Let's Talk about what Patriarchy Is

o me, modern patriarchy describes a political, social and economic system that is primarily designed around the male life experience. So it assumes male conventions are the fundamental parameters.

Thats just it though its not actually 'designed' around those features at all. Its designed around the things that work.
It also strives to maintain positions in which competance is the most important factor. Thats why many top women occupy positions of the most powerful in our society. It would be wrong and a catastrophic assumption to make it 50% women and %50% men as that would be giving people positions based on sex and not how competant they are at doing that job.

I think it's weird that we only got voting rights just over 100 years ago, and we're still fighting for equality in so many areas because of an ingrained "Male as default" mentality but when you use the word "Patriarchy" people suddenly get confused.

Men have been in charge for hundreds of years and that, and the social attitudes around it, didn't disappear the day we got the right to vote.

Definition of Patriarchy that I tend to use:

a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.

a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

To me, patriarchy is a very specific thing. Most nations have developed out of historical patriarchal cultures and some still thrive today. I would say patriarchy is alive and well in Middle Eastern countries, especially those that implement some form of Sharia law, South Asian countries, a number of African countries etc. Many of these nations have laws that do not allow / restrict women to inherit property, or to have their own wealth and independence; or have mechanisms to ensure that a woman must always have a male guardian or sorts, either father, brothers or husband. Through political, religious and social coercion and rules, women in these countries are kept dependent on men with little means to successfully thrive on their own. Even women who are from very wealthy families are still under the good graces of the family / father and can easily lose any status, protection and financial support if disowned. There is little protection from government for women who are unmarried, divorced, a single mother or widowed. They are viewed as pitiful outcasts from the structure that places a father at the head of the family unit. Lots of religious groups and sects are also organised around patriarchal structures (such as the father being the head of the family) and believers are expected to adhere to them.

I personally don't think the term patriarchy is a useful concept as part of modern parlance in Western democracies these days and I feel there is a growing use of 'patriarchy' by feminists in such countries as a very vague, ever widening term that has an intangible substance and can be used to explain away any and every issue without probing for alternative explanations or using a multifaceted approach. It is an invisible, malignant evil lurking everywhere and nowhere at the same time. It turns into this (religious) meta narrative. I think discourses around racism these days employ a similar approach.

On the whole, women are allowed to live their lives as they choose, the government provides forms of social security for all, including single mothers. They can vote, run their own business, own property and accumulate wealth, and so on with or without any involvement of men if they choose. Yes, there are still anachronistic issues and it takes a very long time to slowly move away from the patriarchal heritage that formed modern, Western societies.

For example, I would not say the modern UK is a Christian nation or theocracy. However, I acknowledge that it has evolved under Christianity and therefore many of the laws, customs and social mores still reflect a number of these concepts and frameworks - some are useful and some are not. The legal, political and social framework are moving away from these origins. The vast majority of the population live their lives without much thought for Christianity or god, even if they still hold weddings and funerals in churches. Iran and Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, are definitely Islamic theocracies.

It's the same with the term 'patriarchy' - we can still see the lingering effects and legacy of it in Western democracies and we should do our best to address problems where we find them, but I wouldn't say the UK is a patriarchal nation or society. The vast majority of women and men live their lives without much thought of 'the patriarchy'.

We should definitely keep highlighting problems, unfair treatment and address violence and reluctance of government to address exploitation of women from marginalised and deprived backgrounds.

Instead of railing against an ethereal bogeyman that we can never defeat and therefore will have to wage an eternal battle against - I feel it's more productive to engage with and focus on tangible issues and find ways to relate to the vast majority of women and get them involved in taking control of their lives and making the best use of the opportunities that are available to them.

One example of patriarchal societal structure is the way the legal system approaches child welfare.
www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6703.html
Women are expected to be near-perfect mothers and even when traumatised by abuse they are held to a high standard.
Being an abuser is a parenting decision but fathers are seen as 'good enough' when taking drugs, abusing family members, leaving children unsupervised etc because it is seen as so beneficial to have a father.

To me, modern patriarchy describes a political, social and economic system that is primarily designed around the male life experience. So it assumes male conventions are the fundamental parameters.

It could be better described as the andrarchy, I suppose, as we no longer subscribe to Victorian (and Roman) notions of male household headship.

But you can see andrarchy everywhere: from the design of cars to pharmaceutical testing, to assumed life working patterns to the design of houses. Andrarchy is the reason why the typical office working day is 9 to 5. Andrarchy is the reason why the motherhood penalty in our society is so steep. Andrarchy is the reason why I had to get my dad to help me put together my daughter's cot when I was pregnant (you would think that ensuring a pregnant female would be able to construct a baby's sleeping platform without needing male upper body strength would be fairly high on the design spec, but apparently not).

Of course, the system doesn't ensure success for all men, just like the Roman patriarchy didn't deliver all Roman male citizens into the Senate, but the consistent disadvantage women face is still there. Often it is so normalised that you don't realise how rife it is until you experience something different.

One area that is problematic is domestic design conventions: rules and conventions surrounding normal kitchen installations, for example, are particularly troublesome. I never realised how bad they were until I used my grandmother's kitchen, which is a modified disability design, and it hit me how much easier it was for me to use (and I am not disabled).

I'm.sure you'll keep up.

I guess it makes sense to ensure we're all reading from the same hymn sheet. That said, I must admit I do sometimes find that discussion on here get a bit impenetrable and obfuscating when it descends into the minutia of definitions rather than focusing on the broader discussion.

You start with established definitions, of which there are at least three, literal, dictionary defs. Helps to get clear on those, at least, and any others useful to the conversation.

Ok, we haven't defined terms yet, so I'm not getting into discussion.

I understood it as the whole point of the thread being to define the meaning of the term 'patriarchy', so surely a discussion to this end is necessary?

Bloody freaking autocorrect! No apostrophe in its, sigh...

Ok, we haven't defined terms yet, so I'm not getting into discussion. Also not interested in any MRA reruns, just fyi.

Interested in refining language to it's most precise for the benefit of women.

I'd be very interested to read a survey of what women would like to see in a utopian society. I think it's likely that most would be in favour of equal opportunities/pay etc but that many would still happy with the traditional setup where the woman takes on childcare responsibilities - I certainly know many women who have been happy to work part time and step back from their career when in a stable relationship with a man whose salary can support a good quality of life, which it could be argued supports the patriarchy.

And I wonder if there is any value in conceptualising pure (or strong) patriarchy and dilute (or weak) patriarchy?

I guess we need definitions to start, yeah?

I'm a bit conflicted on the whole patriarchy thing. No doubt most of the people at the top are men, but they're small proportion of men, and many of the people at the bottom are also men (the homeless/suicide victims, etc). I think the tables are turning when we look at the tlunher generations, in terms of young women earning more and being better educated, etc, and the number of high earning women rising whilst the number of high earning men falling.