misandry doesn't exist

Then 'The Patriarchy only really applies to the top of society, but only because women don't want to be up there, and prioritise family over work' makes no sense. If there is a patriarchy women don't get the choice

Ok then, AFAIC there is no patriarchy to speak of.

'A hundred years ago, people would have had no hesitation to say that patriarchy existed and would probably believe that it was right to exist. People wrote books on women's supposed intellectual inferiority and their proper place being at home. It was the official line and the vast majority of people adhered to it.'

I think things have massively changed since then, don't you? There may be traces of Patriarchy left, but not much.

excellent point Messy.

So how could that be purely a class issue?

What about working class families ... they still would have male fathers, right?

Then 'The Patriarchy only really applies to the top of society, but only because women don't want to be up there, and prioritise family over work' makes no sense. If there is a patriarchy women don't get the choice, that is the whole point - it is about male authority over women.

I also don't get how it can only apply to the top of the social system when the people in charge of the whole country, the people in government, are men. In the UK Osborne and Cameron and their predominantly male cabinet are making decisions currently that affect the poor overwhelmingly, as people on the threads about benefit cuts know only too well.

It always baffles me when people insist that there is no such thing as patriarchy. A hundred years ago, people would have had no hesitation to say that patriarchy existed and would probably believe that it was right to exist. People wrote books on women's supposed intellectual inferiority and their proper place being at home. It was the official line and the vast majority of people adhered to it.

Given all that it would be extremely surprising if some kind of patriarchal legacy didn't still exist today, in our attitudes if not in our laws. Society doesn't change that quickly.

'Patriarchy is a social system in which the male gender role acts as the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination'.

This is my understanding, by and large, of the patriarchy.

SaharaMerchant have you come across intersectionality? Because you seem to be suggesting that because there is a class structure that oppresses everyone, there cannot also be a patriarchal structure that oppresses women in particular.
You could have a society where everyone at the bottom of the social scale was oppressed but there was no gender oppression. But you could also have a society where there was both. And the latter seems to me to be far more common. Therefore your claim that the patriarchy only exists at the top of the scale makes no sense.
Maybe it is more visible there because you can't write off oppression as caused by anything else.

SaharaMerchant, I don't understand what you mean in that third paragraph. What do you understand by 'the patriarchy'? Because you seem to be using it to mean something quite narrow.

The Patriarchy only really applies to the top of society, but only because women don't want to be up there, and prioritise family over work. ..... They could be there if they wanted to .
My jaw dropped at this one.
I am not well versed in discussing these things but the first thing that came to my mind was the BBC presenter who was dropped because of her age... and I see all these presenters who are old, wear glasses, are not good looking etc and are all men...

But it is a class issue, totally. A whole swathe of the nation being uneducated with no hope of ever getting out of it is a class issue.

An impoverished household where the man takes the lions share of the food - patriarchy.

An impoverished household where each family member gets their fair share of food - ?

Frothy - well it'll be interesting I should think!

If you're talking about suffering that applies equally to men and women (eg not enough food but both get equal shares of what there is in the household) then yes it is a class issue. If there is not enough food in the household but the men take the lion's share of it and the women and girls end up malnourished, it is not purely a class issue but also a gender one and you see patriarchy in action.
Writing it off as purely a class issue is a tactic used by those men in the Left who would like to maintain the gender status quo (which some do), to dismiss feminism (and keep the women in their organisation in their place making the tea).

I wouldn't do either of those things Dworkin, because I have a choice, and I chose to be a SAHM.

I wouldn't work my butt off earning six figures, because it's simply not that important to me. If I did, I wouldn't give the responsibility to another woman whom I paid because DH would be a SAHD.

The Patriarchy only really applies to the top of society, but only because women don't want to be up there, and prioritise family over work. Most women just aren't prepared to prioritise work over family life, and the ones that do are few and far between. That's not the Patriarchy's fault. They could be there if they wanted to.

Dworkin - I'm really sorry if my reply is steeped in patriarchial language.

I certainly don't assume Latin or Greek are the roots of English, though I don't think Anglo-Saxon is necessarily less sexist (it might be, there's an argument there I know). And I really did not mean to imply that Latin or Greek (or really any language) is free from misogyny, as I don't see how a non-misogynistic language could develop in a misogynistic society.

I only referred to the languages because the poster I quoted had made a doozy of a misinterpretation.

Personally, I think when we stop thinking in misogynistic terms, we will also stop thinking in misogynistic terminology, and our language will evolve to go with it.

Would you mind explaining to me what you were getting at (PM if you like) as I would like to know and am not sure if I'm answering you satisfactorily or not!

Dworkin, of the little I've read of her so far, is extremely thought provoking.

Social and class are different. All women of all classes are under the influence of the Patriarchy.

Would you work your butt off earning six figures and take control of the children, fridge, homework, etc; and still have time for sexxay fun?

Or would you give the responsibility to another woman whom you pay? Who is percieved to be of a less social standing than you.

I agree, the women at the bottom suffer the most, but I believe that is social issue, or a class issue, whatever you want to call it.

Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy
Mary Daly

Gyn/Ecology: Metaethics of Radical Feminism
Mary Daly

Pornography
Andrea Dworkin

Intercourse
Andrea Dworkin, Ariel Levy

I am curious to know how anyone would come to the conclusion that patriarchy only applies to the top of society. In many cultures it's the bottom of society where women suffer most, eg when there are educated Westernised elites at the top but arranged marriages and illiteracy for the women at the bottom.
Half The Sky is a good read.

What feminist books are you starting with SaharaMerchant?

How can we have post-feminism, when we still have a patriarchy? When we're still in a rape culture? When we still have 2 women a week being killed by former or current partners? When America is trying to give control of a woman's body to the men in society?

We're going backwards. Not forwards. In fifty years time, if we carry on at this rate, the world is going to be an even scarier place to be a woman....

I have sympathy with lilly in that the poster is immersed in patriarchial language. Although I do have to say JSQ that your reply is also steeped in patriarchial language as well.

Naturally it's best to assume that the Greek and Latin language was the basis for English, but these societies themselves were deeply patriarchial. Some examples:

hysterectomy - the Greek for womb was hysteria

And surprise! We adopt this today. It's insidious no doubt.

However a big + to all that Jericho posted.

I'm coming late back to this, but I have a comment on the post by lilly that kicked all of this off again. I found that post really depressing for the ignorant, misogynistic attitude behind it. Particularly this bit:

"Well IMO there is nothing special about a feminist that would make her any more or less likely to be homophobic. Except perhaps homophobic with a slightly different slant, where we take "homo" to mean man, as it actually does."

Since terminology actually matters in this debate, lilly and friends, I shall explain this simple point to you. 'Homosexuality' (meaning sexual attraction to the same sex) does not - oddly enough - have anything at all to do with the word for 'man'. You are confusing the Greek 'homos' (=same) with the Latin 'homo' (=human, as opposed to 'vir', which means 'man').

I know I should be taking issue with your arguments - which I'm afraid I find almost as weak and ignorant as the above quotation - but I just can't get past the fact you've assumed, incorrectly, that the word for 'same' actually means 'man'.

How incredibly sexist do you have to be to assume such an idiotic thing?

"post feminist" hahahahaha

I wish

You know, all of this has been quite interesting. I'll admit that just lately I've been spending a lot of time researching gender inequality. I've got a long way to go, in fact there is such a mountain of information, books, links, opinions etc, that it appears I'm going to be spending a year at the very least working through a lot of it.

I've ordered literature to get a balanced view, both feminist and post feminist. I'm going to read MRA sites and feminist sites, then when I have a decent amount of understanding, I'll probably feel more qualified to speak on the matter.

From the amount I've read so far, I would say that Patriarchy only applies to the very top of society. There are a lot of myths out there, on both sides, and there are a lot of very angry men and women. Statistics are dubious at best, and it's incredibly difficult to form an opinion based on them.

I wonder where, in your opinion, society is going to be in, say, 50 years time?