I find it interesting that it is framed as a “right” to hold people responsible. Outside of politics (where it means “I said a thing, vote for me”), “holding people responsible” typically means punishing them for the behavior they’ve exhibited. Perhaps this is the utilitarian in me, but punishment is only good in so far as it leads to good – nobody ever has a right to punish people but there may be situations where fear of punishment, despite being bad in and of itself, leads to good things down the line as people avoid bad behavior to avoid punishment.
(I should add here that punishment needs not mean “jail” but can be as simple as “I think you’re a dick and don’t want to be around you when you use that kind of language.”)
as you increase the coercive force of patriarchy you ipso facto lose the right to hold people morally culpable for their actions within it.
I mean, stability v. instability is a really good way to start getting at an ethical system in a deterministic world that’ll align with at least a broad swath of our moral intuitions. But I am not, presently, a person who believes we live in a deterministic world so I’m not really in the market for an ethical system that allows us to stop worrying about whether an actor “chose” do act.
Admittedly, I’m just a person whose current preference for non-determinism is largely built on a foundation of “I have no idea how to convince myself that what appears to be choice is merely an anthropogenic illusion of choice” so I’m at a pretty 101 level on that topic.
as you increase the coercive force of patriarchy you ipso facto lose the ability to modify people’s behavior through fear of punishment, because they already fear being punished by the patriarchy
And it checks out: If somebody is “being a dick” because they fear that the alternative is that the patriarchy runs them over, telling people to stop being dicks becomes less effective.