do you believe in the patriarchy?

yes me too hotdamlifeisgood! It's all around us and always has been if not why do men earn more, run the present government, stop woman becoming bishops in the church, run the bbc and media and expect woman to wear low cut tops and short skirts even when they are serious reporters. Also fashion designers mainly men prodcue clothes for size 6 models and encourage annorexia. In Hollywood men dominate as directors and many of the plum acting roles. Annd even if woman dop get parts usually as wives or lovers they are discaded when they get any wrinkles or put on any weight. Men don't.

Men keep the patriarchy alive for their own benefit! Not all of course but thise in positions of power. eg David Cameron, employing male mc or upper class men as ministers and ridiculing femal ministers by calling them dear and they frustrated!!

I am no good at academic argument, but was thinking that back in the dim and distant past, it probably made logical sense to organise ourselves in certain ways that no-longer apply today. It's a bit like religious practices - it made perfect sense in hot countries to kill animals in a certain way, avoid certain foodstuffs, bury your dead immediately etc for reason of hygiene. These things are no longer applicable (at least in the West) but the "faith" is to carry on because that is how it is MEANT to be.

The "natural" argument seems to follow the same lines...the "rules" remain the same even though the reason for having them has disappeared....

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?

If I went and said that on another thread I would get slated and it would be proof of what manhating meanies radical feminists are.

Everything is natural. Yes male dominance in the form it currently takes is natural. Wanting it to change is natural. Working out ways to change it is natural. trying to develop beter sysytems for managing our affairs and out world is natural. Struggling with our monkey selves is natural.

By your definition, male supremacy is natural. Yes?

(And, no I don't think natural = good. I have already said plenty of times on this thread that natural/natural order is a state of being that is neither right or wrong. It just is.)

Personally my understanding of natural, is as follows;
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

And of natural order;
natural order - the physical universe considered as an orderly system subject to natural (not human or supernatural) laws.

I think it is a helpful distinction because human beings do have a moral code, laws, right and wrong, ethics, rules, society, social constructions, power, power structures, politics, violence, abuse, hatred, psychology, socialization, etc.

So I have two issues with the 'it's natural' argument.

1. I disagree with the use of the word natural for human codes and constructions. (In a similar way to how I disagree with applying the concept of biological evolution to economies).

2. Using the term natural, places male supremacy outside of moral judgement or political analysis. You cannot moralise or politicise nature/a natural order - for the reasons I have already outlined on this thread.

Himalaya, your argument appears to want to have its cake and eat it. You argue that male supremacy is natural and unfair on the same thread. Contradictio in terminis.

You are redefining words and concepts in a way to suit the argument (this is one of the issues I have with evopsych, along with it being pure speculation.)

Why are so invested in arguing that a political system is natural?

yes it does bluegrass. Perfectly.

Rulers - I am not wriggling.

Everything is natural. Yes male dominance in the form it currently takes is natural. Wanting it to change is natural. Working out ways to change it is natural. trying to develop beter sysytems for managing our affairs and out world is natural. Struggling with our monkey selves is natural.

I really don't think the "is it natural" question makes sense. Nature and nurture are both natural.

For whatever reason the world is how it currently is. Every day of our entire existence From the moment we climbed down from the trees was only one day different from the day before, and this is where it has brought us.

We can all imagine worlds that are better, more to our liking, and we can all in our own way try to steer the course of humanity in the direction we want it to go.

Other people have their own ideas of how they want the world to be, and some of those people might want a completely different world to the one we want.

The universe doesnt take sides, so all anyone can do is argue and push for the world they want as best they can, and hope that the majority go their way.

Doesn't that about sum it all up?

pile of shite

"I don't think the patriarchy is an entity"

It's a concept, you wally

Himalaya. Patriarchy is a value system which favours men at the expense of women.

It's pervasive.
You can see in action down your local pub right now, if they have a late license.
Switch the news on and you'll see it in action all over the world.

Patriarchy also favours white men over men of other shades, heterosexual men over gays, disfavours the disabled and so on. These are aspects of patriarchy but not its outstanding quality: which is that it always favours whom it favours at the expense of women.

Dittany -

Ok so I don't agree with the Feminist Theory of the Patriarchy. I do consider myself a feminist in that I think women should have full and equal human rights.

No I don't think the patriarchy is an entity.

Dittany -

So 1) is this an accurate description of a strand of feminist thinking about the patriarchy;

That the world's social, economic and political systems have been put in place and are sustained by men, for the good of men as a group due to their belief in male supremacy.

Is there a shorthand for that?

ffs, you're a wriggler. Is male dominance in the form that it currently takes natural?

Hah. Well put, Dittany.

No I don't think there is a 'natural order'. I think everything is natural.

I don't find that surprising or counter-intuitive.

I perceive interesting connections between the evolution of the brain/mind/nervous system and the problems we face in present times. I seriously can't go into it all with one post (and don't claim to have 'answers') but am happy to continue discussing it.

Long story MUCH too short - The way I see it is: through the course of developments that have been mentioned here, we came as a social species to admire the "reptilian" properties of the human mind, which are simple. Feed, fuck, fight, flee. This supposition makes sense from an evolutionary point of view, especially when you consider that behaviour tends to lag a long way behind capacity. As humans had apportioned more value to men than to women - quite possibly as a consequence of agriculturalism - we came also to ascribe these primitive qualities to men. In fact, we all have them.

Because we became a social animal some time after being reptiles, our 'higher' brains drive us to go along with the tribe, follow the leader and observe the hierarchy. This was a necessity for survival. So, in my short version, we've ended up with societies that attribute basic acquisitive, aggressive and protective urges to men and value them more than we value other human qualities.

The bulk of the human brain is made of new stuff, some of which isn't even seen in other apes (yet). The 'new' brain is capable of extremely fine processing and of choosing to override the primitive - although the primitive is faster, hence concepts like self-control. We've had this fantastically flexible, sophisticated piece of equipment, capable of incredible wisdom, compassion, creativity, strength and learning, for most of human existence but are still getting the hang of using it.

I do believe women and men can accelerate our sophistication and leave the 'reptile-based' structures behind. There is immense will to do so, although it's expressed in disparate ways.

I'm interested in neuropsychology, btw, which you can't really look at without considering evolution.

I didn't imply you thought that natural was good. I asked if you thought there was a natural order.