Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

I don't get 'The Patriarchy'

492 replies

Himalaya · 29/03/2011 18:07

I am your basic feminist, in the equal pay, equal rights sense, but not in the sense that I've read a lot of feminist theory (ok, I'll admit it, hardly any)

Quite often on these threads I read about 'The Patriarchy' as an explanation for unequal treatment of women and attitudes towards gender, and I just don't get it...

It seems to indicate that men as a group (all over the world, and throughout history?) have acted together with the intention of surpressing women - la conspiricy theory rather than consideration of underlying factors like biology (the 'genes eye' view of unequal costs and benefits of 'investment' in offspring by men and women) and the impact of class and economics etc...

But maybe I'm reading it wrong?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
garlicbutter · 18/04/2011 11:26

sorry, forgot to linkify the urls

garlicbutter · 18/04/2011 11:26

Well, there's this:
blogs.forbes.com/jennagoudreau/2011/03/14/jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men/

Then there's this:
blogs.forbes.com/womensmedia/2011/04/12/beware-those-who-blame-womens-choices-for-gender-pay-gap/

The statement Bonsoir refers to was widely publicised along with a British finding that women under 24 were earning more than men of the same age & education.

However, both conclusions were reached through journalistic extrapolation of anomalies (the data were true among very limited populations). I'm another Economist reader, but I always read the retractions and corrections before quoting it!

Bonsoir · 18/04/2011 11:17

I'm offering you the chance to do some modern and fact-based reading about gender difference in the world today (rather than reading outdated texts). Which I thought you might enjoy! Up to you whether you follow up suggestions, of course.

HerBEggs · 18/04/2011 11:14

You can quote the Economist if you like Bonsoir, but you haven't actually answered the question. The Economist isn't a bible and you haven't provided any evidence which it might have cited.

Bonsoir · 18/04/2011 10:16

There was good coverage in the media a little while back - I read it in The Economist, so you can look it up for yourself if you like. Or, even better, perhaps read The Economist for yourself regularly, as it covers modern gender issues very well, across the subject spectrum.

HerBEggs · 18/04/2011 08:57

Up until what age? Source please.

Bonsoir · 18/04/2011 07:11

"you are ignoring the fact that even if they take no time out at all, because they don't have children, theystill get paid less than men do on average."

In the US, among university graduates, the reverse is true: the highest earners are childless women, higher than fathers, mothers and childless men.

HerBEggs · 17/04/2011 23:55

"Why does it need an extra bit of theory labeled 'patriarchy' to explain why employers will pay less because they can for jobs that are convenient for people with family responsibilities"

You need to look at why we have set up the whole system of work which involves overwhelmingly women being the ones who have family responsibilities, rather than both women and men who have family responsibilities and why the structure of the workplace still assumes that the person working there, will have a wife at home.

"...but will pay more if they have to to get people to do jobs that are a pain in the arse like shift work"... what, like nurses and cleaners do?

"or why someone who takes multiple parental leaves/career breaks will build up their skills, contacts and earning power more slowly than someone who takes fewer/less time off."

You talk as if women have ten children and take multiple maternity breaks. Most take one, two or three at most. The speed at which they build up their skills and contacts is not so slowed donw, that their earning power should be quite as slowed down as it is. You also ignore the fact that men who take career breaks, do not suffer the same hit to their career as women who do, even if they take longer out of the workplace. Women are disproportionately penalised for taking time out of the workplace and you are ignoring the fact that even if they take no time out at all, because they don't have children, theystill get paid less than men do on average.

"It is basic supply and demand" What is?

Original poster
Himalaya · 17/04/2011 17:01

Herbex -

As I keep saying, everything is rooted in something natural. It is not insane that economies don't reward people for looking after their own families, it is just what happens when people trade with other people for mutual benefit.
That is how economies work - jobs are where you are paid to do things that benefit other people who you don't know (i.e. not your family), at some inconvenience to yourself (and the things you might be doing for your family instead).

Why does it need an extra bit of theory labeled 'patriarchy' to explain why employers will pay less because they can for jobs that are convenient for people with family responsibilities and therefore popular and easier to recruit for, but will pay more if they have to to get people to do jobs that are a pain in the arse like shift work, international travel, working on an oil rig, risky investment in training etc...or why someone who takes multiple parental leaves/career breaks will build up their skills, contacts and earning power more slowly than someone who takes fewer/less time off. It is basic supply and demand.

Which is not to say there isn't also sexism, closed shops, discrimination as well. But I think it is worth giving a shit which is which, understanding why systems have developed in the way they have, to make changes where they are needed (and understand that there are costs involved, and someone has to pay them).

OP posts:
HerBEggs · 17/04/2011 15:47

"There would also be a pay gap between people who don't have children, people who have them but prioritise their careers"

You actually can't imagine a society where having children isn't penalised with economic hardship can you?

How insane is it, that the production of the next generation, results in financial and social penalty instead of reward? How can you possibly think that is rooted in something natural? It is the least logical response to the production of young, that I can think of.

And d'you know what, who gives a shit if it's all natural or not. So what. It actually doesn't matter. What matters, is that we reconstruct society so that both halves of humanity can function as fully in it as possible.

Xenia · 17/04/2011 15:38

Most feminists want to root out injustice against anyone including men. Men should have their chance to clean the loos and hold babies screaming all night and that there be no assumption they don't get the right to stay home

Original poster
Himalaya · 17/04/2011 14:22

Herbex -

But it might well be that sexual jealousy, and the urge for males to control the reproduction of women is an inbuilt thing - linked to the almost unique human oddities of concealed ovulation and long, dependent childhoods -- and that is the common strand across the two examples you give.

As you say it is the mentality, not the right, that underlies the behavior.

There is no conflict between wanting to change the behaviour by educating people to understand that no one has the right to beat anyone else up (let alone kill them) and making sure that there are laws and protections to prevent them, and at the same time recognizing that the underlying mentality has some biological basis.

It is like recognizing that the human appetite for eating sweet and fatty foods was adaptive in the environment that we evolved in, but is now killing us.

OP posts:
Bonsoir · 17/04/2011 14:15

"If the UK was not a patriarchy, there would be no pay gap, women would be equally represented in parliament and there would be no rape, pornography and prostitution."

Ah, I understand: you attribute to "the patriarchy" any perceived injustice against women.

Do you think that there are no injustices perpetrated against men, by women? Do you believe that there is a perfect political and economic model where no exploitation of anyone ever happens?

Original poster
Himalaya · 17/04/2011 14:04

Beachcomber,

Thanks for your response - I guess the difference is in talking about the 'concept' of patriarchy and the mechanisms. Moral concepts such as 'injustice' are important. But fixing injustice means understanding the mechanisms by which it arises.

Concepts can sometimes be linguistic grab-bags that coral together a lot of different strands and prevent the mechanisms behind them being unpicked, understood and addressed.

Patriarchy/anti-patriarchy seems to be trying to do both jobs as a moral concept (which I get) and as an explanation of mechanisms (where I think it is weak) ....As you say what is termed 'the patriarchy' manifests in a multitude of ways through a multitude of mechanisms. It is also intertwined with political systems and religion so it is not one thing but the outcome of many.

For example, you say that if the UK was not a patriarchy, there would be no pay gap, and there would be no rape, pornography and prostitution.It seems to me that in the most absolutely minimal society you could imagine there would be rape (just as there would be murder and theft - because there will always be bad and/or desperate people) and there would be pornography and prostitution because someone would figure out that you could make money from them. These things happen in the absence of societal controls, not because of them.

There would also be a pay gap between people who don't have children, people who have them but prioritise their careers and people who take long career breaks and/or limit their hours, mobility, risk taking etc..because of family commitments. Just saying 'its patriarchy' doesn't distinguish whether the fault/responsibility is with the employer, the state or choices within families.

I realise that looking at naturalistic explanations sounds to a lot of people that things are as they should be (and hence the heated reaction to this thread) But I hope I have at least explained to you why I think this is a fallacy - social constructs (including politics and religion) arise out of the behavior and traits of the species that exhibits them. As we try to understand and redesign those systems it helps to understand how social constructs and biology are connected.

OP posts:
Xenia · 17/04/2011 10:45

We certainly shouldn't be complacent. Every time a woman agrees to do a domestic task an idle husband won't do or agrees she'll always be the one to rush home from work to get children from nursery the innate discrimination is emphasised.

HerBEggs · 17/04/2011 10:39

I really still don't understand what this pointless fruitless thread has been about. Grin

Basically Himalaya, you appear to be arguing the usual guff - that things are v. bad in far away countries of which we know little, but we're all right here so let's stop talking about male domination which manifests itself in various different ways according to the cultural norms of whichever society we're discussing.

We're not going to stop talking about it in that way. Patriarchy is a very useful shorthand term which enables those interested in analysing society, to make links they would otherwise not be able to make without that concept existing. For example, the mentality which says that if a man feels jealous of his girlfriend flirting a bit with another man, he has the right to beat her up when they get home, is the same mentality which in another cultural context, produces honour killings. Without having analysed the fact that both societies are underpinned by patriarchy, we wouldn't understand the link.

We are not goign to stop referring to the patriarchy. It is too useful a term. People who don't want us to refer to it, are generally people who don't want women in the west to feel entitled to claim equality, on the basis that they're better off than their sisters in the developing world and should be grateful for what we've got.

Well fuck it I'm not grateful. I want my fair share.

Beachcomber · 17/04/2011 07:43

Not entirely but thanks for responding. I think we probably don't define patriarchy in quite the same way. It seems the concept of patriarchy is very complicated and manifests in a multitude of ways through a multitude of mechanisms - this is feminist analysis anyway. The 'source' if you like of this status quo is that men dominate women - that is what we mean when we talk about violence.

There are of course huge numbers of men who are not violent themselves as individuals. However these men still benefit from male privilege and they benefit from the violence/force/domination of their group over women. They are likely to have better career opportunities and better pay than women for example.

There are darker sides to the patriarchy in the UK too. Not so long ago, marital rape was not illegal. This was violence against women. There are still many women in the UK who are raped in marriage despite the change in law. (Just look at some of the threads in the relationship section of MN). These women would not think of exercising their legal rights and nor would others encourage them to do so. This is patriarchy in action. It is also violence against these women.

The countries you mention are extreme patriarchies.

If the UK was not a patriarchy, there would be no pay gap, women would be equally represented in parliament and there would be no rape, pornography and prostitution.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything - I just think arguing that patriarchy is natural is going to sound to a lot of people that things are as they should be. I think patriarchy is a social construct, just as religion and indeed politics and political systems are.

Original poster
Himalaya · 17/04/2011 00:55

Patriarchies exist eg in Saudi Arabia, Ancient Greece, Europe up to modern times but gradually dismantled.

Even where patriarchy is dismantled there remains inequality, injustice etc... so to tackle it we need to understand why and how it arises, calling it all 'The Patriarchy' and saying it is all down to one mechanism (male choice and violence) isn't useful in offering explanation, contradicts the evidence of natural selection (eg secondary sexual characteristics would not have been selected for in a completely egalitarian society).

Anything humans do is natural, because we are part of nature. The point I am making with this is not to justify it, but to understand it.

Hope that answers your questions Beachcombet, I am being as clear as I can be.

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 16/04/2011 20:50

Oh please, I quite obviously meant the west as in westernised countries.

You are right, we are going round in circles

I don't understand the point you are trying to make and you don't answer when I directly ask you the question.

Are you saying patriarchy doesn't exist or are you saying it is natural?

In actual fact, it doesn't really matter to me much what you answer. I think patriarchy is unjust and oppressive and there is no excuse for it.

Original poster
Himalaya · 16/04/2011 20:10

Beachcomber -

I feel like this conversation is going around in circles a bit, natural explanations don't just apply to earthquakes, but to ant hills and wolf packs and human societies. We are part of nature. Our social costructs are linked to our nature.What we do is natural: governed by natural processes (including the fact that we have evolved consciousness and act with agency/free will) - there is no 'unatural' - unless you believe in the supernatural.

Is it in human nature to fight, conquer and oppress others. Yes it looks fairly likely that that is a universal human trait which comes out under environmental pressure (being oppressive and calculating are in themselves human traits. You look at a bee colony, it is a model of inequality, but we wouldn't say the queen bee is oppressive and calculating - because those charcteristics only make sense in relation to human beings (and animated cartoon animals...)

Does this mean that it is right for one group to oppress another? No.

Africa is in the West, but anyway... Was there something inherant in Europeans that enabled them to conquer and opress Africans and Native Americans and not the other way round? No, it was an accident of geography - I think the argument that agriculture starting in the fertile cresent and spreading more easily along lines of lattitude (similar climate/day length) than longtitude, and that Eurasia happened to have more of the worlds domesticable livestock were critical factors is quite convincing ( read Germs, Guns and Steel if you are interested)

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 16/04/2011 18:43

It isn't about men and boys suffering though.

It is about women and girls not being oppressed.

Of course, in order to achieve this, the menfolks will have to relinquish some of their privilege.

I'm not particularly inclined to think of natural as good. I just think of it as natural. Natural events like earthquakes are natural, they are neutral events but they have bad effects on humans.

I don't think women being oppressed is natural. I think it is a social construct, just as people of colour being oppressed is.

Would you argue that the West exploiting Africa is natural? I wouldn't, I would argue that it is oppressive and calculated.

Original poster
Himalaya · 16/04/2011 18:01

Beachcomber, Herbex

I don't think 'the natural order' is a good way to think of nature. It implies design and that morality/rightness comes from nature. The mind blowing thing about the theory of evolution was that it showed that wasn't the case. But even though most people say they believe and understand evolution I think many people fall back instinctively into older ways of thinking - that natural is good and what is bad must be unatural/ a perversion of the way 'it is meant to be'.

Therefore it seems from this discussion that many feminists have defined the bad stuff ('the patriarchy') as 'unatural'/ purely socially constructed in order to fight it. But this makes understanding human behavior from a naturalistic stand point a no-no. I think this is a mistake - it is never a good idea to wall off an area of knowledge from investigation (and is not necessary - bad stuff is bad because it is immoral, not because it is unatural)

What is described as 'The Patriarchy' seems to me to be a describe many facets of human behavior, and social structure -inborn traits and instincts, individual choices, economic consequences, traditions cultural attitudes, laws and institutions... and each of these mechanisms are connected (and are not exclusively determined by males' actions).

To say it is all one thing: purely cultural, enforced through violence, and brought about through the collective choice of men alone just doesn't seem like a robust explanation (as I've said before the idea that men could have evolved the strength to carry out this global coup, in an egalitarian society is incoherent from a natural selection perspective - suggesting it just didn't happen this way).

A naturalistic understanding is not that the way society is is the result of 'natural behaviour on the part of men' but natural behavior (and cultural practices which developed on top of that) on the part of human beings - men and women. But we are also smart enough to mess with nature (inventing agriculture, contraceptive pills, democracy, cities, trade systems and the like) so there is hope!

Yes we (humans) have a big problem on our hands - we did not evolve for scrupulous fairness, consistent rationality, sound assesment of risks - instead we are ruled in part by instincts for nepotism and tribalism, shortermism, passions, fear and irrationality. Even the best of our institutions are far from perfect, and many remain downright shit.

My attitude isnt anti-men at all, but pro-human.There are 6billion + people on the planet, by the time our grandchildren grow up there will be 9billion. That is unprecedented. We, those of us with the time, literacy and technology to hang out on MN are amongst the worlds most privilidged. Making the world a better place for women and girls is hugely important. But it isn't a zero- sum game which has to mean making men and boys suffer (or ignoring or downplaying their suffering where that is the case, on the grounds of historic injustice to women - which is where the discussion on class, race etc.. began...)

OP posts:
HerBEggs · 15/04/2011 23:47

Indeed. Grin

garlicbutter · 15/04/2011 23:46

Grin Nuclear fission is natural - we couldn't live without it (ref: sun, universe.) It's a conveniently ill-defined word, no?

HerBEggs · 15/04/2011 23:40

Are you using the term natural in the way I once heard it used thus:

"Nuclear power stations are natural because people made them adn people are part of nature so therefore anything they make is natural"?