do you believe in the patriarchy?

Re: evo psych - what is the point of it? And how is it not pure speculation? That's an honest question - I really can't see what value there is in it. Does it in any way help to fight injustice?

Larry, there is no evidence whatsoever for that "women nurture, men provide" model of early Man. It was an assumption made by Victorian anthropologists/archaeologists, to whom it seemed obvious.

Himalaya,

My post was quickly constructed with two small children by my feet.

I think your corrections are broadly more accurate, although I don't think they change the gist of my argument. Clearly, one thing did not evolve and then the other, they evolved in tandem. And, yes, maybe needed and useful have a moral weight which I did not intend. More surviving descendents is indeed more accurate.

Still, I am not sure that it changes the thrust of my argument.

Thanks for the corrections, though. :)

Larry -

I think broadly the gist of what you're saying is right (i.e. the link to long human infancy), but I think you are falling trap of mixing up evolutionary rationale and design thinking, (at least in the way you are expressing it...)

e.g. 'unaturally long infancy' ...unusual, not unatural.

'there needed to be a system' ....no - the arrangement that tended to result in the most surviving offspring was one in which.....

'men did have other uses'...things don't evolve because they have uses to the species or the community etc...

'sophisticated animals need two sexes'....ditto.

So you still end up with a kind of folk evolution, and an argument that still starts with 'men were stronger and women weaker' as the starting point, rather than looking at the evolutionary pressures which might have led both women and men who had stronger sons to leave more descendents, as part of the overall pathway.

I do think that evolutionary psychology makes sense - as you say, brains evolved.

But i do think there is a danger of falling into or being accused of telling fairy tails whenever we say something that says 'this major evolutionary adaptation happened (long infancy) and then this social arrangement evolved to cope with it (pair bonding).'.....it is a sort of mental short hand, but it isn't an accurate representation how changes in physiology, behavior and social phenomena happen through teeny-tiny steps over millions of years - because they led to those individuals having more surviving descendents rather than because they were needed or useful.

"am guessing that my understanding of the facts of the matter are much the same as yours - marriage was a way of controlling women's fertility, a wife was seen as part of a husband's property (and her father's before that) therefore rape was seem as a property crime against the man rather than a crime against the woman. Therefore there was no concept of rape within marriage. ...is that right?"

I think marriage came about due to the unnaturally long infancy of homo sapiens. There needed to be a system where people paired up where one provided food and safety and the other could focus on the children. Before modern technology (which is incredibly recent both genetically and societally) it made sense for the physically stronger member to protect and provide and the physically weaker to nurture. Hence you get a "patriarchal" structure.

Of course, there are other possible ways of arranging the above. But pair bonding is (or certainly was) the most effective at providing safety and food for children. Of course, were there no other men in the world, maybe an element of that safety would not have been required, but men did have other uses and any sophisticated animal needs two sexes.

The above is what a lot of people would deride as an "evo psych fairytale" but unless you deny evolution completely, why would the brain not be susceptible to the same evolutionary forces as any other part of the body. Of course, people can invent other societal organisations where you do not get pair bonding and division of labour but there are not many which can be observed either amongst animals or people.

There is no 'patriarchy theory'. Patriarchy isn't a 'theory'. Indeed it is very odd to talk about a concrete reality as a theory. Almost dissociative.

Discussions about the origins of patriarchal society are theoretical (and therefore a bit academic).

This quote and link (thanks Ethel!) is from the other thread - the one talking about sexuality. I think the entire essay is relevant to this thread but in particular this bit;

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence by Adrienne Rich.

Characteristics of male power include the power of men:

1. to deny women [our own] sexuality

[by means of clitoridectomy and infibulation; chastity belts; punishment, including death, for female adultery; punishment, including death, for lesbian sexuality; psychoanalytic denial of the clitoris; strictures against masturbation; denial of material and postmenopausal sensuality; unnecessary hysterectomy; pseudolesbian images in media and literature; closing of archives and destruction of documents relating to lesbian existence];

1. or to force it [male sexuality] upon them

by means of rape (including marital rape) and wife beating; father-daughter, brother-sister incest; the socialization of women to feel that male sexual "drive" amounts to a right,(15) idealization of heterosexual romance in art, literature, media, advertising, and so forth; child marriage; arranged marriage; prostitution; the harem; psychoanalytic doctrines of frigidity and vaginal orgasm; pornographic depictions of women responding pleasurably to sexual violence and humiliation (a subliminal message being that sadistic heterosexuality is more "normal" than sensuality between women)];

1. to command or exploit their labor to control their produce

[by means of the institutions of marriage and motherhood as unpaid production; the horizontal segregation of women in paid employment; the decoy of the upwardly mobile token woman; male control of abortion, contraception, and childbirth; enforced sterilization; pimping, female infanticide, which robs mothers of daughters and contributes to generalized devaluation of women];

1. to control or rob them of their children

[by means of father-right and "legal kidnapping";(16) enforced sterilization; systematized infanticide; seizure of children from lesbian mothers by the courts, the malpractice of male obstetrics; use of the mother as "token torturer"(17) in genital mutilation or in binding the daughter's feet (or mind) to fit her for marriage];

1. to confine them physically and prevent their movement

[by means of rape as terrorism, keeping women off the streets; purdah, foot-binding; atrophying of women's athletic capabilities; haute couture, "feminine" dress codes; the veil; sexual harassment on the streets, horizontal segregation of women in employment; prescriptions for "full-time" mothering; enforced economic dependence of wives];

1. to use them as objects in male transactions

[use of women as "gifts," bride-price; pimping; arranged marriage; use of women as entertainers to facilitate male deals, for example, wife-hostess, cocktail waitress required to dress for male sexual titillation, call girls, "bunnies," geisha, kisaeng prostitutes, secretaries];

1. to cramp their creativeness

[witch persecutions as campaigns against midwives and female healers and as pogrom against independent, "unassimilated" women;(18) definition of male pursuits as more valuable than female within any culture, so that cultural values become embodiment of male subjectivity, restriction of female self-fulfillment to marriage and motherhood, sexual exploitation of women by male artists and teachers; the social and economic disruption of women's creative aspirations;(19) erasure of female tradition];(20) and

1. to withhold from them large areas of the society's knowledge and cultural attainments

[by means of noneducation of females (60 percent of the world's illiterates are women~; the "Great Silence" regarding women and particularly lesbian existence in history and culture;(21) sex-role stereotyping that deflects women from science, technology, and other "masculine" pursuits; male social/professional bonding that excludes women; discrimination against women in the professions]

These are some of the methods by which male power is manifested and maintained. Looking at the schema, what surely impresses itself is the fact that we are confronting not a simple maintenance of inequality and property possession, but a pervasive cluster of forces, ranging from physical brutality to control of consciousness, that suggests that an enormous potential counterforce is having to be restrained.

ha, I assumed mrsrantsalot was on a wind up there. Surely?!?

" Oh there may be a few pockets of patriarchy lurking in the shadows?
...

Seriously? You reckon patriarchy's in its final moment? Blimey! Can I come and live where you live?

Male supremacy isn't some airy fairy theory or concept that may or may not be true, on a par with the fairy stories of evo psych which can't ever be proved because they are pure speculation. Male supremacy is an observable reality that exists in fact all over the world. Really I find it incredible that it's being spoken about as if it's some outlandish theory, it's bizarre.

I've got a degree in sociology, so grab your cocoa and a sleeping bag while we talk about patriarchy.... only joking....

In 2012 we are more likely to be discussing gender identities and the emasculation of men...

patriarchy is losing....but I'm not sure if anyone is winning

Society is becoming less and less gender orientated, Oh there may be a few pockets of patriarchy lurking in the shadows, but I truly believe that by the end of my lifetime, the genders will be equal. After all aren't girls scoring higher in maths now than their male counterparts? We no longer live in a manufacturing society where brawn reigns king...laws for equality make it illegal to even comment on a nice pair of boobs...(I used to like them telling me I had a nice rack, back in the day of course before I BF DCs :) )

patriarchy may still be alive, but hes gasping and choking for breath...

sociology rocks!!!

Dittany -

You keep saying no one cares, as if there is no controversy, and that the theory of The Patriarchy is compatible with the idea that there is an evolutionary basis (including sexual selection) to human psychology and a psychological basis to human societies (I think it's known as "evo-psych bollocks" around here).

The two theories are not compatible. You believe in one. I believe in the other.

What we have been talking about on this thread is why some people don't believe in The Patriarchy which was the OPs question. This is why I don't believe in The Patriarchy.

Yes if you make the definition wide enough I will agree we live in a patriarchy - where men hold more power. But by that definiton every single human being from Norway to the Yemen and since quite possibly the very first human beings, has lived in a patriarchy (since she will have done more than her fair share of childcare), not to mention our primate cousins.. But at that point it looses any analytical power.

Why not just say we disagree on the this theory?

Norms that preceeded the laws....

The kind of political system that tends to institutionalise the norms, power relations and expectations that exist in society at that time and then not be much good at undoing them until there is concerted pressure.

Same reason we drive on the other side of the road from everyone else in Europe.

I think if you are asking how the laws on marriage got to be the way they were, it's perfectly reasonable to ask how the norms that preferred the laws got to be the way they were.

Similarly if the theory of the patriarchy starts with 'men were stronger' then I don't think it's gone back far enough.

OK Dittany on your question on rape and marriage.....

I don't think marriage should be a defence for rape (...obviously, but just wanted to make that clear).

I think your question is why don't i see the fact that until relatively recently it was, as hands-down evidence for The Pariarchy? (is that right?)

I am guessing that my understanding of the facts of the matter are much the same as yours - marriage was a way of controlling women's fertility, a wife was seen as part of a husband's property (and her father's before that) therefore rape was seem as a property crime against the man rather than a crime against the woman. Therefore there was no concept of rape within marriage. ...is that right?

Yes I agree that is patriarchy (as in families ruled by men) - but I think the question we differ on is how that situation came to be.

My understanding (although obviously I'm no expert) of The Patriarchy theory is that it says that it happened because men decided to use their greater physical strength to oppress women, invented patriarchal marriage as a way to institutionalise that and control them and have oppressed generations of women with it ever since.

That's the bit I think doesn't stack up, as it seems to imply that there was some time before men decided to oppress women when the idea of consent was universal and respected. I don't think there is any evidence for that (and good reasons to think it isn't the case).

I also think it doesn't recognise that the exchange between men and women implied in patriarchal marriage - i.e.; support, protection and recognition of paternity by a man in return for a guarantee of fidelity by a woman - made sense both ways (in those days - pre-contraception, when survival of children was far from assured, and when life was pretty dangerous and nasty).

Either way it doesn't change the question of whether rape in marriage is now defensible.

Thanks for the book recommendation Dittany. Have ordered it.

Dittany - that is not what I was getting at at all. And the arguments about women not being allowed into front line combat are far more complex then you're making out.

The usual reasons for not allowing women are that men would would be distracted/ the public would find women dying in combat more upsetting - not commenting on the worth of these reasons, just putting them forward.

There is also the fact that some women want to participate in front line combat and that throughout history, women have fought in wars alongside men.

Dittany - that is not what I was getting at at all. And the arguments about women not being allowed into front line combat are far more complex then you're making out.

The usual reasons for not allowing women are that men would would be distracted/ the public would find women dying in combat more upsetting - not commenting on the worth of these reasons, just putting them forward.

There is also the fact that some women want to participate in front line combat and that throughout history, women have fought in wars alongside men.