Feminism 101- the creation of patriarchy

Men all over the world have banned abortion

And I don't agree with this either.
To look at it one way, if you agree that men are in charge, then men all over the world have legalised abortion over the last 50 or so years.
OK, some places haven't yet, and some (notably the US) are going the other way, but in general men have legalised abortion.
Why would they do this do you think?

I'd have a hard time agreeing that society consists of taking taxes from women to pay for men.
First of all, men pay taxes. Because of the gender pay gap they pay more taxes. Because earnings below £12k (I think) aren't taxed, low paid women pay less taxes in general.
Secondly, you pulled out military and police as examples of "mens things". Even though the police can be hugely incompetent at protecting women, I believe that women benefit from having a police force. I'm not a military fan myself, but if you ascribe to the belief that the military protects us, surely women count as "us" and receive protection just as much as men.
Because you cherry picked, you didn't list anything that taxes are used of to benefit women. Child benefit, maternity pay, NHS, old age pensions. With women living longer than men, surely women benefit more from old age pensions.
Note that I'm not, and would never say, that women have it better than men. But I cannot agree that women's taxes pay for men.
Both men's and women's taxes (but on average more men's) pay for both men and women.

I've no doubt that we live in something of a man's world. However, it's easy to see how men became the dominant sex.

Three monkeys and only one banana. Which monkey gets the banana? Is it the aggressive one or the timid one?

And I think both sexes have certain advantages. Of course, many women see it as imperative to have all the opportunities that a man has (and rightly so) but many are happy to marry a well off man and enjoy the privilege of working part time.

How many men do you see working part time/low paid jobs whilst driving a Range Rover and living in a huge house? Not many I'd wager.

judges believing she "consented" to murder in BDSM session

This is a myth. There is no such defence. Don't be fooled.

sakura184 - nations that have their own sovereign currency like the US, UK, Japan, Canada etc (not countries that use a shared currency like the Euro) are able to issue money at the touch of a computer keystroke. Ever since the 'gold standard' has been dropped, government money isn't tied to any finite resource. So essentially the supply of money is infinite because it is a fictional concept. The only constraints are real world ones - resources are finite, labour is finite etc. Money is not finite. We can 'afford' anything we want if we have the material resources to make them or the people to provide them.

Governments can issue money at any time and circulate them into the economy. Public and private sectors make use of this money - most of it is digital these days. However, if governments kept pumping money into the economy, eventually it will cause inflation (once full employment is achieved), so the main purpose of taxes is a way of removing money from circulation to maintain a relative balance in the economy.
Taxes can also have other uses like helping curb economic power - so you tax the rich more because it reduces their spending power over less rich members of society.
Taxes are also very useful to nudge citizens into behaving differently - the small charge on plastic bags is evidence of this.
But ultimately, the biggest role of tax is to 'destroy' money by removing it from circulation in the economy.

The military, police, NHS etc are all government bodies, and can always be funded if the government wishes to do so. It is political ideology, not economics, that determines what a sovereign government funds in a society. No government has ever backed out of a war because 'it didn't have the money for it'. It might run out of material resources or humans, but not money.

The myth of governments needing taxes to fund things is a useful lie because it enables them to not take responsibility for important issues.

I'd recommend you read about Modern Monetary Theory.

I have to get ready for work and don't have links to hand but can post them later if you are interested. :)

The Neanderthal DNA in all Europeans is a question

Yes, it is in all non-African humans. Not just Europeans. Denisovans have left their genetic legacy in Southeast Asian populations and (I think) Homo Erectus admixture in Aboriginals.

Interestingly, the Neanderthal DNA source was the female offspring between a male Neanderthal and female human, clearly raised among humans. Male offspring were apparently sterile.

Oh, FFS, are you seriously claiming some sort of ill intent here? Secretly I want to keep women down by asking people to be clear about the material basis of their language?

You can't even explain what you think patriarchy is. You are obscuring things. Not good for improving anything.

I mean really, this is an odd thread to try and educate us about patriarchy. If we question your pronouncements about patriarchy, we should read a book because clearly we don't understand, but you can't explain it. Nor the rather romantic history you have proposed.

It's a bit patronising to assume that because someone doesn't think patriarchy is a useful concept they are talking out of their ass, or that because they have a different view of women's unpaid labour. You know there are differences in thinking on these subjects even within academia.

to give men jobs and something to do and to justify them receiving tax payers money ( women's taxes are used to subsidize men's jobs- the military, the police and so on). Women literally hand over money to fund male employment.

This is not how taxes work. Governments with a sovereign currency do not need tax to fund their projects. Public spending actually funds private wealth. Spending always comes before taxation. Nobody's taxes pay for anything - on a national scale.
Tax is mainly used to remove excess money from circulation to control inflation.

But again, you aren't making the connections.

Capitalism is not only rewarding men for women's unpaid labour. It exploits everybody except the capitalists. Some of whom are women and you might notice that capitalism is absolutely happy to allow women or any other group of people into the ranks of the capitalists so long as capitalism itself is not challenged.

In fact I would argue that capitalism doesn't really want women or anyone else in unpaid labour, they want very much to put women in the same place as the male members of the workforce, producing an income which can be transferred to the owners. Because you can't transfer the effective good of your time spent with your kids or caring for elders for free or working in the garden that will feed your family. Every hour a women or anyone else spends adding value to their lives, and the lives of their families, through that kind of activity, is a loss to the capitalists.

There is a reason the 20th century mainstream culture was so happy to embrace many elements of feminism, and the fact that it allowed them to bring women more directly into the exploitative workplace relations of capitalism is probably the biggest one. They'd rather not have people realising the possibility meaningful work that isn't paid by an employer, it's a threat to the whole system.

What word /definition would you suggest?

I would restrict patriarchy to it's definition when used in politics or anthropology, which just doesn't have the same connotations as you see in women's studies contexts.

For the stuff that feminism is trying to talk about, I think they should actually describe the phenomena they are referring to, it's causes, effects, and so on. If you want to talk about why monogamy is considered an ideal, or is institutionalised, in a certain time and place, you have to really unpick it and describe it and do the work to integrate it into any larger set of systems.

Samurai 184
My previous post was for Goosefoot.
I do agree women's unpaid work is invaluable (like the environment )but doesn't appear in GDP stats.

Yes I'm aware of all that except I have the feeling that any definitions anyone uses you will pick holes in. You are just saying the discussion isn't discussing what you want without setting out your analysis. What is the material reality etc etc in your opinion, this is after all a discussion and we're all capable of dealing with complex issues.

Goosefoot
What word /definition would you suggest?