do you believe in the patriarchy?

How can any woman not believe in it? you only have to look at who is at the 'top' - who are the judges, the top police officers, the politicians, the captains of industry - far far FAR more men than women. Men rule the world. There is no sense in saying otherwise. They are there, in massive numbers and women are not. I know there's a lot more to it, but when the majority of the power is in the hands of men, that's a fairly good indication that we live in a male controlled world.

So many things would be better for women and men if we lived in an equal society.

Men are realising this. Slowly but surely.

Larry,

Sorry, am writing a bit slowly!

I honestly think in a less patriarchal world, we would figure out a way to make parental leave work in a way that would not damage people's careers -- because we would start from the assumption that having children is a good thing for society and not simply a personal choice that entails personal sacrifice.

We would have true parental leave, not just maternity leave; more flexible working conditions (as Portofino says, many jobs could be done more flexibly); cheaper and better childcare options. We would have more empathy and expect that it's usually possible for people to catch up to their previous level of work after being away for a few months.

After all, if you had a heart attack (god forbid) and were signed off work for six months, you wouldn't expect to have to take a salary cut because you were now six months behind everyone, right?

You might say -- I had no choice to have a heart attack. You can choose to have children.

But while that's true at the individual level, at the collective level we definitely want people to continue having children and should try to encourage that while still maintaining people's productivity. If we truly accept that men and women participate in the workforce equally, and that our society needs to keep reproducing for the future, then we should reject the assumption that having children means sacrificing your career.

Sorry - I can read the article without subscribing......"This finding?that brain structure correlates as well or better with psychological ?gender? than with simple biological ?sex??is crucial to keep in mind when considering any comparisons of male and female brains. Yes, men and women are psychologically different and yes, neuroscientists are uncovering many differences in brain anatomy and physiology which seem to explain our behavioral differences. But just because a difference is biological doesn?t mean it is ?hard-wired.? Individuals? gender traits?their preference for masculine or feminine clothes, careers, hobbies and interpersonal styles?are inevitably shaped more by rearing and experience than is their biological sex. Likewise, their brains, which are ultimately producing all this masculine or feminine behavior, must be molded?at least to some degree?by the sum of their experiences as a boy or girl."

Exactly wordfactory - it is a self-perpetuating social order.

Social order is a concept used in sociology, history and other social sciences that refers to a set of linked social structures, social institutions and social practices which conserve, maintain and enforce "normal" ways of relating and behaving.

And when one has a social order, one has........drum roll........status groups!

"Status groups" can be based on a person's characteristics such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, region, occupation, physical attractiveness, gender, education, age, etc. They are defined as "a subculture having a rather specific rank (or status) within the stratification system. That is, societies tend to include a hierarchy of status groups, some enjoying high ranking and some low."

Portofino,

Your link would be interesting if it were free. I don't really want to subscribe to Scientific American. However, even in the intro, the authors say that male/female differences cannot all be ascribed to nurture, even if some of them can.

Saying you don't 'believe' in patriarchy is as ludicrous as saying you don't believe in gravity. You may not be able to see it but it is everywhere and is the foundation our society is built from.

Some manifestations of it are more visible and socially acknowledged than others eg post pregnancy discrimination in employment but the patriarchy affects us before we are even born. Look at the expectations of children's behaviour of parents expecting boys vs girls. With sex selective abortions and female infanticide women are discriminated against right from the start. Thinking that gender differences are only connected to childbearing is the patriarchy brainwashing you. Believing that 'women's problems' are 'women's fault' is the patriarchy at its most dangerous.

beach that's the way I see it.

Patriarchy just means the system which has been predicated on sexisim and which still allows sexism to continue.

Things like 'I blame the patriarchy' as just figures of speech. They are rhetorical short-cuts.

A bit like how people refer to 'the man' or 'the system' or 'the rat race'.

Most people understand that what is being talked about is not a real single identifiable man or that humans are really rats having a race.

namechange not it is like this because it was men have wanted before.

Things are changing though. As feminism pushes for equality, many men come to see tht there lives will be infinitely improved too.

Sure there will be the old gurad with a lot to loose. But eventually we men and women togehter will force them to change their ways .

Also, it's a bit disingenuous to attribute rape/DV to physical characteristics and differences. Rape is hugely influenced by social attitudes toward women and the use of violence.

As an extreme example, look at Bosnia during its war, when it went very quickly from a society with a modest level of sexual violence to a place where tens of thousands of women were raped, even held in 'rape camps'. There was no change in the physical size of men and women, there was a change in men's beliefs as to what they were allowed to do and get away with.

The UK is not at war, but there are all number of social influences porn, adverts, celebrities, the tabloids that facilitate predatory sexual behaviour in some men.

So yes, I believe in a less patriarchal society one that did not genuflect to male sexual preferences, even when degrading to women sexual violence would be reduced. It would be less likely to occur, and perpetrators would be jailed for far longer than they are currently (which given rapists' recidivism, would go a long way to addressing the problem).

This is an interesting article re. brain differences.

I don't believe it exists in the Rad Fem sense of 'something to be overthrown'. It is a modern societal construct used to explain the unequal treatment of men and women. It does not exist in the way that say a Dictatorship, Government or Club or other defined group does and therefore cannot be 'overthrown'.

As a societal construct, it can be changed, but as we are all, male or female inevitably part of society and therefore part of that social construct, it can only be changed from within by correcting the inequalities that lead us to construct the idea in the first place.

Inequality in the workplace, under-punishment of sexual violence against women, attitudes that make many believe that DV is acceptable and therefore punish it less than other types of violence etc etc - these things are real and can be 'overthrown' but 'Patriarchy' is just an umbrella label.

To say 'I blame the patriarchy' or 'It's Patriarchy's fault' as if it is something that exists externally to the person saying it also seems faintly ridiculous to me. You may as well just say 'I blame society' or 'It's society's fault' and we can hardly overthrow society, but we can change it.

The patriarchy is not to blame for inequality, people are - men for their sense of entitlement and superiority, women for putting up with it. Most are not even aware of the subject positions they inhabit. You can't 'overthrow the patriarchy', you can change people and attitudes.

(This is why, although I want all the same things as feminists in terms of equality for women, better rape conviction and punishment, improved attitudes towards violence against women etc, I do not call myself a feminist because I just don't view the idea of patriarchy in the same way that seems to be so central to mainstream feminist ideology)

Portofino,

I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. However, I don't think many men like presenteeism any more than women. Why would a patriarchy impose such an unpleasant thing on themselves?

Dreaming,

"I think in a more feminist system, however, having children would not be seen merely as a personal choice distracting from one's career, but as a vital contribution to the future of society after all, if no one had children, where would we be? Thus, taking a year off for a child would be seen less like a personal holiday and more like a sabbatical not the same work, but an equally valuable contribution that should not be penalised"

I think that is an interesting point. But, in practice, how would it work? You compare it to a sabbatical. I don't know many big careers where people do not pay a penalty for taking a long sabbatical. And, if someone is genuinely more up-to-date and better able to do a job as they have remained at work, are they going to have to report to someone with out of date knowledge and less relevant experience?

'The whole current work model is set up to fit men. Long hours, presenteeism etc.'

Of course, this assumes that it is what men want. Well, I don't. I'd like more time at home with my family. This system suits those who put career progression above any close relationships, whether they are male or female.

Larry, sorry but the idea of a male and female brain is bollocks. This link takes you to an article that explains why the research you cite is rubbish.

biologicaltheoriestrans.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/sexual-hormones-and-the-female-brain/

I'm not determined to get into a huge argument. I'm just pulling you up on your posting etiquette.

Don't (authoritatively) try to tell me what my motivation is.

Citing someone (authoritatively) who is not on a thread in a critical manner, and singling out one poster, when many share their view, is unpleasant.

Have you asked dittany if she thinks it is a compliment? Hang on, I think I will.

larry yes, there will always be criminal behaviour. But when one group is regularly subjected to it by another, then there is a political dimension to it.

It's quite simple really. Men who are not sexist do not subject women to domestic or sexual violence.

And yes, some men are subjected to violence but it is simply not somehting that most parents worry about for their sons. These are random and thankfully rare acts. They are also more easy for men to avoid and free themselves from.

As for the glass ceiling, well sadly it does still exist. Less so, but still there. If my DD and DS decided upon the same career, I wouldn't worry that my DS would find much to prevent him gaining access to the top flight. I would worry that my DD might. Statistics and also personal experience tell me it might. Yes, I can arm her with tools to overcome, but these are tools my DS will in all likelihood not need.

As for boys in education. I do think you have a point that the system seems to discriminate against poor males (certainly not rich ones!). This needs to be addressed.

And boys and vetting. Seriously I do not think this is an issue. Most women do not see men as predatory. I don't. Nor any of the women I know. We accept that there are predators out there. And that most of them are men. But we don't extraploate from that that all men are a risk!

To be honest the whole tone of your post makes me absolutely certain that there is a patriarchy.

As my DH always says some men are opening sexist, at least you know what they are getting. Then there are those who pretend that sexism doesn't exist. These are tthe real wankers!

I don't think it is just having children that impacts on the pay gap, although that plays a major part. It is also the idea of women's jobs and men's jobs, with women's jobs valued less and paid less.

Portofino and Trills,

The concept of a male and female brain is well known and documented and is due to exposure to testosterone in the womb. Even in the book most often cited against this, the professor acknowledges that there are neurological differences but says they are overstated.

Generally, girls do better at project related work and boys at exams under time pressure. Is that due to conditioning or biology? There will be a load of people who will say 100% conditioning but that is VERY hard to prove and the actual science is quite equivocal.

Porto - Agreed, boys and girls are treated very differently. And of course that shapes who they become as adults

The whole current work model is set up to fit men. Long hours, presenteeism etc. With today's technology and 24 hour culture there is no reason why it should continue like that - it is possible to build flexibility into many, many jobs.

Beachcomber,

You are absolutely determined to get into a huge argument about nothing.

Citing someone as an authority is generally considered a compliment. Did I misrepresent her? If not, how on earth is it "rude" or "weird" to cite a frequent and well known poster as an authority on something? If someone did that to me, I would regard it as a compliment.

And, if I either misrepresented her views, or you feel that her views are NOT representative of the movement, why don't you explain to me in what way I have erred?

There is very little biological difference between girls and boys until they hit puberty. I agree with Trills - we treat them differently, we expect them to behave differently.