do you believe in the patriarchy?

Larry -- I see where you're coming from, but I think to understand the belief in patriarchy you have to think a bit outside the box.

For instance, you say:

'Where I and a lot of feminists on this board will disagree is whether there should be a cost career-wise in women choosing to take time out for babies. I feel that someone with nine years experience of work (for instance) should statistically earn less than someone with seven years experience.'

That's a pretty logical conclusion coming from the mindset of a system where men traditionally have been the main participants and there was no question of taking time off for having children.

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.

At the very least, in a non-patriarchal system, you would not have our current situation where men get 2 weeks of parental leave and women get 9 months! That sets up a structural condition whereby of course women are more likely to stay home and thus suffer in their career.

I don't believe patriarchy is consciously implemented by most men. But there are countless structural conditions that we take for granted that inherently disadvantage women, in many different ways.

I wasn't on the phD thread so I have no idea what you are referring to.

Have you checked with dittany if you can cite her in this way?

structured around tasks where females outperform males

Why do females outperform males? Is it because we praise little girls for sitting quietly and expect little boys to do more running around, and then we are surprised when boys find it harder to sit still in a classroom?

No, I'm not trying to catch you out Larry. I just think it is weird and rude to authoritatively cite a poster who isn't on a thread and then use that as a basis with which challenge an entire movement.

Patriachy and feminism are social constructs that have a political ideology to them Patriachy as an ideology ahs been around since nomadic tribes settled and started to have property. Patriachy nowadays is a dominent ideology which does not fully inform political sphere however in times of scarcity or challenges patriachy comes to the fore.You can have feminist principles and not acknowledge patriachy if you do not enter the political.

Wordfactory,

I think the comments re rape and domestic violence will never be met due to the differing sizes of men and women and the different nature of their genitalia. Men can be subjected to DV too and other forms of intimidation and, in some cases, can be raped. I don't think any political movement will ever stop criminal behaviour.

As to the "glass ceiling", what real evidence is there that it still exists and is not just a hangover from historical sexism (as per my previous post).

And, as a counter argument, how do I explain to my sons that they are not equal in the world of education as it is structured around tasks where females outperform males? How will I explain to them that, on average, the girl sitting next to them in class will earn more than them until they decide to have children? How do I explain to them that a whole slew of females will regard them as potential predators and rapists and not fit to be around children until they have been vetted?

Beachcomber,

Apologies for singling out a poster. However, if you all agree, what is the issue, what is the real problem? As I am sure you realise, I was thinking back to the thread on a suitable feminist PHD and those posters (Dittany amongst them) who made the point that feminist is political and therefore a thesis which questioned the patriarchy was not feminist.

You do seem to be trying to catch me out , though, rather than addressing the substance of what I have posted. If you feel I have misrepresented her or the general perspective, why not point out how?

For me it's just a way to explain the system whereby women are not yet equal to men.

larry I accept of course that as a western woman (and a rich educated one at that) I am less oppressed than women in other countries. But I am still not equal.

When will I know that patriarchy has had it's day? When I don't worry about my daughter being raped. When I don't worry about my daughter being subjected to domestic violence. When I don't worry about my daughter not being able to access excellent medical care during her birth. When I don't worry about my daughter hitting the glass ceiling. When I don't worry about my duaghter being sexually harrassed in the work place. When I don't worry about my daughter having less pension than her husband (see today's report on the pension gap in the UK).

Shall I go on?

Why is dittany being brought into this when she isn't posting on the thread?

All the feminists I know define feminism as being a political movement - why single out one particular feminist?

Also I don't think it is right that you speak with authority on what another poster 'puts' and 'infers' etc. especially when they aren't around.

Those saying that you can't believe in something that is real, remember that some religious people say that they see and experience God's love in the world (just as much as you see and experience the effects of the patriarchy). I think "believe in" is a perfectly good question.

I don't "believe in" the patriarchy: I see it.

I think the problem is, as Dittany puts it, feminism is, by definition, political. And, as a corollary, she infers that all feminist research etc should come from the perspective of there being a patriarchal society. If you accept that, then at what point will feminists accept there is no longer a patriarchy? It does seem, at that level, to be a belief, rather than something based on research or individual experience.

I think that it would be very easy to prove the existence of a global patriarchy via independent research. Clearly, through much of the 3rd and developing World, women have a pretty bad time of it.

In the West (and my experience is really the UK and a little of France) less so. Women are doing better in education and in the 18-30 year age group, they are out earning men. Where I and a lot of feminists on this board will disagree is whether there should be a cost career-wise in women choosing to take time out for babies. I feel that someone with nine years experience of work (for instance) should statistically earn less than someone with seven years experience. Otherwise, it seems to me, you are discriminating against men, rather than trying to equalise things. Also, using board level comparisons is looking at a historical rather than a current patriarchy. I think everyone will agree that a woman in her 50s or early 60s will have experienced discrimination in the early part of her career (in the 60s-early 80s), and that will clearly affect her now. I think that if you were to take self selection (bright women who choose not to have a big career) and historical discrimination (as per my point above) out of the equation, salary comparisons would be very different.

I think both men and women have certain pressures on them to perform certain roles. However, in the West, it is relatively easy to choose different routes. At what point would the feminists on this board accept that the patriarchy (in the UK) had ceased to exist? What would be the test? And is it really feasible to expect no gender roles (even on a statistical basis) as long as women continue to give birth and choose to be primary carers for a period of their lives?

Society is a structured form of human organisation - the foundation of the structure of patriarchal society, is the gender binary hierarchy. Simply put, men have higher status than women.

Our social relations, institutions, organisations, culture, paradigms and power structures reflect this.

Signmund I believe that equality means choice to do whatever you want...in that case we pretty much have equality.

I don't think this is true. On the surface it appears as if we have equal choices in many things, but women and men are treated very differently from the day they are born, and encouraged/discouraged from different behaviours from the moment they can be said to have any behaviour (yes, even when all they do is cry or poo). Our "choices" are not freely made. And that's discounting the overt sexism that many men and women still display. Can you really say you've never heard someone say "that's a job for a man" or "that is women's work"?

I think from the subject line the question is "do you believe that our society today is a patriarchal one?"

society and it's institutions.

Of course patriarchy is society - as in the current existing social order.

What else did you think it was?

Yes basically society. Although I do think all men benefit from the patriarchy - although some a lot more than others.

that above example also shows that 'having children' does not have to universally mean being disempowered. having children is a biological issue yes but social reproduction can be arranged in diverse ways that would not have to disempower women.

This is a pretty good definition IMO.

Patriarchy is the term used to describe the society in which we live today, characterised by current and historic unequal power relations between women and men whereby women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed. This takes place across almost every sphere of life but is particularly noticeable in women?s under-representation in key state institutions, in decision-making positions and in employment and industry. Male violence against women is also a key feature of patriarchy. Women in minority groups face multiple oppressions in this society, as race, class and sexuality intersect with sexism for example.

by matriarchal they might just have meant that lineage is traced matrilineally thechair. as in you belong to your mother's brother's group and property shares etc rather than your fathers. this can provide more liberty for women as they and there children are not direct 'property' of their husbands therefore have less power over them. in reality it can just mean that women are oppressed by their male relations rather than their husbands.

there were societies (trobiands were the last that i know of) where matrilineal descent afforded the women much more liberty - divorce was as simple as picking up your pots and gathering your children and walking back to your families village to stay with your brothers. men couldn't be too harsh knowing that the women weren't tied to them in the same way they would be in a patrilineal society where he owns his children.

'So "patriarchy" refers to all of us. It's not a group of people. It's not men. It's a bunch of ideological underpinnings. You have them. I have them. We all have them. It's not a group of white males. It's not a single white male. It's not an organization. It's a whole, deeply entrenched system that informs and shapes how we think, how we interact, how we see each other.'

Basically society then.

I don't define myself as feminist, although I believe that women are equal in importance to men, can achieve pretty much whatever they want with enough drive and ambition etc..

I do not believe that equality means a 50/50 split in the boardroom/politics etc..I believe that equality means choice to do whatever you want...in that case we pretty much have equality.

As I said before, having children is the point at which it falls apart really. That too though, is a choice. Look after your child yourself and accept it will change your career, have your DH/DP do the childcare or hire someone to do the childcare. You cannot change the fact that women have babies. The whole of feminism seems to be based on railing against and bemoaning the fact that women give birth. This is a fact that cannot be changed, really, we need to get over it.

Anyhow, I do not define as feminist because the basic ideology is 'blame someone else', namely men (patriarchy). No taking responsibility, and a whopping sense of entitlement to boot.

x-posted with Beachcomber.