do you believe in the patriarchy?

'There is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise.'

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Explanation of why evolutionary psychology is generally not accepted by scientists, particularly biologists but also psychologists is explained here:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/

AKA the 'lady brains' school of thought.

Shall I post Harry Enfield again?

Himalaya are you arguing that male supremacist society is the natural order?

It certainly sounds like you are, and using evolutionary psychology to do so.

Beachcomber - the alternative to 'patriarchy' as the underlying reason for inequality isn't 'cooincidence'.

Just as the alternative to divine creation as the underlying reason for the apparent designed nature of our world isn't cooincidence (although this is an argument that creationists buy into.

Organisms evolve, cultures evolve, societies evolve.

Bit less having the fuck exploited out of them by western countries might sort some problems out for much of the developing world.

Alternatively they could just trying spinning the lottery balls again to see if their random totally coincidental luck changes.

SAF - i agree that is why males evolved stronger upper bodies, because of the advantage it gives in fighting with, dominating, and killing other men to have more access to more females.

But that means that a pre existing male tendency to physical strength and aggression being used to dominate women can't be the ultimate cause of 'the patriarchy' (which is often stated here, and I understand as a fairly standard interpretation of the reason the patriarchy came about), because the evolutionary pressures that drove these adaptations were in themselves not very nice (to say the least).

I mean would you describe a society in which men fight over women and the strongest man wins as patriarchal? If so then this central aspect of patriarchy pre-existed male strength and aggression and isn't explained by it (or at least they co-evolved).

None of this is a justification for violence (whether between men, or men and women) but I think it does mean that patriarchy as a purely social construct ('not natural' etc...) just doesn't reflect reality.

And that developing countries need to do more farming!! Why? Because they're really not pulling their weight in the global growing of food stakes? Bizarre.

I personally like the assumption that all developing countries are war-torn.

Though I really blame the media for this -- the only time you hear about most developing countries is when there's a war on.

Oh and PMSL at some of the naysayers saying;

STFU western feminists with your navel gazing and concentrate on developing countries.

And others saying STFU western feminists, you can't include developing countries when you talk about women's rights.

Shall we just summarize that to; feminists STFU?

Life is unfair.

So feminists just STFU.

Of course, life is completely, utterly, totally randomly unfair. It is just one big lottery with no rhyme or reason to it, at all. No siree.

It is just total coincidence that life's big ole random lottery has white men over represented in power, politics, finance and positions of status.

It is just total coincidence that poverty is feminized, that violence is gendered, that women are disadvantaged and marginalised.

Phew, we got that one worked out, quick smart - random unfair pot luck coincidence, the lottery of life. Got it!

SEB, so a single mother, who is attempting to combine the important work of raising children with a job, and finds herself with less money than the average working man even though he does less work than her, do you think that her 13 year old living in poverty is just needlessly moaning that life is unfair?

If you see the work of raising children as important, surely you can see that the heart of a fair society would be about valuing that work rather than it be a contributory factor in economic disadvantage?

Or are we going to continue with a future of using people and loving goods or are we going to start loving people and using goods?

And I'm comforted by the thought of your 13 year old having the awareness to realise that everything is unfair. Hopefully they have a future ahead of them challenging global injustice, because we need more people like that to face the problems ahead.

As for your odd idea about females generally outnumbering males in developing countries, you may want to look at a sex ratio map. The bits coloured pink are the areas where there are more women and the bits coloured blue are the areas where there are more men:

chartsbin.com/view/2338

I have been reading this and I am like WTF, life is unfair and that surprises us? All violence needs to stop, to do that we need to breed it out of the human race and it will take time.

One point I will challenge is the wages. Firstly lets not draw in countries in the third world. They have a while different type of suffering to us in the first world, the changes that need to be made their are stop wars, farm food and educate. But that applies to both sexes. Of course there are more women suffering as the number of men is smaller due to violence through wars.

Back in the first world where we all live Catherine Hakam at the LSE has done research that shows it is our desires for families that affect the female earning power. Sorry I wanted to be a SAHM I therefore didn't follow my career path and as such my earning power is less than someone who has worked solidly through their life. Now raising the next generation is an important job but if I went back to work now I would still be behind in terms of new technologies and business practices. If I can see that why can't other?

Sorry some of the arguments here are like my youngest boy (13) who is always complaining that everything is so unfair. Well life can be unfair, it is how we deal with the unfairness that defines us.

oh and i'm guessing having higher body fat levels (as opposed to muscle) etc was conducive to fertility and breastfeeding etc so not only did they not evolutionarily need to become the biggest and 'ardest they also had need to have a lower muscle ratio.

sorry not read every post - himalaya male bodies were stronger because they had to compete to get into the gene pool - they fought off other males to control the females re: be able to ensure that when oestrus occurred they were able to have sex with them. females did not have that need.

Great post, Beachcomber.

How can anyone deny the world is male-dominated? I honestly don't get it. Even if individual women find success, that does not negate the collective power and privilege held by men.

I also want a Godwin's Law corrollary for biological determinism arguments

Oh and I just noticed we have Godwin!

Excellent, feminists compared to Nazis. Brilliant analysis. Bit early in the thread for it, non? The Law states that it happens on long threads - still when it comes to feminists, might as well get it in ASAP, eh?!

Gosh how depressing this thread is.

Feminists denying that we live in a male supremacy and comparing feminism to a faith or believing in the tooth fairy.

Himalaya, I don't think you really understand what feminists mean when they talk about patriarchy. Lots of people don't - which is odd, because it is quite simply another word to say 'male dominated society' or 'society in which men have higher status than women'.

Do you all have the same problem accepting terms like 'capitalist society' or 'feudal society' or 'tribal society'? Do you not believe in society at all?

I already explained in a previous post that 'The Patriarchy' is used as a figure of speech - a rhetorical short-cut. (Must remember feminists Must Not Use Figures of Speech, because for some reason everybody suspends their usual ability to understand this commonly used rhetorical device, and Takes Things Like Totally Literally.)

Himalaya you said; The answers here that the patriarchy is all that is bad in society (or at least in relation to men and women) remind me of that conversation.

Can you quote the post where in answer to 'what is patriarchy?' a feminist has answered 'all that is bad in society'?

You seemed to think that I had clearly stated that I spoke for you, the other day, Himalaya - something that you completely made up. Here again, you appear to be arguing against something that nobody has said.

I think the question in the OP was badly worded. A better question would have been 'do you think women have equal status?' or 'do you think society is male dominated?' or 'do you think gendered violence has been eradicated' or 'do you think women have fair and equal political representation' or 'do you think the working world is male dominated and structured for men?' or, well, you get the picture.

Some stats for those who think that society is no longer patriarchal and all in the garden is rosy and glittery (in a feministy way of course).

londonfeministnetwork.org.uk/home/why-women-only

Across the globe women do two thirds of the world?s work, receive one tenth of the world?s income and own less than 1% of the world?s property (Robbins R, 1999). Women account for two thirds of the 1.2 billion people currently living in poverty (DfID).

Nowhere in the world do women earn equal wages to men, across Europe there is a 25% pay gap in like for like work.

Women hold fewer than 13% of the world?s parliamentary seats (DfID).
Here in the UK only 19% of our MP?s are women.

An estimated 70% of those children not in education are female.

Here in the UK 2 women every week are killed by a violent male partner and 1 in 4 women in the UK are affected by domestic violence, including so-called ?honour? crimes and forced marriages.

?Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation, and it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development, and peace.? ? UN Secretary General Kofi Annan

A report by New Philanthropy Capital warns that violence against women is costing British society £40bn a year, but charities which help victims are grossly underfunded. NPC?s report concluded that the expense to public services, lost economic output and knock-on effects of violence against women in all its forms costs the country more than the annual defence budget. (Express, 23 Apr 2008, p33; Independent, 23 Apr 2008, p16)

Yes feminists are well known for the immense amount of power they have in society.

GothAnneGeddes, that's really interesting, it's pretty much what I think. I have quite a few Indian friends and their attitudes towards black african people and Pakistani people is quite shocking. Whilst women are expected to perform traditional roles of housewife and mother they are now also pushed really hard to aim for top careers and talking to my Indian friends it is really clear that they think "their" women are superior. Of course India has a very complicated caste system as well.

Oh the patriarchy exists.
In the minds of certain feminists and their recruits.

Ironically the people with the biggest vested interest in its continued existence as those who create power out of using it and as a propaganda tool to control women and beat men.

See Propaganda technics

Big Lie
The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the "big lie" generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate perception of the underlying events. After World War I the German Stab in the back explanation of the cause of their defeat became a justification for Nazi re-militarization and revanchist aggression.

SAF and Rulers - What is the feminist (patriarchy version) explanation for why men are stronger in the upper body/arms?

Krumbum - there are different reasons for each of them, and combinations of reasons. Why would you expect so many complex situations involving different people and motivations to have a singular answer, and one that can be summed up in one word?

That was a response to the OP incidentally, not the posters above incidentally

I observe patriarchy whilst at the same time disliking the way it is banded around in some feminist debate (particularly online).

So I can see for example, that society often sets different values for men and women. I can also see that there are often different standards for looks, grooming, behaviour etc. I think some of these are becoming less pronounced, but others moreso.

I do not personally place the level of importance on it that I suspect most people who self identify as radical feminists would, being one of those 'choicy people'

Having said that, I often lose the will with patriarchy arguments online and I can see how others get turned off by it. Too often I've seen posters disagree with a rad fem and be told they don't 'get it' or they 'only think that because they are influenced by the patriarchy'. It becomes doctrinal and is sadly often used as a tool to close down debate (alongside misuse of 'check your privilege' oppression Olympics and a frantic race where the one who claims they have least cutlery wins I hate that bloody spoons metaphor ).

WHY do you think so many women are raped, paid less and do the majority of child rearing and housecare then eclectic? If you don't think it is patriarchy then offer another explanation. Why do so many more women have plastic surgery? Why are so many more strip clubs opening? Why is it playing the victim to acknowledge that these things happen? It doesn't make sense, I personally don't have kids for example but I still care about women that do.