do you believe in the patriarchy?

I agree with Basil.

Most of the feminists I know are very mindful of intersectionality.

I guess because the politics of oppression have a pattern, and once you get that pattern for one thing (misogyny for example), you can then apply that understanding to other areas (racism, classism, ableism), etc. Also I think it makes you mindful of your own privilege, and especially mindful of how oblivious we are to so much of our privilege.

Of course it goes without saying that feminists are people just like everybody else and some of us suffer multiple oppressions.

This "feminists don't recognise any other oppression" bollocks, is the twin brother of "feminists are allowed to talk about women in Saudi and Afghanistan where nasty foreign men oppress them, but STFU about men here".

"Lack of intersectionality in feminism (and other movements too, if you explored them) is a huge issue"

No, it's not. All intelligent feminists are totally aware of how oppressions intersect. They still think women's rights shouldn't be at the back of the queue though, behind all the other rights that need to be fought for.

People want to believe that feminists are unaware of any other oppression, so that they can portray them as wild eyed obsessives who only see one problem. Nope, it doesn't fly.

No, good points saf even if I did feel slightly misquoted

• not a simple reversal more proper concern and respect for children's well-being (Also more respect for women as mothers too I feel)

The whole idea of "granting custody" and the talk around that is rather old-fashioned isn't it ? Hardly respectful to any of the people concerned in the family's web of relationships. To be fair I don't know how much such phrases are used these days.

Thanks Him. I don't think it invalidates your arguments. Its just interesting to note that actually you are more privileged that most or maybe all the rad fems on here.

yes, yes, no, yes, yes. DH has a disability, DS has SN, brought up by a loan parent. OK for ya?

children are not 'given' to the mother. they're not property and it isn't a simple reversal that has happened. what has happened is that the interests of the children are considered and consistency is valued therefore staying with the parent who has been the primary caretaker. that primary caretaker could be male or female depending on the choices that family made. sorry not meant as snippy just the likes of f4j phrase it that way and it irks.

very baby steps in my opinion juggling and they're being clawed back at every available opportunity - such as using the economic climate to hit women hard.

I think we're just beginning to take some steps away from being a patriarchal society. If a couple split up for example custody is more often given to the mother, whereas this was not the case in the past where the children were at one time more "owned" by the father.

I sometimes think if we imagine looking back on now from a couple of hundred years in the future we can see how we've only just taken some baby steps towards equality, and see how "old-fashioned" and patriarchal our society - and our lives - actually are.

Him - Could you answer my question?

oh and people like you could stop slagging them off at every available opportunity on mn and propogating lies about the quality of life their children have. personally i'd find that a good start.

This is interesting.

The existence of patriarchy may be traced back to ancient times. Lerner has stated that the commodification of women?s sexual and reproductive capacity emerged at about the same time as the development of private property, thus setting the stage for patriarchal social structures. The Bible is sometimes cited as exemplifying the original ?father-rule? form of patriarchy in many of its stories. An example is the Adam and Eve story of creation, in which Adam is created first, followed by all the animals. Then Eve is created from part of Adam so that, in a sense, he may be considered her parent (Pateman 1989, p. 451). As such, Adam is clearly in the dominant position. This is consistent with Lerner?s explanation that ?men learned to institute dominance and hierarchy over other people by their earlier practice of dominance over the women of their own group? (1986, p. 9). The sexual subordination of women was subsequently written into the earliest system of laws, enforced by the state, and secured by the cooperation of women through such means as ?force, economic dependency on the male head of the family, class privileges bestowed upon conforming and dependent women of the upper classes, and the artificially created division of women into respectable and not-respectable women? (Lerner 1986, p. 9).

The classic form of patriarchy decreased in its prevalence during the seventeenth century. The transition to what Teresa Meade and Pamela Haag have described as a broader fraternal-right patriarchy or ?domination of society by the ?brotherhood of men?? (1998, p. 92) is often associated with the rise of ?capitalist rationalism? because the prior standard of fathers ruling over sons was not compatible with the demands of capitalism. Meade and Haag also note that ?the defeat of classic patriarchy in the Enlightenment era meant that the father?s absolute power over sons was lost and patriarchy moved to the broader civil society? (1998, p. 92). This transformation occurred to the detriment of women whose work in the home was suddenly separated from what was considered to be the larger economy.

Is that all feminism is?

Sigh.

SAF, Beach, we're doing it wrong...

Sorry, patriarchy's calling. Says it wants it's right to oppress us back.

sure there is - the valuing of raising children as part of the 'work' of an effective society and the provision of decent affordable childcare and/or tax breaks for lone parent families. they've got it sussed in other countries and we don't live in some singular paradox where it's not possible for us.

you haven't commented on your privilige by the way.

I am not bashing single mothers - I am just saying that there is not a perfect set of 'non oppressive' policies that could be designed to eliminate the economic disadvantage of being a single parent.

So you cannot design and agree on the best set of policies just by saying 'don't be oppressive'. The same is true for BF/FF, SAHM/WOHM questions, loads of complex questions in society.

So why not start by calling them complex questions, instead of saying that the only correct way to look at them is through the patriarchy lens of oppression.

Oh yes, all those happy factory workers in China. Labouring under the kind of conditions that we in the West were lucky to escape last century.

Do you deny that factory workers in the UK were exploited and oppressed by industry etc. in the 19th century? It's not really much different, just globalised.

Him - That is a good point. Are you a herterosexual able bodied white middle class married woman?

like the heteronormative shit you pull and single mum bashing - do you think you enjoy being a heterosexual middle class married woman and see anyone fighting for better rights for other kinds of families as a threat to your privilige?

from here that is what it looks like.

all you seem to be about himalaya is preserving the status quo and normative values. how does that serve you? do you think maybe you're in a relatively priviliged position so feel the need to fight off anyone who is actually trying to change things to be better for others?

see that is just more bullshit straw man crap. either we have to oppress the workers in china or they will all starve because they need the jobs.

errrr no. there are a billion stops between the two why pretend otherwise? as if saying oppression of chinese workers is wrong is the same as saying hey we should just stop all trade with and manufacturing in china.

ffs.

do you think people are really, really thick?

vashti thank you as well -- ditto to what swallowed said. I almost never mention my degree but I think it becomes relevant when people start saying that you don't agree with them because you don't understand the subject matter or how theoretical analysis should be done.

You've lost me, Himalaya...

Only fascists believe that the best thing for the oppressor to do is carry on oppressing...

But it would be. For the Chinese women the best thing would be for those women to be getting a fair wage and good treatment e.g. health and safety rules, for their labour. That would mean a number of things including us paying much more for goods made in China

who was it who used to call people 'mundane'. i think it's going to be my new short hand word for dull, heteronormative people full of bigotted, small minded dull, dull, dullness.

EBAL and FD - But that's the thing - what is the point of talking about something in terms of 'oppression' if the best thing for the person identified as the oppressor to do isn't to stop what they are doing right now.

I missed the bit about "Mother's Allowance"... WTF is that, and where do I claim it?

I can hear it now... "Come on, single mothers... Off your backsides, or it's down the workhouses for ya..."