do you believe in the patriarchy?

yes WE are biological things, animals and evolution applies to us as such. economies are not. how is this fucking unclear unless you're deliberately obfuscating.

Porto, I'd happily go with the second position. I haven't seen anybody arguing the first. Some seem to be arguing that the patriarchy is entirely cultural and has nothing to do with the way we have evolved (I think - I'm pretty confused too).

I think the third position doesn't really get us very far. Male violence won't stop just because we want it to. I think there is nothing wrong with looking to see if biology can give us some clues as to the root causes of male violence - not to excuse the status quo but in the hope that greater understanding will enable us to eradicate it quicker. I completely understand why feminists are very wary of biological explanations though because they have been so dreadfully misused over the years.

I agree kyriarchy is a distraction.

Kyriarchy = Female porn stars are oppressing men.

What a vacuous argument.

I think that's about it Porto.

You just missed out 'patriarchy only exists in feminists' heads' and 'patriarchy doesn't advantage all men all the time and is a complex set of interlinking hierarchies - can we call that something else in order to take the focus off the fact that it is men running the show'.

This article explains a line of thought which I identify with. kyriarchy and patriarchy

SAF -

"you are applying a biological term and process to non biological 'things'." - we are biological things. At what point do we stop being biological?

"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"

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'?

Of course the status quo is 'some evolved state'. Dying of cancer is an evolved state. Extinction is an evolved state. Everything is an evolved state. It isn't another word for good, it is a way to understand the dynamics behind biology.

"i don't believe in pinnacles." I don't believe in pinnacles either. modern biology doesn't believe in pinnacles. Victorian social darwinists believed in pinnacles. You brought up the word pinnacle presumably because you think that something in modern biology or in what I am saying is based on the idea that there are pinnacles in evolution. Otherwise why bring it up?

I have got all confused. Are we now arguing:

Patriarchy is all down to evolution - it is the "natural order" - men are stronger than women so....blah blah blah

vs

Patriarchy is a social construct made up of lots of different influence, cultural and historical and, yes there might be a bit of evolution in there...

vs

It doesn't matter how it came about, it is shit and needs to stop.?

Thanks!

Would somebody care to tell me who holds the power and controls power structures in this so called Kyriarchy?

(Hint it isn't women.)

It is just another distraction.

kyriarchy I think is just used as another way imo of saying stop talking about female oppression and start talking about other kinds of oppression instead. Of course other types of opression exist, but this is literally the only context I have ever seen thsi word being used in

What do you think of the term Kyriarchy?

Agree bejeezus - its fine to talk about every other kind of oppression imo except about oppression against women.

Quite a few of the concepts that himalaya has discussed for a start.

Oppression of women not impression

No one is denying that there are elements of male supremacy in the world and that they contribute to the impression of women. What is being argued, is that there are lots of other influences that all contribute to the oppression of not just women but people in general. I think the problem here is what people are calling the patriarchy and whether they believe it is the root of all oppression.

here is the thread

Kritiq has an interesting post on one of the other threads about intersectionality.

Himalaya, how about instead of telling me what my argument is and translating it into something I haven't actually said, you tell me what your argument actually is?

Because apart form the faith/god stuff of earlier I don't really know what your argument is. (Can you summarize it in a couple of sentences like I did with mine?)

And what in the name of arse has credible research got to do with the fact that; violence against women exists, violence against women is global, violence against women is a human rights issue?

I can read all the evopsych in the world and it will change absolutely zero about the above. I can see it with my own eyes, no need to research it.

Feminism is a grass roots movement about protesting against concrete actual physical harm that is being done to women. It isn't about academic discussions/research which attempt to justify the status quo and are rewarded by the status quo with Nobel Prizes (no shit!).

It Is All A Distraction.

Please can you define patriachy again, just to be clear, as it seems people have different understandings of it.