I don't get 'The Patriarchy'

OK Sakura and Milly my choice of words was poor.

I said that the Patriarchy was worse for a woman in South Africa and Iran, than for a single non-religious woman in the UK. Can we agree on that? Or do all women everywhere experience the Patriarchy to the same degree all the time?

This is what I was talking about when I said I'd like to discuss the actual points rather than the terms they are couched in.

I've already said over and over again that violence and the threat of vioence is what men use to keep women in line. All men benefit from male violence against women whether they directly use it or not. Again, basic feminist thinking - not difficult.

I know you have. And I've already said over and over again that violence is not the only thing that sustains male hegemony; there are other methods at work. Eliminate violence and men will still own all the property, have the best jobs, be able to enforce biased laws and benefit from arguments justified by misogynistic religions and sciences. But you keep believing that all you need to do is eliminate violence against women (a worthy and necessary cause) in order to gain women their rightful place, and woe betide any man how should have the audacity to point out that this isn't all you need to do.

Perhaps I should use Sakura's argument and say that because you're not a man you couldn't possibly hope to understand the inner workings of the Patriarchy.

you'd be able to put it in the background a lot easier if you popped a valium, Milly

How can it be in the background? I attempt to put it in the background of my mind sometimes, but it is pretty difficult to do so.

well what types of women is the patriarchy more prominent for?

Poor women, for sure.

Which is why patriarchies keep women poor. It's called the feminization of poverty. Every patriarchy has large groups of poor women to be exploited for prostitution and cheap menial labour

Mentally ill women, yes. But let's not forget that living in a patriarchy makes women mentally ill (look at all the women in the 20th century who had to take pills just to get through the day without comitting suicide)

Raped women, definitely.
Being rich doesn't magically protect you from male violence. Not when two women a week in the UK, a supposedly progressive country, are killed by their spouse

So who exactly are these women you're talking about, who are not affected by the patriarchy?

Hey Sakura I never claimed my view wasn't mainstream (assuming we both have the same understanding of mainstream) or that women haven't heard them before. I would just like to engage on the content of the arguments, rather than the terms I'm couching them in.

Also, what I said was that for some women the Patriarchy is more prominent than for others (my words were "in the background"), not that some women never experience it. We can agree on that surely?

you are so right Milly. Fascinating

Sakura, I think the argument for rape has to be based on the idea that passing on your genes is mainly about the act of sex and conception. This is clearly not the case, as passing on your genes is largely dependent on the energy you expend on helping related kin in the next generation survive. Many men who have never had sex with a woman will pass on many of their genes through nurturing their sister's child.

I suspect the focus on conception comes about because in our own sexist society, the work put in to producing food, nurturing and teaching children is consistently devalued, as you frequently point out. So some people pretend that evolutionary success (and consequently the rights to determine our children's lives) is primarily about impregnating someone, as it aids that devaluation to say so.

MrIc, you're talking as though women haven't heard all your arguments before.

Your view is extremely mainstream

All women are affected by patriarchy on a daily basis. the art, history, media, academia is steeped in woman hating. You don't have to look very far to notice this.
WOmen are objectified everywhere. Have you researched the porn industry?

You're not a woman, so you don't know what it's like to live in a patriarchy. A bit like a white man telling a black man that every black man isn't affected by racism in a white supremist society like the U.S

Wrong! Every black man in the U.S has been affected by racism which is based on white privilege.

Every woman under a patriarchy has been affected by sexism and misogyny which is based on male privilege.

"abortion"

Your argument is like saying there were a whole lot of "Nazisms" in Germany, or a whole lot of "Communisms" in the Soviet Union. Pointless.

No my argument is like saying that there were differences between Communism in the Soviet Union and Cuba. How is that pointless?

Look at it like this - the Patriarchy that is justified by Wahabi Sunni Islam is largely supported and exported by Saudi Arabia, just as the USSR exported it's form of Communism. when the USSR withdrew support those regimes in Eastern Europe collapsed with most, though not all, being replaced by something better. One wonders if the Saudi's stopped exporting their brand of Islam whether the position of women in other Sunni Islam countries would improve? There's been lots of studies of how the position and rights of women in, say, Eygpt and Pakistan has declined dramatically, largely due to a new generation being indoctrinated in Saudi-funded Madhrassa's.

To me this line of thinking is interesting; if it isn't to you then fine, no big deal.

You wouldn't get someone complaining to a socialist talking about capitalisms, that they need to make it a plural, because otherwise they'll be picking the wrong factory. Jesus.

But socialists do talk about different capitalisms.

It's funny that the more I agree that the Patriarchy does exist and is extremely pernicious, the more you think I'm denying it. I mean, wtf?

And drawing the line that me saying some women aren't affected on a daily basis to me saying that some women never experience the Patriarchy is a masterpiece of word twisting and willful misreading.

Patriarchy is a global totalising system, there isn't anything outside it. That's why it's referred to as a whole and why women address it as a whole. Because it is a whole.

Sorry. I still don't buy this. Us men don't actually communicate by telepathy and plot how to keep you women in line. Some of us actually actively challenge the status quo and seek to change it. I'm not denying that men hold the power, globally speaking, and that they've achieved this by violence. But the idea that if the perfect feminist society existed in the UK the Patriarchy elsewhere would collapse because the system is global and total is crap.

POP, so your argument then has to demonstrate:

1. That male dominance existed in a pre human species from whom we are descended.
2. That male dominance existed in such a species, and that the species in question had no culture. So, pre-hominid at the least.
3. That this non-cultural male dominant specific behaviour has continued in almost exactly the same form in the original species, all the extinct species in between, and our own.

I would be astonished if you could demonstrate that. I suspect you would win some kind of award if you did.

That was interesting Milly,

yes, according to patriarchal history the mighty penis needs to rape in order for the man attached to it to spread his seed and have as many offspring as possible which is survival of the fittest
Whereas it's much more likely that a raped woman would neglect her baby, or try to abort it. Abort is not a new idea, herbs would have been used and found.
I also strongly believe that women's bodies are sometimes capable of spontaneous abortions if the body and mind are under enough stress.

Raping loads of women and leaving them to rot is an evolutionary dead end.

How does referring to pre-human phenomena support your position wrt humans?

yes, MillyR, I am referring to pre-human times.

Milly, your recent posts have been fascinating. You've prompted me to make connections between observations I hadn't bothered to examine until now. Thank you - you must be a great teacher!

Last night, I was thinking about how our understanding of societal and evolutionary norms are defined by male precepts - until very recently, that is; feminism is getting somewhere! Milly's remarks on the idea of mass rape as a quick means to a cultural end highlighted (for me) that I'd taken the idea on board as logical, whereas its only real logic is that of the "mighty penis"! Like most ideas generated and executed by the penis, it's dumb and ineffective.

On a personal note, my surname is directly traceable to the Saxon 'invasion' in Kent. Traditional history says the Saxons went around raping and burning but, archaeologists have found, it was more a matter of moving in and creating a blended society with blond children. The logic there is far sounder, from an economic and a genetic point of view.

While I'm backing away from the "What is patriarchy" debate for now, I do want to point up that male supremacy is deliberately maintained in secretive ways, even now. Men make deals in the gents' - this is true! It's the primary reason why some companies introduced mixed-sex loos (in the 80s, iirc.)

POP, there is no such thing as a human pre-cultural time. Culture came into existence before we did, and it is unlikely that our species could have evolved without the pre-existence of that culture.