do you believe in the patriarchy?

The "theory" of patriarchy. Why do you keep saying this?

Would you rather another term is used for the reality of fucking over women across the world and across time?

Dittany -

This to to me is the theory - that what we observe in the world in relation to men and women (history, the status quo etc...) is due to global political system(s) (= The Patriarchy) put in place and sustained by men, for the good of men as a group due to their belief in male supremacy.

Is that an a roughly accurate summary?

Rulers - I don't think there is a "natural order" - as in that which is natural must be good.

Vashti -

It's a straight forward question -
Nothing to do with fish fingers.

-evo psych is the idea that inherited aspects of human behaviour and traits were shaped by evolution, and that this can be studied.

Is this compatible or incompatible with the theory of The Patriarchy (= that what we observe in the world in relation to men and women is obviously due to global political system(s) put in place and sustained by men, for the good of men as a group due to their belief in male supremacy)?

I don't think they are.

The underlying assumptions of the theory of The Patriarchy seems to be that: people tend to act in their own self interest, or for their group, based on their beliefs, unless someone else oppresses them.

(which are fair enough assumptions before we understood evolution better - i am not saying they are stupid or anything - they have underpinned much tradition social science and work well on a day to day basis).

Evolutionary psychology says something quite surprising and unintuitive - that human instincts and tendencies that were inherited can not be explained because they were good for the species, the group or even the individual, but because the behaviour they caused led to the spread and perseverance of copies of that gene.

If it is true it means that the assumption that people (unless misled, conditioned, oppressed etc...) tend to act in their own rational self interest or for their group, turns out to be false.

Religious institutes would be another thing on my hit list. They uphold the patriarchy and add to the oppression of women.

With you on that AbigailAdams.

hehehehe @ fish fingers vs the patriarchy

Evo Psych is supposition, the patriarchy is real. Yes, I still believe in it because I see it, hear about it, read about it, live it. Evo-babble not so much.

Anyway, we are grown up enough to have a think about stuff, aren't we? So, we have a situation where men rule the world (and making a mighty fine job of doing so). Is this just the natural order? If so, I can see why you're on here arguing with feminists. If not, do you think we should do something about it?

Is homeopathy compatible with the idea of a patriarchy?

What about the idea that the royal family are lizards, is that compatible with the idea of the patriarchy?

Dog grooming, fish fingers, the planet Mercury, double glazed windows, are these compatible with the idea of a patriarchy?

Who cares?

So is evo psych compatible or incompatible The Patriarchy explanation?

anthropology for a start which i did my degree in.

Larry, in general evolutionary biologists don't believe in evolutionary psychology as a discipline. There are lots of disciplines that look at the connection between how people behave and environmental and evolutionary factors. Understanding how the human brain has evolved and how people adapt doesn't have to involve evolutionary psychology at all, and generally doesn't for most people.

It is also highly unlikely you would have to go back that many generations either Rulers .

Religious institutes would be another thing on my hit list. They uphold the patriarchy and add to the oppression of women.

It is likely that all of us are here only because of rape, somewhere along our lineage. How sobering a thought is that?

Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.
Andrea Dworkin

if this is true how did sexual selection shape our species? or did primevil women chose there rapists?

Which of course, reminds me of this quote;

Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.
Andrea Dworkin

And I think the idea of the institution of marriage as being a sort of benevolent partnership is flawed.

There is lots we don't know about the history of patriarchy, but we do know that marriage was an oppressive form of male dominance enshrined in law.

www.historyofwomen.org/marriage.html

www.historyofwomen.org/wifeselling.html

www.historyofwomen.org/wifebeating.html

abigail, you have mentioned a few times now that "men create the violence ", "create wars etc"
if women had been as powerful as men and men were as sujegated as women for the last 2 milion years , things would be different, but do you really think the world would be a less violent place?

And we have fought so hard for it. Hence why I find this thread disconcerting.

Yes, the first step is recognising it and naming it. Hence feminists use of patriarchy/patriarchal society/male supremacy/male dominance/female oppression.

For me, this naming of the status quo as an oppressive one, is very very important. It is actually a massive step in women's history and in the raising of our consciousness.