I don't get 'The Patriarchy'

Sorry, why you think.

I'm still interested in why the think the comparison of male supremacy and white supremacy is flawed.

I think this exchange about child rearing in a patriarchal society is getting a bit silly. I encountered issues like I wanted to look after my baby myself - I didn't want to pay another woman to do it. In order to do this, I gave up work and therefore financial independence for a while. I believe it is quite a common event in women's lives!

Neither France nor the UK require women to give up their jobs for childbirth, so I am not sure where you encountered problems.

I said the notion that "women should have to pay other women to carry babies for them in order to get on in the world" is patriarchal.

Gosh well you must be a lucky exception then Bonsoir.

Personally, I had to give up my job and my financial independence for a while. Western women have many advantages, on that we are agreed (although it is a shame that respect and support for breastfeeding is not really one of them in many areas.)

Why are "gestational carriers" patriarchal? Do you think women are being pushed into using "gestational carriers" by men?

Women should not have to pay other women to carry babies for them in in order to get on in the world. This notion is patriarchal in the extreme. I am a feminist so of course I don't think this is the way forward.

I'm still interested in why the think the comparison of male supremacy and white supremacy is flawed.

I have never felt remotely penalised for carrying, giving birth or feeding a child. On the contrary, I felt that huge quantities of collective societal resources were put at my disposal in order to make that experience as easy, and as full of personal choice, as possible. That is the luxury of the Western woman. Who is in danger of becoming a spoiled princess...

But procreation is not at all the only difference.

I think the way forward for developed societies is to share political and economic power equally and fairly.

A fair and equal society would not penalise women for being the ones who carry, birth and feed babies.

The only difference between men and women in most developed societies is procreation. Indeed, women have procured a great deal of educational advantage over men in most advanced economies.

How do you propose to level the procreational playing field? I know some very rich people now engage "gestational carriers" in addition to nannies and other child carers in order not to be inconvenienced in their careers. Do you think this is the way forward for developed societies as a whole?

OK then I can only repeat that I am comparing the systems and mechanisms used to oppress women as a group, to those used to oppress people of colour as a group, as defined and acted out by white male supremacist society.

I'm not clear on why you think the comparison is flawed.

I read your post carefully first time round and responded to this sentence: "Fewer woman and people of colour are slaves now, than in the past, but we are not even close to having achieved equality/the end of oppression for either group."

Also if you read my post carefully I didn't compare women and slaves.

I compared white supremacy with male supremacy.

I compared women as a group and people of colour as a group.

(Notice how even the clumsy expression 'people of colour' describes white as the norm and black, etc as 'other'. This is another parallel between white supremacy and male supremacy where male is considered the norm and female as 'the other'.)

Really Bonsoir? Why is that?

There are a great many parallels between the global oppression of people of colour and the global oppression of women.

There aren't a great many ways to go about being an oppressor really - the main point is to use violence or the threat of violence to retain political, social, legal and financial; standing, power and influence for one's group. Arguing that the state of oppression is a natural state of affairs is another basic tool. Arguing that the oppression does not even exist, is a slightly more sophisticated tool, as are the normalising and the internalising of the oppression.

I think it is curious that anyone thinks that the position of "women" and the position of "slaves" as a group in society is comparable.

Have only skimmed the thread as my brain goes to sleep when evolution is brought into feminist discussions.

It is very easy to understand the concept of patriarchy.

You just have to understand that patriarchy is male supremacy and that male supremacy functions, as an institution, in the same way as white supremacy.

Fewer woman and people of colour are slaves now, than in the past, but we are not even close to having achieved equality/the end of oppression for either group. This state of affairs is wrong/unjust/immoral/unfair/inhumane/whatever you want to call it.

Only those who support white male supremacy would argue otherwise.

Himalaya - IMO, the very best thing any society can do is to provide great basic education to all children. But all developed societies have a huge educational legacy and it is very hard to turn around under-performing systems quickly, even before you factor in the costs involved.

I am very deeply opposed to current proposals to widen access to our best universities to pupils with less good grades from lesser performing schools; I don't know how any thinking person would find that morally preferable to re-opening grammar schools.

That's an IB school, though, AA, and making the leap from IB to prépa is immensely difficult. Wealthy French parents may well buy their children social advantage, but the IB doesn't confer educational advantage within the French system; of course, if you are French and want your child to pursue his/her studies outside France, an IB school might be appropriate.

I can't do links properly on this computer, but I was thinking of places like this
www.ibsofprovence.com/spip.php?article64

where fees are not minimal.

50% is the official Apel figure.

There aren't fully private schools in France within the system. Sous-contrat schools are all obliged to follow the French NC and teachers are paid by the state. I don't know what you are referring to, because it is immensely difficult to get to prépa if you haven't been either to a French state school or a sous-contrat private school.

Bonsoir, I'd love to see the figures you quote. (I'm not querying, just curious).
There are of course "private" (Catholic) schools in France and then there are v. expensive, truly private schools. The two are not quite the same...

Himalaya - but what is justice? To what extent is it just to take from the haves to give to the have-nots?

AuldAlliance - 50% of the French population attend a "private" (usually Catholic) school at some point in their school career between 3 and 18, and I don't think they are the preserve of the rich (anecdotally, our gardienne and local baker, butcher and greengrocer are all private school users), and fees are often minimal, so I am not sure that's a good example of how a better education and life opportunities are the preserve of the wealthy. Perhaps they are the preserve of clued up and ambitious parents?

But one problem is surely that it is not just down to being clever and capable.

People in the top 20% have access to better education and opportunities than the rest, so there is a self-perpetuating wealthy class.

When education systems work well, allowing good, if not equal, opportunities for all, the injustice is reduced.

That happened in France for a period, when the "social elevator" functioned. Now it has broken down, and what does seem immoral is that the wealthy blithely pick and choose and exploit the system, spurning state education until they send their kids to prépa at Henri IV or Louis Le Grand, where the state spends an absolute fortune per pupil. And it is all the more immoral when those people are benefitting from such huge tax incentives that often they are not contributing to financing those costly schools...

Currently the difference between what the wealthy earn and what those they employ earn is widening in a way that also seems immoral. As does the suggestion that companies need to lay people off because they are not making enough profits, when in fact their profits are continually increasing.