do you believe in the patriarchy?

dreamingbohemian, I'm not dismissing Kahneman's ideas.

I'm saying I'm unclear on what they have to do with feminist observation that we live in male dominated society.

I also noted that as a woman, I'm a bit tired of being told 'here read this' and it be a recommendation to read a book written by a man about male power structures. (Not particularly on this thread, in general.)

I see Kahneman's theories being used here to accuse feminists of cherry picking and clinging to a belief. Surely it is perfectly obvious that people are keener on evidence that bolsters their views than evidence that doesn't? Having said that, surely it is perfectly obvious that we live in male dominated society and that there is no need to selectively pick and choose evidence on the subject - one just has to use one's eyes.

Beach,

Your quote (above) is merely someone expressing a perspective, with zero data or logical argument to back it up. It may be true, it may not. It is like me saying with huge authority that crisps are mainly to blame for heart attacks, citing zero (bar maybe the flimsiest anecdotal) evidence. It could well be true but equally it might not be, or it could be a small part of a larger and more interesting truth. Whichever apply, my stating it would just be meaningless hot air and adds nothing to a discussion on heart disease.

Kahneman, on the other hand, whom she dismisses in an airy sentence, is not really writing about economics at all, he is writing about neurological pathways and decision making processes. All his conclusions are backed up by solid experimental evidence and backed up by a large appendix of supporting papers. As it happens, were she to read the book, she would realise that it makes no comment on the patriarchy or men's versus women's roles and, if anything, it would probably favour some of her arguments (as he says that we are instinctively too comfortable with status quos rather than trying to change it). Where I and Himalaya have cited Kahneman is in saying that, once one has a theory one is comfortable with, one is instinctively drawn to supporting evidence and less likely to engage with anything that challenges it.

It would be bonkers to reject information on the basis that it comes from somebody whose life experience is different from yours! If I want to learn Polish, I'll choose a teacher who speaks Polish brilliantly and English well enough to communicate with me ... I wouldn't insist they must be a fellow native English speaker

patriarchy prioritises hegemonic masculinity above not only femininity, but also over all other masculinities

Beach's quote supports my view that patriarchy isn't as simple as sexism. Sexism is its primary weapon but there's more to it than that. Also, it's extremely possible for a woman to be patriarchal - as often noted on Mumsnet and exemplified by some of the more repulsively powerful women throughout history.

Beachcomber, I agree with most of what you say, but I think ideas should be dismissed based on their content, not the identity of the author. Plenty of white men have useful ideas to contribute to our understanding of inequality and women's rights today.

Your paper for example concludes that patriarchy alone does not explain mass rape in the DRC. You also need to look at IPE, which is positively ridden with white male authors.

That's good, Beach. Thanks for posting it.

Ok Himalaya, it seems that you don't see why feminists might snort at white male dominated institutions, awarding prizes to white males, who write about white male dominated power structures, from a white male perspective.

No. Feminists just snort because they are sexist and racist. Nothing to do with being a bit sick of constantly being asked to consider white male perspectives of white male dominated power structures.

I still do not have a clue what all these books by white men about white male power structures are bringing to a discussion from a feminist perspective on women being dominated and controlled by white make power structures.

I am reading this at the moment The Role of Patriarchy and the Political Economy in Wartime Sexual Violence: The Case of the Democratic Republic of Congo which has a jolly interesting analysis.

No international system represents a ?natural? ordering of society, and both patriarchy and the global political economy require substantial input from its stakeholders. Patriarchy is maintained in large part by the structures and institutions it has constructed for the purpose of socialising patriarchy as an acceptable order of human relationships. Patriarchal institutions rely on hegemonic masculinity to enforce the order and both men and women?s participation within it. Patriarchy also reinforces itself through its incorporation into other forms of social organisation, including race, ethnicity, and class (Leatherman 2011: 7). One mode of social organisation particularly relevant to this study is economic organisation. Patriarchy has constructed and contributed to a system wherein men are afforded many advantages from women?s social position and associated roles (MacKinnon 1989: 93). Notions of masculinity and femininity are constitutive of how jobs are valued in society. That economic value is so closely linked to social values of masculinity and femininity makes the intersection of the study of gender relations and international political economy especially important.
Economic relations and competition do not function in isolation from other structures of power and domination. Questioning what functions of power are at work and who is in control of those functions exposes the relationship between patriarchy and economic dominance. Capitalism is a patriarchal institution and, according to some feminists, the economic mode of patriarchy (Vaughan 2002). This is because the same behaviours and characteristics are rewarded in each system ? aggression, competition, and domination. Both capitalism and patriarchy work to construct social stratification, and in both systems women are predominantly at the low end of the hierarchy. Recent feminist literature on masculinities has identified the way in which patriarchy prioritises hegemonic masculinity above not only femininity, but also over all other masculinities. This works through capitalism by financially and economically rewarding those who exhibit traits of hegemonic masculinity, which translates not only into economic power, but also social and cultural power.

I believe that economics can alter the patriarchal structure of our societies - all of them, because there is no 'society' without 'economics' if you accept the broadest & basic interpretation of those words (and ignore Mad Thatcher's!)

Of course economics are organic & evolutionary. They're no more than a reflection of how a society works, its values and its priorities. Studying economics affords insights into those values and priorities. They change over time and location. Ownership represents power. Changes which alter the balances of power alter the society that contains them. Change can be effected from within an extant economy because economies are organic; the exceptions are totalitarian states that have removed the element of 'expression' from their economies - those are static for as long as the controlling authority prevents change.

Psychology, sociology and philosophy have an important place in studies of economics. It's impossible for an economy to operate without them. It's ridiculous, imo, to dismiss studies of how those interactions take place.

This may look, to some, like a defence of capitalism against communism (I am a capitalist) but, in fact, my most pressing concern at the moment is that our own economy in the UK is being converted to a totalitarian regime by stealth. If this happens, women will be stuffed

Beachcomber -

I don't think its a good idea to snort at ideas without reading them just because the race and sex of the person who wrote them.

SAF -

I really don't want to derail this thread any further but went back and cut and paste the text because I was accused of misrepresenting the conversation.

Dreaming Bohemian -

I don't think my description of Kahneman did misrepresent. I agree with your description - it is just a bit longer.

'natural cognitive processes' means studying how people make decisions.

I don't see how that description is misrepresenting him or making it seem like he has 'a certain agenda'.

ok dreaming - thanks for letting us know that kahneman was just being misrepresented like the rest of us. funny that

Haven't read the thread but of COURSE I believe in patriarchy!

Actually, I'm going to stick up a bit for Kahneman here, because I think Himalaya's description referring to 'natural cognitive processes' makes him sound like he has a certain agenda, which I don't think he does (I have not read his books but have come across his arguments a lot in my work). Behavioural economics is not the same as 'evolutionary economics' or anything social darwinistic, it is simply trying to make sense of perceived irrationality in human decision-making. As such it's actually a direct challenge to the existing orthodoxy, which presumes people make economic (and other) choices on a purely rational, cost-benefit, universal basis. It does not just look at psychological tendencies but broader social contexts as well.

A more interesting case (to me) is Duflo and Banerjee's work with 'Poor Economics', which is directly challenging the status quo by encouraging a focus on what people in developing countries think and what they actually want, instead of just having technocrats in western countries give out aid for projects they think will be useful.

Anyway I don't really think it has much place in this discussion, but just wanted to point out that behavioural economics can actually be a good vehicle for understanding the effects of patriarchy, as it would help reveal women's coping mechanisms for living in an unequal system.

Can I go back to larrygrylls' point about women losing the gender pay gap and doing better at university?

I think for me it is illustrative that you are talking about women aged 20 - 29. The average now for a woman to have her first child is 29. I think you can only really start talking about the balance being redressed when women in the 29+ age group start closing the gender pay gap. When it starts to become possible to balance a career and family and both sexes play an equal part, you might start to make real inroads into male privilege.

But as others have pointed out, it is obviously also about more than money and educational opportunities, though these are important.

Sorry, I realise that the discussion has moved on, and I am behind here...

and no i didn't say what you said i said about the nobel prize either unsurprisingly. it's reductive and frankly childish to twist people's words into pathetic charicatures of nonsense.

however consider that obama got the nobel fucking peace prize. you think that was down to achievement? something he actually did? or politics and power backing?

my point wasn't that you have nothing to do or are a 'sad sack' - but nice twisting and melodrama.

my point... well short of repeating what i already wrote and you chose to misinterpret....

not much point is there.

Economic evolution is the result of three interlinked processes: Physical Technology; Social Technology (e.g. the rule of law, money, venture capitalism) and business designs, which turn physical and social technologies into economic reality. In each of them ?evolution is at work, churning through possible designs, finding and amplifying ones that work, discarding those that don?t, and thereby creating the order that we see in our technological, social and economic worlds.?

I haven't read the book but I sort of figured that this was the sort of thing it would be about. (From you link Himalaya).

This sounds to me like evolutionary economics, best mate of evolutionary psychology.

I believe in sexism. I believe in "institutional sexism" in parallel with institutional racism - I.e. Where there are specific things about the way organisations and laws opperate which create sexist and discriminatory outcomes.

I believe in patriarchy - rule of families by fathers, and the laws that support that (in countries where it does).

I don't believe in The Patriarchy theory as the overarching explanation for these things.

Eh? You what? Come again?

What is 'The Patriarchy theory' when it is at home?

There is no 'The Patriarchy theory' in feminism. There is just observation of institutionalised sexism and male dominance (rule of fathers or legacy of), and by consequence, protest against it.

Are we back to Feminists Must Not Use Figures of Speech again? Does all this just come down to you don't really 'get' it when feminists wryly use rhetorical devices?

Himalaya we are having a discussion about patriarchy (ie how men dominate women and use power structures and institutionalised power to do so).

You mentioned two books - both written by white men, both about a massively male dominated area; the economy.

Both of which appear to be presenting an 'evolutionary/natural' theory about the economy, and doing so from a male perspective.

The global economy is very very clearly a patriarchal power structure. I don't doubt the books you have read are clever and complex but surely you can see why feminists might snort at a man being awarded a Nobel prize for writing about a male dominated power structure? Jolly good for Kahneman, no doubt he is very clever - his theories and writings don't change the fact that society is male dominated however.

Frothy dragon

So now I have to search back to see what was said and whether I am misrepresenting, thus proving SAF's point that I have nothing better to do.

Me (Sun 10-Jun-12 22:59:28): If you are interested in ideas on how economies evolve I really recommend the book "The Origin of Wealth" by Eric Beinhocker review which summarises a lot of recent research very well. At the very least you should note that it is not a basic and noncontroversial "statement of fact" that economies do not 'evolve'.

Similarly the work of psychologist Daniel Kahneman (Thinking Fast and Slow) who got the Nobel Prize for Economics, which looks at how our economic choices (often irrational ones) are related to natural cognative processes.

SAF (Mon 11-Jun-12 09:57:07): you are applying a biological term and process to non biological 'things'. and yes they'll win nobel prizes for theories that support the idea of the status quo being natural and good and some evolved state ffs. who do you think doles out these prizes and grants and accolades???

Me (Mon 11-Jun-12 11:19:40): Have you read any of Daniel Kahneman? How do you come to the conclusion that his work exploring the irrational ways humans make decisions about risk is about 'supporting the idea of the status quo being natural and good'?

(and just by the way, in case anyone misreads I don't think that natural =good)

Then a bit later

Me: I mentioned "Thinking Fast and Slow" upthread and was told it was bollocks and that Daniel Kahneman must be a defender of the patriarchal status quo to have been given a Nobel prize.?

No one popped up there and said ?don?t be daft Himalaya, no one said that'

I still am bemused as to why the system 1/system 2 stuff is classed as a theory that supports the idea of the status quo being natural and good. I didn't get that from my reading of it at all.

Him - So just to be clear, I think you are saying you believe in patriarchy, but not that it is the explanantion for all inequality. Am I right?