I don't get 'The Patriarchy'

stacks of typos. Tired again.

Look, I'm only posting back here so it doesn't seem as if I'm running away.

I apologise for using the word 'unevolved' when very tired and aware I should have been using a longer, more hyphenated expression. I don't imagine anyone here misunderstood what I meant.

If there is a difference between what Himalaya (seems to be) saying and my own, widely-shared view, I can't see it:- There is a 'Patriarchy'; it is underpinned by male violence; rape is a valuable tool in the suppression of women and the maintenance of patriarchy.

The other evolutionary stuff is of interest to me but I don't consider it essential to this discussion. In the end, the existence of 'The Patriarchy' is easy to abserve and to demonstrate. I find it insidious, oppressive an unfair; I would like the playing fields of life to me more level.

It is not anti-evolutionary of me to want equality because no species would survive if its members exerted all possible power against one another. The development of many 'higher' instincts beyond reptile level is what makes us mallalian and human - sharing, compassion and tolerance being among the more deeply rooted of those instincts. But even the reptile doesn't kill because it can - an ability is not the same as a drive.

Leaving this to ramble along now!

POP yes, cultural hegemony is a very useful term here - thanks!

dittany

I'm sorry you read it that way because I had no intention of patronising you!!

Look, I'd much rather engage on the content of the debate rather than the perceived tone of the words/phrases that it's couched in.

I don't teach Feminism - I teach English as a foreign language, but I get to design my own lessons and picked Feminism as a discussion topic because I thought (rightly as it turned out) my students would find it interesting. fyi, several of them changed their opinions about Feminsim for the better as a result.

"Your assertion was that patriarchy was hard to conceptualise. That's what I took issue with. It's not difficult to conceptualise when it's explained and many women also understand it spontaneously through their own observations without needing to be taught about. You made up your "people don't think about patriarchy" as a non-response to what I said."

Actually I said people don't think about male dominance, but whatever.

Anyway, fine. But I still disagree. If it was so easy to conceptualise why are we on Page 7 of this thread? why can't a feminist of 30 years standing such as yourself not formulise it for us in simple terms - how it came about, how it is enforced, how it is sustained, what forms it takes, and how we (or the women, with me standing at the back cheering and hoping I wont be mistaken for being patronising) bring it down.

The context of garlic's comments was nothing to do with the everyday definition of evolution.

MrIC - I have no idea why you keep apologising to Dittany. Is cultural hegemony what you were trying to say? 'The theory claims that the ideas of the ruling class come to be seen as the norm; they are seen as universal ideologies, perceived to benefit everyone whilst really benefiting only the ruling class.' - it becomes so ingrained it becomes invisible?

Isn't denying transgendered people an equal say Patriarchy in action?

""It may come as a shock to you that not everyone grasps this fact as self-evident"

Could you be any more patronising? Seriously check the way you're talking to me. This is a feminist space, not a space where you get to talk down to women.

I know that people do not think in terms of a patriarchy. I've been a feminist for nearly thirty years. Whether it's hard to conceptualise (which is what you were claiming) is another matter. Most women, as garlicbutter already points out, have no difficulty at all in understanding male power and how it operates.

So as I implied already, I think if you want to be accurate the people who have the problem with it are men. And I think a lot of that is feigned stupidity because most men have pretty much zero desire to give up power and privilege over women."

Well, for the third time on this thread alone, I apologise to you Dittany - it wasn't my intention to be patronising, and I'm sorry you read it that way. I'm sorry if I'm encroaching on your space.

Still I stand by my assertion - I don't think most women (or men) actually give much thought to how male power operates. As brief visit to the AIBU forum will provide plenty of research data on that. if women grasped how it operated then there would be no need for this (feminist) forum: the whole of Mumsnet would be the feminist forum! If only.

It's been interesting, but I've been teaching Feminism recently (in the context of English language teaching) and only one students had ever given male dominance any thought at all (let only considered notions such as the Patriarchy). These are educated people and, for the most part, women, living in one of the most socially liberal countries in the world (Spain). So, no, I don't buy your argument that a) women have no difficulty at all in understanding male power and b) it's only men that struggle.

POP thanks for the correction re:Pinker.

Humpty Dumpty - ?When I use a word,? Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, ?it means just what I choose it to mean?neither more nor less.?

POP 'There are unanswered questions on the other side of this debate too though, aren't there? If male dominance is purely down to culture, when did things turn to shit? Where's the evidence that things have ever been different, anywhere? If there are no psychological differences between male and female humans, what are we to make of the TG community who fight so hard for corrective surgery, believing themselves to be born into the wrong gender? Nobody has answered these questions - where is your evidence?'

If somebody speaks of unevolved societies and things evolving by accident they don't understand evolution.

dittany -'Who says feminists don't understand evolution? That's a silly thing to say.'

well, some of us do ....

garlicbutter - 'unevolved societies' ... ' ... doesn't seem to have evolved other than by accident!'

... and some of us plainly don't.

I'm out of here. Himalaya, I am in awe of your patience.

MrIC - yes, Pinker is arguing against the blank slate theory.

dittany, I don't understand how me saying 'I realise this will enrage some of you' is some sort of 'crack' It certainly wasn't meant that way.

I don't have time to compile a decent literature review for you (in fact, I'm bowing out of this discussion this evening as I'm having some serious problems with DS and won't have the time to MN for a few days). Luckily Pinker has already done so and for those who are genuinely interested, I can recommend The Blank Slate. It's not a comfortable read but it is very well researched. There's a video lecture about the book here, although I haven't watched it myself yet. Or you could just google 'sex differences evolution' and find masses of papers, articles and books.

There are unanswered questions on the other side of this debate too though, aren't there? If male dominance is purely down to culture, when did things turn to shit? Where's the evidence that things have ever been different, anywhere? If there are no psychological differences between male and female humans, what are we to make of the TG community who fight so hard for corrective surgery, believing themselves to be born into the wrong gender? Nobody has answered these questions - where is your evidence?

You may be talking about male violence towards women, but that isn't where this discussion started. I think male violence towards other men is extremely relevant to this discussion - certainly more relevant than all the stuff about race, which any genetic scientist would confirm is only skin deep. If we want to understand and solve the problem of male violence towards women, it makes sense to look at male violence in all its manifestations for context, if nothing else.

garlicbutter- '... unevolved societies ...' you have got to be fucking kidding! You can't be that ignorant, surely? Then again, ' ... doesn't seem to have evolved other than by accident!' perhaps you are?

I would go through your post and point out the many flaws in it but I don't think you'd understand - you don't appear to have the most basic grasp of what evolution means. I suggest you do yourself a favour and read up on the basics before you show yourself up any further. The Selfish Gene is a great introduction to this stuff, but if the title or Dawkins' style of writing puts you off, any entry level book on genetics and evolution would enable you to see where you'd gone wrong.

'woolly thinking' ...