do you believe in the patriarchy?

garlicfanjo

No, really tell me. It would be nice.

Quoting my own post from yesterday, Himalaya:

Eclectic, the only one of Frothy's points that can't be blamed squarely on patriarchy is the donkey sanctuary one. And that can be answered with the fact that helplines for abusive males, which are under-subscribed, get government funding while the over-subscribed lines for abused females don't.

• I suggest you use your analytical capacity to work out what I meant by QED ...

garlic - what do you mean by QED?

bejeezusWC

Nope, we are all defending our stories.

FD -

I think your list is a good list of things that are wrong but to me isn't a list that proves the patriarchy

(Cuts to domestic violence refuges.

The fact Rape Crisis receives NO central government funding.

The fact women are still doing the majority of the housework.

The fact donkey sanctuaries receive more in charitable donations than women's refuges.

etc... )

Just take the Donkey sanctuary one. Donkey sanctuaries receive more charitable donations than homeless charities, alcohol and drug charities and a whole host of other things. Animal charities receive more than health, arts, sports, disability, schools or elderly causes. And with in animal charities people give more to donkeys than to species that are endangered but not so cute.

When you ask people to rank how charitable donations should be divided between different causes ('use their system 2') their stated preferences don't match what the population actually chooses to give to.

(This isnt an argument that feminists shouldn't promote women's causes and need to promote homelessness, elderly, sports etc.. btw). But it is a pretty good bit of evidence that the comparison between Donkey sanctuaries and women's refuges is not a case of something specific called patriarchy, but reflects a more general pattern of people not being very good at directing charitable giving to what really matters to them.

Does it mean it is not a problem? No. Because it being a problem doesn't depend on the patriarchy theory, it just depends on it being a problem.

But understanding the causes might be a way for charities to figure out better ways to attract giving towards the causes that people really prioritise when they think about it properly.

Dreaming,

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/young-women-now-earn-more-than-men-2364675.html

The article above shows that women are now slightly outearning men in the 20-29 year age group. It also shows that they are getting better outcomes in education. Clearly it is a newspaper article and not an academic paper but it cites its sources and they are reputable. For instance:

"Figures show that women aged between 22 and 29 in employment are now earning more on average per hour than men of the same age.

The figures were unearthed by Mary Curnock Cook, chief executive of the Universities and Colleges Admission Service, during research into the gender gap in education."

And:

"Research by the Higher Education Policy Institute shows that women now not only outnumber men overall at university, but they also outnumber them at every type of university. They are also more likely to get a 2:1 degree pass and are less likely to drop out. The institute's figures show 49.2 per cent of women opt for higher education compared with just 37.2 per cent of men. In the post-1992 universities (the former polytechnics), there are 23.8 per cent of the women cohort and 18 per cent of men."

And:

"Last month, the Chartered Institute of Management reported that junior female managers are earning marginally more than their male peers for the first time, but that the pay gap stubbornly persists when averaged across all job and age levels. The institute warned that it would take a century before the average salary for female executives caught up with that of their male peers."

I am not accusing you of cognitive dissonance in disagreeing with ME but of failing to engage with evidence such as the above. I have also said that it is natural and I am sure I am equally guilty...so hardly personal or offensive.

Yes it's natural to defend our thinking -- what I slightly resent in Larry's post is the idea that by disagreeing with him, I'm not rationally analysing evidence, or am displaying cognitive dissonance. When really, I just haven't seen any compelling evidence to support the claims that patriarchy is not relevant in a UK context.

Himalaya QED.

Larry Grylls -

I agree. We all defend our current stories, but we can try to switch our system 2s on.

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

• patriarchal bis = failed deletion. Was patriarchal bias

you all have to be playing the same game, for those tactics to be successful......and whose game is that???

Incisive point. The observation is true in all groups - it's perfectly possible for a feminist woman to fall out with a feminist organisation due to differing operational approaches. But, on the grand scale, the game is skewed in favour of men and of patriarchal bis - which are not always the same thing.

Even the feminist organisation would not exist without patriarchy. Women-led organisations would be less judgemental of women on appearance without a patriarchal context. Patriarchy favours the "win-lose" game paradigm, which is the cause of blame culture. It's so strong that the more sensible "win-win" strategy meets widespread resistance at every level. Yet win-win is miles more efficient; you only really need to beat your opponent if the opponent is a sociopath.

Patriarchy, by my (highly system 2, despite the rambledom of this post) evaluation, is a sociopathic institution. Therefore it needs to be superceded. Patriarchy is not the institution of men but, as it favours men over women, is sexist and is vehemently supported by more men than women.

As to whether patriarchy is better attacked from within or outside its own parameters - well, I wasn't too impressed by Mrs Thatcher's effort at playing the game to beat it. I would like to know more about how the women presidents in Latin America operate, as they seem to take a more balanced approach, and I gather Frau Merckel does as well.

There are plenty of male 'win-win' proponents, too, btw. If win-win wins out (heh) in the end, there should be a decline in sexism because of the diminished need for a handy loser at every turn.

bejeezus - Agreed and I think it is still a feminist issue

Forgive the hair diversion It was the middle of the night! I'll catch up now.

Watch out: the patriarchy is striking back. At least one in every three women will be beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.

('The patriarchy is striking back' is a figure of speech - a common rhetorical device that seems to create confusion when feminists use it.)

Across the world, the statistics on violence against women are horrifying. According to the UN, at least one in every three women will be beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime; the organisation describes violence against women as "a universal problem of epidemic proportions" and "perhaps the most pervasive human rights violation that we know today". The British Government suggests that domestic violence is the largest cause of morbidity worldwide in women aged 19-44, causing more deaths and ill health than war, cancer or traffic accidents.

Okay Larry, I've got my 'system 2' hat on

If you'd like me to rationally analyse your new evidence, I'm afraid I need more specifics or some cites. It's usually at that level that evidence falls apart, not sweeping generalisations.

Himalaya,

It is natural to see facts which fit into our theories and deny those that don't. It is called cognitive ease and uses what some psychologists call "system 1". It feels intuitively right and therefore we don't engage "system 2" and analyse it in depth. I am just reading "Thinking Fast and Slow" which is a fascinating exposition on how people make decisions.

For instance if I say that in the UK women perform better in education and in the first 10 or so years of their careers, people who can only see the patriarchy at work will either try to deny it or fit it in with that theory. They won't see it as new evidence which may discredit the theory and analyse it rationally (at which point they may revert to their original theory or may have to come up with a new one). The anger that greets the above statement is a good example of cognitive dissonance. People are forced to make effort and engage "system 2" which annoys them.

Equally, I am sure that if someone comes up with facts that show that the patriarchy is alive and kicking in the UK today, I will try to discredit it and become annoyed, as it disagrees with my internal ideas.

It is really hard to be objective (for anyone)!

i said largely logical not logical .

may be a better way of waying it, is 'some sort of logic'.

i can go for ages & not think i experience sexism but then something happens & while i dont know the contents of other peoples minds, it i were a gambling person i would put money on it...

I agree I am sure there we all defend/don't question things that on the whole benefit ourselves. At the same time there is also a tendency to defend a theory that is part of your identity/education/standing in a group.

I see this in climate change - companies and people whose jobs have the most to loose because they are fossil fuel based tend to be most skeptical about the science. Traditional environmental campaigners tend to underplay uncertainty and the relative cost of taking different actions.

I have just started reading "Eve was Framed". It is most interesting. I would say Helena Kennedy most definitely believes in Patriarchy....