do you believe in the patriarchy?

Dittany -

The majority of homicide victims are male.

I have read the factoid that 3 out of 4 fatalities of war are women and children. I think it originally came from the World Food Program. It's an important statistic but I really dont think it is evidence of an "all out male assault on the female half of the human race".

For one thing it's from the WFP so my guess is they are counting all deaths as a consequence of war (disrupted food supplies, water, medical systems, disease etc...) which are bad but wouldn't normally be described in terms of violence between men and women.

Secondly most wars in recent times have taken place in developing countries with a young population structure. So I think close to 3 out of 4 people in those countries are women or children. The statistic may be better interpreted as reflecting that most casualties of recent wars have been civilians.

Why would particular weaponry or tactics target women instead of men?

Yes it is a deliberate policy

'You're wrong about male violence, it is used most against women and children Himalaya. In the last century the largest amounts of casualities of wars were women and children.'

Dittany, do you believe this to be a deliberate policy, i.e. targetting, or as a by-product of some horrendous weaponry and tactics.

Beachcomber "Also if we are arguing that it is men's nature to dominate and oppress women through violence and powers structures, isn't that rather, em, sexist?"

I don't think domination and oppression by violence is the primary mechanism though.

I think it's something more like:

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.

You combine that with the human ability for technological innovation, in the absence of contraception and you end up with the makings of an unequal society.

Male domination and violence was and is used more often by men against unrelated men than against women.

Beachcomer -

(going back to your questions)

I just don't think it is possible to draw a line and say "up to here is nature and therefore neither right or wrong. It just is."

And then "from here is man made and we can make moral judgements"

I mean it would be nice and it would make life simpler but there are so many examples of how human norms and practices have interacted with physiology - from the discovery and use of fire onwards I really don't think its possible.

I don't think that saying something has a natural basis means we cant judge whether it is right or wrong even, as long as there is a reasonable amount of free choice.

E.g. Anger and violence clearly had big evolutionary advantages (and probably still do today), but we can still say that it's unacceptable to hurt someone else (in all but a few circumstances).

I agree with you about democracy, Larry, though we still technically enjoy it (for now). That's a different thread, though not unrelated.

As Eats says, it's impossible that the women of your own social sphere are properly equal to the men. Take a closer look. Even ask 'em, maybe! Naice women get sexually harassed in numerous little ways, all the time. Naice women worry about safety issues that never worry men. Tradesmen subtly or overtly check whether there's a man of the house before talking down to the woman and overcharging her. What about their domestic division of labour? When you visit, who gets the tea? If they have careers, what's the likelihood they'll make it to the main board? Etc ... it goes on ... and on ...

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

Of course many (if not most men) don't recognise their privilege.

That is the problem with unearned privilege - we are socialized to normalize it to an extent where it is hard to recognise it for what it is.

Same with white privilege - I'm white and there are a lot of things that I take for granted. When I talk to black friends about race issues I come slap bang up against my white privilege, there is just so much I am blind to because it doesn't affect me adversely, it just quietly makes me life easier without me doing anything much.

Garlic,

I used to think we lived in a democracy but now, less and less. We don't get a choice on most of the things that matter.

I guess the Patriarchy may be some kind of hive mind. However, I think that most men would struggle to recognise their "privilege" in the UK today. Of course, maybe we are blind to it. I do see it in what sociologists would call CDE social strata but not amongst those I know.

Larry, I had a bit of a problem with naming "The Patriarchy" as I, too, felt it doesn't work unless it is an overtly organised system. I was wrong - it's not necessary for there to be a Patriarchy Committee! We accept that we live in a democracy, though it bears little relation to the original version and no committee mandated its evolution. We accept that people like gathering together, though no rule-book told us we must.

I called it an 'accidental patriarchy' for a while, as that got me away from my ridiculous idea that any system with a name must be deliberate.

It isn't just about power. It is about privilege and status too.

In a male supremacy not all men rule or have power at a political level, but all men have male privilege, and the status of being the higher status gender in a binary hierarchy.

Focusing this discussion on the individuals who hold great power misses three-quarters of the reality. Yes, the vast majority of great power is held by men. Yes, the holders of great power (men and women) exert influence on everyone else (women and men).

But the patriarchal assumption of male power over women pervades all levels of society. When a bloke makes a lewd remark to a passing woman, or grabs her bum, he's reminding her of her role and place - as he sees it. The fact that no-one is outraged by his view demonstrates that we live under a patriarchal regime. When a bartender serves the men before the woman who was there first, he also demonstrates her inferior place. If she's pretty and is served first, someone will say it's because she's pretty and nobody will consider that unfair. When a woman is refused a promotion because she has young children and might not be able to 'commit', nobody thinks to mention that the man who got the promotion also has young children. Patriarchal values are in play all the time, everywhere.

You don't owe me anything Himalaya! If there's stuff you want to say, great, but you don't owe a reply .

Dittany,

"It's a very odd claim to make because most men individually don't rule the world that men aren't the ones with power. It's like saying we don't live in a democracy because not ever person is prime minister. Every type of political system has a word that describes it: monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny, democracy etc. but we're not supposed to use the term patriarchy? It's just illogical."

The thing is that all the above terms with the exception of patriarchy (and, in a slightly different way, democracy) describe systems where it is absolutely clear who, on an individual level, has power. Respectively we have a Monarch, a few individuals who are working together and know one another, a tyrant and the demos or people who exercise their power via a vote (whether they really get to vote on the important issues is another matter). In the "Patriarchy" men are not actively discussing decisions and we don't get to vote on what we want to happen. In that way it is clearly different from the other structures. Men may, statistically, have more power than women but it is in no sense organised power. So, when people say it is good for "the Patriarchy" that X happens, then who is the patriarchy actually describing?

It was, apart from the weather - I know I owe you an answer too!

Hey Himalaya, hope camping was good.

Where would one find information on how a post-patriarchal society might be run? Is there a single feminist vision, or more than one possible alternative?

Dittany - i think the term Patriarchy when applied broadly does have a specific meaning from feminist theory that I don't believe in, although I do consider myself a feminist (= a single intentional system imposed by men as a group because of a common belief in male supremacy with women's role in the system as victims or 'handmaidens').

Also implicit in the concept, I think is a view about the relationship between social and biological systems that sees them as much more separate than I view them.

So I don't see any point me saying "yes I believe in the patriarchy, as a "vanilla concept" (without these add-ons) because then I would immediately have to say 'but I don't mean x y and z...and I do mean abc'

I don't think it helps for clarity or respect for the integrity of the theory for me to do that. (you could rightly say I was misusing the term, imposing my own meaning etc...)

So, to answer your question I think we live in a world ruled by very few people, who are predominantly men. But the vast majority of men are not rulers. So I think it is not true to say men rule the world if 99% of them do no such thing - and an individual's nationality, class, education etc... is a much stronger predictor of how much influence they have than their sex.

I don't see it as a system, but lots of systems, biological, social and political meshed together. They are tightly linked to other factors - in particular technology and the changes in society it enabled, energy, demographics, the growth of cities, organisations, trade, work and the massive growth in economic output over the past few hundred years. So when you talk of "the Patriarchy" I see all of this as tied in. I don't think we can overthrow it but we have to change it.

Male/female inequality is one amongst other major problems with this society that human nature has not equipped us for - how to deal with the global problem of climate change, how to live well for 80+ years, how to reduce inequality but retain freedom.

It would be great if they all had one word explanations - 'greed', 'ageism', and 'oppression' for example and a clear moral cast of goodies and baddies. But I don't think they do.

Thanks Dittany

Beachcomber, Dittany -

I am camping. Not ignoring your Q's, but don't want to write a scrappy quick answer.