Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Feminism 101- the creation of patriarchy

166 replies

sakura184 · 03/07/2019 16:23

The patriarchal takeover began as a means of controlling female reproduction.

It became important for men to know who the father was and thus began a strictly and violently enforced set of social rules-- which is the origin of marriage. Punishments for women who dared to procreate outside marriage were harsh. Their children were cruelly branded bastards and had to deal with the social stigma and poverty that went along with that. ( See the Magdalene laundries in Ireland for general information about how this worked)

But knowing who the father was was no longer enough. Children had become, by law, the father's property. This was the introduction of children as being property whereas before it was generally understood that children belonged to themselves and their mothers had responsibility over them.

I argue that patriarchy is an affront to natural law, and to nature itself. I argue that this is feminism 101

OP posts:
Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 15:35

I think you get an average of 4 years in jail for murdering your wife

OP posts:
Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 15:34

Oh I see what you did, misquoted me out of context so it looked like I was saying wife murder wasn't a crime. Annoying.

OP posts:
Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 15:29

Spouse murder was seen as a crime, but domestic violence wasn't. It used to be regarded as a private affair between husband and wife and something that the police shouldn't get involved in. And when the wife ended up dead it was a case of "well it couldn't be foreseen".
Now domestic violence is a crime, but it's still very difficult to get the police to take it seriously

OP posts:
Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 15:26

sawdustformypony

I'm not here to do research for you. If you're interested in anything I've written, knock yourself out

OP posts:
sawdustformypony · 05/07/2019 15:21

2 women a week in the UK murdered by their spouse. It wasn't even seen as a crime by the police until quite recently

Don't want to break your concentration whilst you're in full swing and all - but are you quite sure of this last revelation ?

Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 15:21

BjornAgain81

You're forgetting that men make the rules and as we discussed below masculinity requires pecking orders for men. Boys and young men are lower in the male pecking order and older males will often sacrifice them

This has nothing to do with women and we can't stop male hierarchies. What feminists want is freedom from men.

War mongering is a male trait. They need to constantly compete with each other for resources and they happily put younger men forward as sacrificial lambs.

OP posts:
BjornAgain81 · 05/07/2019 15:14

Don't American boys have to sign up for the military draft to get state funded college education, whilst girls get it no questions asked? That's not great for men who could theoretically end up getting shot at in some middle eastern hellhole against their will.

Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 15:10

*BjornAgain81
*
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

I'm talking about male violence against women, which usually happens inside women's homes in the form of domestic violence , or wife battery as it used to be called. 2 women a week in the UK murdered by their spouse. It wasn't even seen as a crime by the police until quite recently. Even now the police are notoriously inadequate at responding to domestic violence issues.

There was a spate of prostitutes being murdered in America a while back, I remember. I was discussing it with a group of feminists at the time and one of them said "I bet it's a cop".
Turned out it was.

In Kansas they've only just passed a law saying cops aren't allowed to rape the women they arrest. Had to have a law passed.

Police are just a joke when it comes to protecting women

OP posts:
Goosefoot · 05/07/2019 14:53

I mean, interdependent goes in both directions, that's what it means.

Goosefoot · 05/07/2019 14:46

You may not be representing her view correctly, but what you are saying doesn't make sense. So much so that I suspect you aren't representing it.

An economy is the sum total of all labour, it always includes all the labour of everyone in it, by definition. Of course the economy depends upon the labour of women, it depends on the labour of everyone. Of course the military depends on the labour of women, it depends on the labour of men, too. You can't have a military without also having people who care for children, produce food, make boots, and so on.

It would be ver helpful if perhaps you could answer in some way the points that people have questioned about your assertions. I don't mean simply saying it is feminism 101 or that they should read something, but specifically answer them. Or perhaps explain what you think a non-patriarchal economy would look like. Or something.

BjornAgain81 · 05/07/2019 14:30

As Churchill (not the dog) said:

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 13:20

Last time I looked prostitutes paid taxes and if this is still true then the state is basically a pimp and women's health and safety is sacrificed so that men can go about acting important in their "jobs" funded by prostitutes. It's all so gross

OP posts:
Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 13:15

I literally can't get over that so many of men's jobs depend on the female taxpayer. It's quite something to wake up and spot the reversals

OP posts:
Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 13:10

Women and men are totally interdependent on each other in every human society.*

But that's what Marilyn Frye shows. That economies depend on women's paid and unpaid labour. So without modern economies women would be just fine, we'd be better off.

Men wouldn't be. Men's existence as "workers" depends on women's subordinate exploited position. If women were free to organize amongst themselves I'm not sure what men would do to be honest. They would probably be a lot of excess men, outliers and so on, living on the fringes. Killing each other probably.

OP posts:
Goosefoot · 05/07/2019 13:05

Yes, deydododatdodontdeydo I was in the military and I just sat on my thumbs all day, working in the interests of men.

From a historical perspective male militaries have been a mixed bag for women. It's not like your aggressive neighbour nation was going to come in, take your land or crops and just tell the women to get on with living their lives with no interference, was it? They were going to rape and enslave you in all likelihood, or at the least leave you to starve and kill your male children. (Maybe we aren't supposed to care about that, since they are men?) Women had a very direct interest in being protected by their own military.

Women and men are totally interdependent on each other in every human society. In most traditional societies more so than today, even if, maybe especially if, work is strictly divided by sex. Many of these societies also walked a line in terms of survival. Some were very close to extinction of the family or tribe at all times. Others were better off but extinction was still a real possibility if there was a drought or very bad winter or disease took hold.

It's crazy to see this in terms of somehow the benefits of the work of one sex should all be going to themselves. People worked because if they didn't, they were all going to suffer. For most of history men and women both have worked without pay much of the time, so they and their children would live through the year without starving, or with a little more security, and everyones labour was necessary for that to happen. It's not like men were kicking back eating bon bons, ploughing a field is hardly getting away without working, and fighting in a war isn't either for that matter.

Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 13:00

What's also funny is that the government doesn't know what a woman is, can't define it, is intent on changing laws that write us out of existence as a sex class to please a few deluded men who want to commit predominantly male crimes like rape and pedophilia and be housed In women's prisons, ( and we have evidence they then go on to rape the female inmates, has happened a lot)
--- yet it is happy to take women's taxes to fund this whole circus that women have no power to change or stop

OP posts:
deydododatdodontdeydo · 05/07/2019 12:54

Pretty insulting to all those women who have fought for the right to enter the military and have forged successful careers, to be honest.

Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 12:39

Not that prostitution is lead and controlled by women-- not at all. Men control the industry but use women's bodies

OP posts:
Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 12:38

Like prostitution is a female dominated industry although you do get the odd rent boy

OP posts:
Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 12:37

Well that's why we talk about male dominated industries isn't it. You get the odd woman in an industry but it's dominated, Lead, controlled by men. Feminism 101

OP posts:
Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 12:35

*onsen
*
Generally I am intrigued about food production though, it is not very well considered in archaeology.

I wrote at length about food production on a blog I had. Unfortunately I had to shut it down because of MRAs

OP posts:
deydododatdodontdeydo · 05/07/2019 12:32

What about women in the military? Oh I forgot, they're not doing actual work Hmm

Original poster
sakura184 · 05/07/2019 12:31

When you think about it it's very parasitical for male dominated industries like the military to depend on women's paltry incomes and take it money from them in form of taxes to fund their jobs.
It's what hat we call a patriarchal reversal. Women who are doing actual work like raising children are accused of being layabouts and scroungers when the real scroungers are the people doing made up work and depending on female labour and taxes to do it

OP posts:
onsen · 05/07/2019 11:52

Because abortion lowers the breeding stock.

That Marilyn Frye book looks interesting, it's what I've been arguing for years (although predominantly in my own head).

The food chain stuff is also really interesting. I've often thought that - given all of the obvious caveats about women not owning property etc - one of the more equal places to live in the past would be as the wife of a Yeoman farmer in the late middle ages. Both farmer and wife are running a team of employees, and both are necessary for the farm to survive- the wife preserves the produce, sells excess, and deals with medical needs. A farmer would almost always remarry if widowed; widows less so.

Generally I am intrigued about food production though, it is not very well considered in archaeology.

TheInebriati · 05/07/2019 11:30

In Poland, before Solidarnosk took control, it was because they had banned contraception, and abortion was the only form of contraception available to women.
In China its because they limit the number of offspring each couple can have.
In many other places its only permitted if the womens life is at risk.

So theres that.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.