Talk

Advanced search

Kyriarchy?

(131 Posts)
ChristinedePizan Fri 02-Sep-11 21:33:52

I saw this term on a website:[[ http://fuckyeahfeminists.com/]] and it's not something I've come across before. I googled it and didn't feel much the wiser when I got the wiki definition

Anyone feel able to elaborate?

ChristinedePizan Fri 02-Sep-11 21:34:46

Aargh at links not working angry

That's fuckyeahfeminists.com/

LeBOF Fri 02-Sep-11 21:35:40

It's just a way of saying, for instance that a white woman may experience gender oppression yet racial privilege.

ChristinedePizan Fri 02-Sep-11 21:37:27

So strata of oppression?

LeBOF Fri 02-Sep-11 21:38:13

More like intersecting contradictions, I think.

ChristinedePizan Fri 02-Sep-11 21:39:50

Yep, makes sense. Ta smile

DontCallMeFrothyDragon Fri 02-Sep-11 21:47:50

Thanks for the link. Now following them on tumblr. smile

GothAnneGeddes Fri 02-Sep-11 23:25:54

A better link is here, which explains what is is and who invented the term: myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.html

dittany Sat 03-Sep-11 01:41:43

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeBOF Sat 03-Sep-11 10:32:17

Yes, I don't think it's necessary to dump the idea of patriarchy to explore how racism and class affects women's experience of oppression- feminists have been examining these differences since the 1970s at least, without having to throw the baby out of the bathwater.

ChristinedePizan Sat 03-Sep-11 10:36:59

Yes I agree with that. Patriarchy comes first, everything else comes after IMO

LeBOF Sat 03-Sep-11 10:37:59

Oh, and one more thing: when you lose the unifying voice of feminism in order to distil down individual's experiences of oppression (which can include disability and racism, for example), then you tend to get into a fragmentary politics of identity which ultimately pits women against each other and cuts of the possibility of any cohesive action as a group. We have to be able to trust each other to discuss difference while still retaining the capacity to act as a group.

dittany Sat 03-Sep-11 10:38:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany Sat 03-Sep-11 10:42:44

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LRDTheFeministDragon Sat 03-Sep-11 13:03:56

It's a very odd term to use if she wants to reclaim christianity, IMO.

I agree there are inequalities that modify or complicate each other, obviously. But this is a weird way to think about it.

In a Christian context, it would mean 'rule of the (risen) Lord' ... which says nothing about social inequality IMO, and has the disturbing implication (to me, anyway) that the social inequality that exists, is structured like that with to the benefit of the kyrios, or God. Because 'patriarchy' means 'rule by the fathers for their benefit, right?

So I am a bit confused by what the term is really saying.

GothAnneGeddes Sun 04-Sep-11 21:44:07

Dittany - as a feminist who is also a woman of colour, Sudy has every right to prefer a term which to her, better describes the intersecting oppressions she faces. One size fits all feminism, far from being undiluted, is alienating to many women. The power systems in our society do not impact all women equally, kyriarchy is a way of analyzing that.

Also, Dittany, I'm very disappointed that yet again, you're pushing the idea that feminism is only for atheists. Your fingerwagging at someone because they happen to be Christian is sad.

dittany Sun 04-Sep-11 21:46:40

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GothAnneGeddes Sun 04-Sep-11 21:58:36

Kyriarchy is not about obscuring the reality of patriarchy. Iit does not say that patriarchy does not exist, it does not argue that men are not at the top of the tree, what it does do is explain why some men are more powerful then others, why some women are more powerful then others, it's all about the varying axis of oppression and I can see why many women would find that valuable.

LRDTheFeministDragon Sun 04-Sep-11 22:04:18

GothAnn, can you explain a bit more why that term was chosen and what the thinking was? I've googled and so on but all I get is etymology.

I see the sense in talking about intersecting strutures but I agree, spitting at the idea of using the word 'patriarchy' seems (to me) unnecessarily hostile to feminism.

GothAnneGeddes Sun 04-Sep-11 22:20:51

I think she might have been being slightly tongue in cheek there. If you read her blog, she's obviously not hostile to feminism. I don't have lots of links, but certainly it's a term you tend to find more often in blogs by women of colour who are feminists.

dittany Sun 04-Sep-11 22:24:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GothAnneGeddes Sun 04-Sep-11 22:35:12

So? I'm sure there are parts, sects within feminism that you're pretty hostile to. I feel you've seized on one tiny part of her post and used it to completely dismiss what she's saying, rather then actually engaging with her argument and it's an important bloody argument and deserves better then being waved away with a tone argument.

dittany Sun 04-Sep-11 22:49:30

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany Sun 04-Sep-11 22:50:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GothAnneGeddes Mon 05-Sep-11 01:38:10

It's not less accurate to her Dittany, for reasons which are clearly obvious. To her, patriarchy is not as useful a term as kyriarchy because it ignores the other oppressions, e.g racism, that she faces.

You're happy to pick over one sentence in her post, but ignore what she's actually saying. It proves her point, I can see exactly why she choses the term kyriarchy because it's her way of saying this is my reality, these are my issues and you don't get to ignore them in the name of 'purity' or for 'the good of the movement'.

Saying that a woman who is affected by racism and sexism, can only discuss the latter or she's diluting feminism is nonsense, especially when it's put forward by people who do not experience racism themselves. Do you not see the problem with this and with you so casually deeming her viewpoint as "less accurate"? Who exactly is the judge of what's accurate and who gave them that power?

As for "why should I engage her argument, she didn't post it here?", shall we ignore the content of all links posted in this section because they weren't directly written by MN members here?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now