'Everyday sexism' vs origins of patriarchy and big ideas for the future

Hilbert I have my faith in robots. Once vast majority of jobs have been taken over by robots, I hope people can live in a utopian like world, where they can do what they want, don't need to work.

Oh yes, because that's worked so well so far...
You do realise people were saying this in the 60s? They thought that by now, with all the technology we do indeed have, we'd all have loads of leisure time. Technology alone doesn't help - it's just made certain jobs obsolete. The rich are the ones who own the robots, I guess...

(Sorry for derail but so many people suggest robots are the answer without realising there's more to it!)

Plus how did humans evolve without putting the babies into nappies? How did they cope with this? (I know the answer and it isn't pretty)

Well, humans are individuals are they not? So each individual wants to do what they want. I want to rob, murder, rape, molest without a lack of authority and rule of law. How is that going to work? Plus you take my gun from my cold dead hands.

I'm not sure how women and new borns requiring extra support leads to a natural evolution of men oppressing women. Women don't need to be protected by men (or necessarily would have been). If men were off hunting (as we are had to believe) then they weren't doing protecting. It was likely to be other women doing the protecting.

Surely a more beneficial natural evolution would have been one of collaboration (certainly from a reproductive/fecundity/successful species perspective). Obviously from a male perspective, dominating women has its advantages. But it doesn't make much sense that it was driven by evolution.

In fact I'm not even sure we are using the term evolution correctly!

Humans doing what they want equals anarchy. - how so? doing what you want necessitates a lack of authority and a lack of rule of law?

You can safely trap an animal for eating whilst looking after a small baby. No woman would have done this alone of course, nor would no man.

A man alone! Without Mrs Miggins looking after him? A man alone is the very symbol of pity. Even within the Patriarchy.

That response was to Hilbert.

Robots. Utopian world. Humans doing what they want equals anarchy.

Humans are mammals and the difference is slight, such is genetics and the evolutionary path, which took hundreds of thousands of years to get us to this point. Other mammals have been around for longer. Human brains have grown, but skulls at birth are pliable, like every other mammal.

It was just a theory, chill. The earth isn't flat and humans were not around at the time of dinosaurs.

A higher level of community based social conscience would benefit us all. - Indeed, but how to achieve that?

I have my faith in robots. Once vast majority of jobs have been taken over by robots, I hope people can live in a utopian like world, where they can do what they want, don't need to work.

speaknowords
Your post about communal childcare reminds me of kibbutz communities in Isreal, (now sharply declined).

Based on a principle of no personal wealth. No property. Everything shared including childcare responsibilities and agricultural productivity.
Children would be raised by the education authority comprised of men and women in fairly equal numbers, in the children's house, and parents would be involved loosely but the main focus was a collective goal between all adults and children of the community.

A utopian dream! (Kindof stamped out now thanks to the rise of right wing politics across Isreal)

But community-based ideologies are fundamental in dismantling patriarchy, because humans come with children. Some humans have different needs to others. But we all need each other, and are sentient beings (unlike tigers or whatever that do not grieve/cry etc).

The most powerful humans should not abuse their power by hoarding wealth and acting violently. A higher level of community based social conscience would benefit us all.

Elendon I fail to see how you could think bringing up lionesses as an example in a counter argument to a post that has specifically highlighted the difference between humans and other mammals, is sensible.

"These skills and a need for social interaction probably brought about an equal society, until invaders came along" - what does that even mean? Do you believe that a) there was no patriarchy before "invaders" and b) that there were no "invaders" prior to a certain time? I find both of those highly questionable.

Elendon No woman with a tiny baby can live totally alone. They need community/family/a partner to survive.

A tiny baby needs to be carried everywhere, the baby will scream blue murder and basically suffer from neglect (leading to brain damage) if left alone for hours at a time while their mother goes off...

Sure, women collectively can live together in groups with no males at all apart from when they need sperm, and men probably realise this which maybe has lead to a paranoid psychosis in men which makes them determined to control women....

Also - aren't our closest cousins in the animal world the very epitome of a patriarchy (silverbacks and stuff) ?

What about cooperative childcare? As in, other (older? Childless?) female relatives take care of children in a group nursery environment whilst women go out foraging/hunting?

Also - if someone just made it up - how do you explain that every homo sapien culture appears to have developed into a patriarchy ? Not being "goady" - i'm genuinely interested in what people think.

Lionesses do not face the same handicap with dependant children Elendon, as I explained. Most mothers will not leave their babies outside a shop for a few minutes so the idea that they would leave them somewhere for several hours to go hunting wild animals is somewhat far fetched if you ask me. Anyway - I didn't just make this up - I think it is a commonly held view. When you state that it has nothing to do with evolution - do you have any evidence for that claim ?

Patriarchy has nothing to do with evolution. Women are able to live on their own with children. Forage? I bet the woman with a hungry belly and hungry children killed and ate. She was probably brilliant at it as well (lionesses). These skills and a need for social interaction probably brought about an equal society, until invaders came along.

Well, one theory is that because homo sapiens have large brains and consequently big heads, they are born more dependant on their parents (historically this would be the mother for breast feeding I suppose, but definitely the mother) than other mammals who can generally walk within a few days/weeks of being born, e.g. a calf can stand after 30 minutes whereas it takes us about a year.

The upshot of this is that a mother with baby would be unable to forage enough food to support herself and her infant, and she would also presumably be unable to defend herself and her infant(s) against other groups and other animals. So the men as protector role I think, has an evolutionary aspect to it. This basic biological fact then appears to have been baked into all of the subsequent fictions that we made up in order to cooperate in larger numbers, i.e. religion, ideas about morality and what have you. But i do reckon there is some evolutionary basis to it, not that any of it is particularly relevant these days though.

My reply to dancingbear was relevant to her post. Ophelias wasn't to mine.

I was thinking about girls question, and thinking about why women are generally trusted in the situation she described. The overwhelming number of child sex offenders are male, and men are more violent/sexually violent than women. That would need to change and reduce to the rates similar to that of women. Then, more men would need to take up roles in caring occupations, until it becomes normalised. Then it might be possible for women to generally trust an unknown male when they're in a vulnerable situation, because men would be seen to be generally more caring and be much less of a perceived risk for violence/sexual aggression.

An interesting theory is that Patriarchy is ownership. Ownership of land, assets and also the vulnerable into slavery (women are included in this because of rape - all are symbols of power). When peaceful non patriarchal communities were invaded, one of the first things imposed was the veiling of women, apart from sex workers, which distinguished them. So, Patriarchy has prevailed throughout the world in which civilisations moved from one place to another in a non peaceful way. Remember, it was just until Edwardian times that women got the vote. I recall a radio programme about life in the UK pre divorce. I woman was told to go back to her husband because he wasn't beating her up, despite him never engaging in a loving way. This was the 1950s, less than a hundred years ago.

Equality is a long, long way off. What women have are basically crumbs from the Patriarchal table, some women will benefit, but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. To give up power is admission of defeat and to enter a world unknown. Best to throw some crumbs, divorce, contraception, abortion are beneficial to the Patriarchy, to keep the status quo.

anyhoo, back to the original question.

I like what phoenix said above: "The patriarchy is a deeply ingrained cultural mindset, and you can't just 'end' that overnight. You challenge each little bit of it, step at a time. Change is gradual, but real".

I think that, much as I would like an immediate overthrow of the patriarchy, I don't actually think feminism itself will necessarily change that. What I think might have a much bigger impact is the challenges that are shortly going to be faced by humanity in general, such as the impact of climate change, which is going to change the dynamics of global politics so much in the next fifty years that I think the structures of patriarchy - democracy, how we live, how money is used, how and why we engage in work outside the home - will change unrecognisably.

So in broader terms, I think patriarchy will undergo a big change, but not necessarily because of feminism, but because its underpinnings - individual ownership and transmission of wealth, the 1% controlling and managing things - will change because of technological change. For example, we're about 50 years from building star trek type replicators to create things. What impact will that have on our model of work-to-buy-stuff? Then I think more egalitarian, feminist ideals and modes of working will be there, ready and poised to feed into whatever the new modes of doing things might be. I hope

Sorry, these are huge ideas and I'm not explaining them well, but that's what i think might change.

That would then equally apply to you scolding thedancingbear for his reply to mrcreosote though, hilbert? That wasn't at you, was it, so by your logic you shouldn't reply.

I don't think we should do that rule, Mumsnet would be rubbish if we all did that

0phelia it is irrelevant to the question what what activist would or wouldn't do on internet forums. I wonder why you would even write that since the question was not even addressed to you, nor did you answer it.

So if patriarchy has grown up since time immemorial and is so unconscious, maybe even based in genetics, is anyone here genuinely optimistic for women's liberation?