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:
sakura · 04/04/2011 11:23

Men could end rape tomorrow by not raping. They could make the moral decision to no longer rape.

sakura · 04/04/2011 11:18

of women, by men

sakura · 04/04/2011 11:17

Don't be silly Himalaya, we're not talking about individual men choosing this that or ther other. We're talking about entire cultures, global patriarchy. A systematic domination of women, by women.

This is objectively, morally wrong. Why would you argue otherwise unless you believe men cannot be held accountable for women's oppression

Original poster
Himalaya · 04/04/2011 11:14

Sakura: What I said 6 posts up was 'if an individual of whatever sex chooses to do something where they could have done something different, which directly causes another persons human rights to be violated then 'evolution made me do it' is not a moral justification.

I don't know how you managed to twist that into "men cannot be held morally or ethical accountable because they are unable to see that oppression is objectively wrong."

But I would appreciate if you would stop telling people what you think I am arguing because you have consistently got it wrong.

OP posts:
sakura · 04/04/2011 11:03

To any lurkers who can't be arsed reading this thread, Himalaya is arguing that male oppression, exploitation, maiming, rape and murder of women has its roots in evolution.

Men cannot be held morally or ethical accountable because they are unable to see that oppression is objectively wrong.

In other words, men are lacking in morals, due to evolution.

slug · 04/04/2011 11:03

I don't think Himalaya is very bright.

sakura · 04/04/2011 10:59

You are right, patriarchy is a complex and well-thought out system of oppression and I understand its complexity very well.

YOu haven't answered why you keep bringing up the subject of evolution. Are men so morally inept to not even realise that oppressing, exploiting, maiming and killing other humans is wrong? If not, then they are morally accountable, and evolutionary theory is a straw man.

dittany · 04/04/2011 10:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Himalaya · 04/04/2011 10:52

Of whatever sex...

OP posts:
dittany · 04/04/2011 10:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Himalaya · 04/04/2011 10:49

I think if an individual of whatever choses to do something where they could have done something different, which directly causes another persons human rights to be violated then 'evolution made me do it' is not a moral justification. It is not even morally suspect justification. It is just irrelevant. I have never said that the two should be connected, it is you that keeps saying that.

But many harms are not caused by individuals making culpable choices. They are caused by complex systems. Fixing them means understanding the complex systems, not looking for the bad guy. To try to understand complex human systems without looking at the factors that drive them is intellectually suspect and foolish.

OP posts:
sakura · 04/04/2011 10:40

African men believe FGM is beautiful because it neatens the vulva. It makes chilbirth extraordinarily difficult and caused infections. Accross time and cultures we repeatedly see that beauty practices required of women by men make childbirth and child nurturing difficult to impossible

I'm having difficulty seeing your beauty-evolution connection.
Where does an infertile beautiful woman fit into your theory?

sakura · 04/04/2011 10:30

And do you agree that blaming evolution for the oppression of women by men is morally suspect?

sakura · 04/04/2011 10:25

you are wrong,

If, as you say, male perception of beauty is connected to evolution, men would be appalled by breast implants, which cannot even feed a newborn. Instead they are fetishized by western men.

CHinese men would have been apalled by the lotus foot.

Original poster
Himalaya · 04/04/2011 10:19

Sakura -

Understanding the role of evolution does not mean nothing is culture.
Noticing that there are cultural differences does not mean that humans are the only animals immune from evolution (how would that work?)

Early humans invented ways to prepare food - using heat and power to make things more digestable. Less chewing was needed. Modern humans evolved smaller jaws and teeth than our ancestors. We are evolved to eat prepared food.We also evolved to like some tastes instinctively - sweetness in particular, but to be more wary of bitter tastes (you need to learn which ones might kill you).

The fact that every culture has their own cuisine, and that some cultures eat things that are considered quite disgusting to others does not mean that there is no evolved basis in food preferences.

OP posts:
sakura · 04/04/2011 10:13

why are breasts damaged by implants desired by lots of men when they can't even nurture a newborn?

sakura · 04/04/2011 10:12

So you admit that talks of evolution are irrelevant. Blaming the current power structure on evolution means that men have no moral accountability

sakura · 04/04/2011 10:10

"Yes perceptions of beauty in both sexes have their origins in mate selection which favours evolutionary fit partners"

If this is true why do notions of beauty vary from patriarchy to patriarchy and accross time. Chinese men for thousands of years found the bound lotus foot extremely erotically beautiful

Original poster
Himalaya · 04/04/2011 10:09

No. it is what you are arguing.

OP posts:
sakura · 04/04/2011 10:07

your point is that men's oppression of women is evolutionary and "natural"

This assertion means that you admit that men are ethically and morally lacking. The gynocide, mass murder and rapes, the continuing exploitation of women, is out of men's hands. They have no objective understanding of the way their oppression hurts others. They have no moral responsibility for their actions. It's in the genes.

This is what you're arguing.

Original poster
Himalaya · 04/04/2011 10:02

Me: Yes ensuring healthy young is a key survival strategy.
Sakura: your point is nonsensical Himalaya because you disregard child-rearing methods as an evolutionary survival tactic

what can I say?

OP posts:
Original poster
Himalaya · 04/04/2011 10:00

Sakura -

Why should theory have to be compatible with evolutionary origins? - unless you are theorising supernatural or alien origins thems is the only origins there is.

When you say patriarchy is NOT strength + choice are you saying men are sub-human,

No I am not. I am saying we are all humans. we are also mammals. we are also animals. We evolved same as all the rest. I am not sure what sub-human means. How can you be sub-human?

...they have no volition of their own, that they are guided by their penises, that morality only exists in women?

No, they are guided by their brains, same as women. our brains evolved, like are bodies, largely the same, but with some tendencies towards difference. These differences are amplified by social and economic systems.

Yes perceptions of beauty in both sexes have their origins in mate selection which favours evolutionary fit partners. It has now become an industry with a whole lot of vested interests making money from it, in ways that are not making people happy. You can bet that those industries have studied the evolutionary factors behind what pushes our beauty buttons - not so they can argue that evolution is behind their products, but so they can use those insights to sell more products. If you want to challenge those vested interests it is better to understand evolutionary origins than to dismiss them without reason.

OP posts:
sakura · 04/04/2011 09:52

your point is nonsensical Himalaya because you disregard child-rearing methods as an evolutionary survival tactic

sakura · 04/04/2011 09:49

women's oppression is based on the fact that a large proportion of men are unable to regard females are fully human, or at least as human as themselves

Feminists are arguing this lack and void in men's morality is socially constructed

But you seem to be saying the status quo is evolutionary. If so, then men are morally and ethically inferior to women in that they cannot recognize the oppression they willfully perpetuate

It's true that oppression corrupts the oppressor more than it does the oppressed

Original poster
Himalaya · 04/04/2011 09:48

Why should theory have to be compatible with evolutionary origins?

Because if it isn't then it isn't true. And if it isn't true it probably isn't as useful as a theory that is a better description of how it actually happened that we got to be here, in the way we are, and how to change it.

As Dittany noted there is a hierarchy of knowledge. It is not arbitrary it is how the universe works.

Matter is made out of atoms, these are joined together into chemicals, chemicals are what cells are made of, cells are what organisms are made of, organisms interact in societies.

So there is a hierarchy of knowledge which is how we understand these things. Physics underlies chemistry, chemistry underlies biology, biology underlies psychology, sociology, economics all the social sciences.

Time is linear, cause comes before effect. Evolution explains how the development from chemicals to cells to organisms to societies happened over time. It was an enormous breakthrough in human knowledge, explaining the amazing fact that we are here.

If a theory at a higher level of complexity disagrees with what we know (as well as we can know anything) about what is going on at a more basic level, than the higher level theory is wrong even if it appears internally consistent to its followers (the theories of homeopathy, freudian analysis etc..). If we want to know if our theories are true we have to test them against our underlying knowledge.

That is why it is interesting and important.

OP posts: