form of patriarchy, on the contrary, the absence of the idea in presence of the fact would be make patriarchy unassailable.
> Again, I invite you to think about it.
I invite you to stop assuming that I haven't thought about this issue, quite deeply, for several decades.
I'm still not sure I understand your objection. Is it specifically to the phrasing that "gender-associated styles exist"?
How about the alternate phrasing of "Patriarchal society has historically associated styles with gender, devalued those styles typically associated with women, and used this as a tool to reinforce patriarchy" ... is that equally objectionable?
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the categories we put on "styles" are constructed, but not sure that for me it follows that they don't "exist". For example after I shared this discussion with a friend, we talked about how the "wall of text" of Hacker News' UX was jarring to them and they much preferred a Pinterest-style UX, while I like the information density of HN (and Slashdot, and lobste.rs, and Reddit, and ...). To me it seems like this difference in our preferences certainly exists; and it feels like "style" is an okay word for it. Although of course "style" is usually thought of as generalized, which can be problematic.
So, I'll think more about it ... My initial reaction is that like gender (which I also see as constructed) it's still a useful concept, although you have to be careful with it, but like I say, worth pondering.
So, yes.