do you believe in the patriarchy?

I used to believe all that women think differently to men/Mars vs Venus type crap. I don't any more. I think it is a load of bollocks wrapped up nicely so that women will accept shitty behaviour from men. And men don't read those books do they.....

all women are affected by sexism

Would it be wrong to suggest "the patriarchy" means the same as "All women suffer sexism"? (or something like that; brain needs rest)

Would that be any easier to relate to, Himalaya?

Fair point dittany. You are right. It is real, like capitalism

Him - You can obviusly call yourself what you want. From the above post, it doesn't sound like you are a feminist - just a decent human being. I mean who decent actually wants women to be raped, abused, etc.

But feminism, of any kind, is more than that. It is about recognising in patriarchy and trying to fight it. That really is a basic feminist belief. Just like believing in God is a basic Christain belief.

Dittany -

I think I am a feminist.

I don't think that any woman should be raped, trafficked, abused, excluded from education, denied their rights, discriminated against in any way, or forced or coerced into doing things she doesn't want to do, or to staying in a dangerous situation. I think that rapists and abusers should be brought to justice, and that cultures and institutions need to change so that these things are not seen as acceptable.

I don't need to believe in the patriarchy or an "all out male assault on the female half of the human race" to see that these things are wrong. Maybe that makes me an anti-feminist in your book.

You said up thread "You're wrong about male violence, it is used most against women and children. In the last century the largest amounts of casualties. of wars were women and children."

It is the interpretation of that data that I am disputing. Women and children by definition make up the majority of just about every population and where there is a large proportion of young people (as in most conflict states) it can be 60-80%.

Dittany

The piece of data you brought was ''In the last century the largest amounts of casualities of wars were women and children." as a piece of evidence to support the belief that male violence mainly targets women.

I questioned the interpretation of that piece of data, since women and children represent the majority of the population.

I don't see how it is a pointless discussion to ask whether the interpretation of a piece of data is correct.

Otherwise why bring facts and data in at all?

I see it like the fact that there is an inherited/evolutionary basis to our appetite for fat and sugar which is not good for us, and which another bit of our brain would like to challenge.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with seeing it that way. As long as we're agreed on the basics of our current predicament/s, it doesn't matter a whole lot.

In no way does this mean there's no 'patriarchy'.

I just looked these up. I avoid the topic as a rule; it makes me feel hopeless.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the rape of teenage girls was systematized into a deliberate policy. It has been estimated that more than 20,000 women have been raped since the Balkan war began in 1992.
www.unicef.org/graca/patterns.htm

One [Guatemalan] town official commented that with all the soldiers raping Mayan girls in combat zones in the highlands, 'it would be difficult to find a girl of 11 to 15 who has not been raped. Even seven-year-old girls have been raped.'

In July of 1982, during the massacre of the villagers of Plan de Sanchez, young girls between aged 12-14 were separated off and raped before being executed.
www.twnside.org.sg/title/gender-cn.htm

I know that rape is sanctioned, both tacitly and overtly, by 'our' military in various circumstances. I'm not going to find my sources again as it will ruin my day.

Porto -

"Men tend to be relatively more interested in status than women.

Women tend to relatively more willing to make sacrifices to care for young children than men."

So why would that be?

I think its a bit of genes, and a bit of socialisation, and then a large bit of structure which means that those choices early on in parenthood can have disproportionate impacts.

Recognising that there is a genetic component doesn't mean it can't be challenged or changed - I am not saying we are not genetic automatons or anything!

I see it like the fact that there is an inherited/evolutionary basis to our appetite for fat and sugar which is not good for us, and which another bit of our brain would like to challenge.

Himalaya, thanks for your replies.

I disagree for reasons already outlined on this thread - particularly stuff I have said about the definition of natural/natural order and the difference presented by social constructions and socialization/politics/power structures to biological evolution as a natural process.

Dittany,

Yes we could just agree to disagree on the question of The Patriarchy, and I suspect we will in the end.

But do not think that it is an anti-feminist act to question a piece of data.

I mean seriously, wtf?

How can it be anti-feminist to look at a piece of data in relation to the base rate?

In my world when you have an analytical tool or theory that you think is supported by a piece of data, if the data turns our to show something else you have to go back and reconsider the theory, otherwise why bother with the data in the first place?

Dittany,

Are the facts "there" re men and women and violence? I find them hard to ascertain but, after WW2, the sex ration in those countries who were fighting dropped as low as 0.6 men for every 1 woman, so clearly more men were killed. Similarly in WW1, most of the deaths were on the battlefield and it was men doing the fighting.

Certainly, however, in developing countries in the 21st centuries, more women are selectively aborted and killed as infants.

I think, to have a discussion, it would be good to ascertain the facts (I think they are actually hard to dig out) than to assume something which is ascertainable as if it were axiomatic.

"larry - look at the woman you know of the same class, race, etc. You will quickly see hopefully, that you are more privileged than them"

I really don't see that although, of course, it depends how you define privilege. A lot of them are stay at home mothers whose children are now all at school. They have so much free time compared to their husbands (who frequently do most of the cooking and at least 50% of the childcare at weekends). They have equal access to the joint accounts and generally far more of the family budget goes on them (hair, spas, designer clothes) than their husbands who are often stressed and have little or no time to themselves.

Other of my female friends have chosen high powered careers and they employ full time nannies at home. One is on the main board of a large organisation.

Strangely enough, none of them think too much about the patriarchy. And, of course I discuss things with them. This is not just off the top of my head.

I don't think we are disagreeing, bejeezus. Genocide is defined as 'the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group'. By definition, this has to include men, women and children.

But I think we may end up splitting hairs over what are fundamentally horrific acts, so I will leave it in broad agreement with you.

'children and women are targeted in a lot of conflicts - what better way to minimise the next generation of adversaries.'

Agreed, but this is normally a secondary objective. The first is usually to neutralise the opponent's armed forces. There is a difference between this and a primary objective of slaughtering women and children, which is what was written.

"Men tend to be relatively more interested in status than women.

Women tend to relatively more willing to make sacrifices to care for young children than men."

So why would that be? Is it all in the genes, or are we socialised to be like that. I was surprised, when reading the Equality Illusion, that there is very little physical difference between girls and boys before puberty. The way they are treated though, is for the most part VERY different.

Well, as an example, the bombing of Dresden killed approximately 25,000 civilians. During a war, most fit and able men are on the battle front, so the bulk of civilians are women and children. Ergo, a bombing like Dresden - or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki - will slaughter proportionally more.

But, do you believe that this was the intent? It reads that way. I would propose that a military leader would far rather wipe out 25,000 male troops than 25,000 women and children from a tactical point of view.