I don't get 'The Patriarchy'

I can't speak for other people but in this country it feels to me as if some men have all the power.

And the rest of us muddle along the best we can.
Men and woman of the social group I'm in seem pretty equal.

The majority of males have never ruled a country but they have had plenty of power over the women and girls in their own households.

I think I tried to say that whilst they themselves did not have much status/power etc they were often better off than the women the same level as they were.

Eh? Why should pregnancy result in more sacrifice? I don't follow that. Women who don't ever get pregnant, are also disadvantaged by patriarchy. At certain times and in certain cultures, even more so.

I'm not saying pregnancy should result in more sacrifice just that in most cases it does end up with the woman having to make more changes than the man invovled. Because this setup is so widespread throughout our society women are often 'guilty' by association even if they never intended to have children anyway. That's why you get sexist comments like "shes only going to go get pregnant anyway" etc does the person know if she is even intending to have children? nope but she is considered guilty of it by association.

I think there are many factors though that was just me giving one example although I feel childbirth and the area surrounding that topic is one of the major reasons why societies throughout history have ended up in a certain manner.

Saltatrix wrote - "throughout history the majority of males did not have actually have that much power"

The majority of males have never ruled a country but they have had plenty of power over the women and girls in their own households.

I've read & argued this point so often, I'm not contributing directly to the conversation as is - apologies. I just have one little thing to add: how many times have you heard that "a woman has to work harder than a man" to get to the same place ... and have you countered it with "A woman is as good as a man"? If you have, that statement itllustrates your default patriarchal position.

The definition of "Good" in career terms is male. A woman is not a man but, in order to be "Good" in this sense, she must meet criteria defined for and by men - most notably, but by no means exclusively, being unimpeded by pregnancy, childbirth and related matters.

If anyone can persuade me I'm wrong by, perhaps, showing me batallions of women who've attained positions of great power or a long list of multinationals with differential criteria, I'll be most grateful and relieved.

"Patriarchy does exist, in that women will often have to make sacrifices that affect their lives more (due to pregnancy)"

Eh? Why should pregnancy result in more sacrifice? I don't follow that. Women who don't ever get pregnant, are also disadvantaged by patriarchy. At certain times and in certain cultures, even more so.

The term 'Patriarchy' is correct if you are speaking purely about the relationship between women and society. If from that viewpoint then patriarchy accurately represents the difference between men and women when compared to a similar position i.e class/job etc with women in general (we are talking throughout the population not individuals) being worse off.

However if you are trying to label society in it's entirety then kyriarchy is more accurate as sex is only one factor in many with which people may be disadvantaged and these factors effect both sexes.

Patriarchy does exist, in that women will often have to make sacrifices that affect their lives more (due to pregnancy) however I don't really subscribe to the men (as a group) much as throughout history the majority of males did not have actually have that much power. The majority on top however are men and they cause society to turn in a certain way which favours them, this does benefit men (as in the general population) but only if they fit a restrictive criteria. But like I said before with women on the same 'level' as them they would often be better off economically and socially.

Biology does have an effect to say otherwise would mean you have to ignore virtually all other life on earth (in species where different sex exists) and also homo sapiens origins. The pink/blue brain I think is silly (purely societal influence in my view) the biological differences are a bit more basic than that.

Dittany, for heavens sake, someone is allowed to say if they think a point is fair.

Or you could just read SGM's post, which makes my point much more succinctly!

I think that's a very fair point about natural himalaya, both your response to Dittany and your original point. i suppose where the shift occurs is when men, in particular, and society in general start extrapolating doctrine and customs from natural differences

i.e. that some women are not at their best during menstruation is natural. To then state that menstruating women are "unclean", and to impose codes of behaviour surrounding them that are enforced by both men and women is the Patriarchy in action.

Mind you plentyofprimroses there also needs to be a distinction between natural nature, and acquired nature. That women give birth is completely and indisputably natural (yeah, I know. like, duh!) but that men are more aggressive, well that's just years of natural selection, and isn't true across the board.

I guess the big difference between 'patriarchy' as an explanation for discrimination and abuse and racisim, nazism, apartheid, class discrimination is that it is possible to have completely divided societies where people and families are on one side or the other and defend their own interests though some form of in-group/out-group thing or basic nepotism. With gender it is not like that - everyone has a mother and father etc... structures of the elite will tend to favour members of the elite, rather than others of a common gender.

sure, and this is why the Patriarchy is soooo much more successful than systems developed along class, caste or racial lines. You could, however, draw an analogy between wives and daughters being the chiefs of native "homelands" in apartheid South Africa, or the paid soldiers used by the upper classes to keep the workers in their place. Except that while there can only really be one homeland chief, there can be lots of wives (indeed, in Saudi Arabia lots of wives) - so women can be co-opted, and thus kept in place, to an even greater extent. As such it will take a lot more to destroy the Patriarchy, as it has so many heads to cut off and needs to be fought on so many fronts.

[side point: you get born into the elite, but if daddy needs to sell you cheap you might not stay there - marriage is what cements your position. Not so much these days of course....]

great discussion this....

Education. Men who commit those crimes have no respect for women - they won't listen to us. They might listen to other men though. I was thinking about this when I was watching that documentary about the Democratic Republic of Congo - there are women's organisations working really hard to persuade the men to accept their raped wives and daughters back into the household (which would make rape a far less effective war tactic) but what they really need is for men to persuade them because they don't listen to women.

hmm, are you a satirist Satireisbest?

So how would men stop other men from doing it?

Personally I think for a year or two all rape, assault etc accusations are believed 100% and the men found guilty.

This would stop the men from doing it. And make other men think twice about putting themselves in certain situations where consent hasn't 100% been given.

Dittany, I agree, I think the ball is in the men's court on a whole range of issues.