Let's Talk about what Patriarchy Is

No system is perfect but the system we have i believe we should be etremely thankful for is above all and the 1 thing it prides itself on is the fact that its fair. We forget this sometimes and just focus on who we believe the victim is. However every single case will have the outcome that someone finds unjust.

How anyone can even relate our justice system as being part of an oppressive patriarchy beggars belief. Its the fundamental system that gives us protection and the opportunity to seek justice for any crime committed against us, male or female.

"For an abstract idea like patriarchy"

About as abstract as an erect penis shoved down a woman's throat choking off her air as his abstract weight pins her down helplessly.

As abstract as other men standing around watching her get face raped and choked while they whoop and holler and cheer their mate on, some of them with their own abstract erections waiting their turn.

As abstract as the men with their phones out filming it to add this face rape and choking to their abstract spank bank of filmed rapes for masturbation.

As abstract as the wealthy extortionists who purchase the footage and upload it to websites.

As abstract as the panting thrill of millions of men voyeurs watching this one instance of face rape and choking among the millions of such anti-woman propaganda films men make for daily consumption by everyday, ordinary, common men.

Apeing.

We need to embrace and value our female biology. Too much ageing of men!

I don't know where you're getting the idea feminists want transhumanism. Woman are not broken and in need of fixing

Maybe not as a conscious ideal, but it does often seem that some feminists resent the roles and consequent social extrapolations of female biology....that only if women were released from the shackles of childbirth and childcare...and if only men took as much ( or similar) responsibility for children, housework etc.......

Personally, I have come to see the whole trans issue as, in certain ways, arising out of an almost unacknowledegd desire for the suppression of the roles that arise out of the fact of female biology....out of the notion that women are just like men, but with tits and a fanny. If being a woman is nothing other than superficial physical attributes......has no deeper resonance or biological calling card.

However, unlike worker/capitalist, this is not a social system created by people, and most people don't think it can be fundamentally changed.

You're confusing the fact that humans are a sexually dimorphic species with the inevitability of a particular social system. Humans have created many different kinds of societies. Basically you're taking a deterministic view, biology is destiny.

The issue is not to change the fact of being men and women but to challenge and change the power dynamics and inequality that has developed in complex societies which benefit men at the expense of women.

You are arguing that the social systems I would call patriarchical, or androcentrism are basically as natural an immutable as the male female dyad.

I don't know where you're getting the idea feminists want transhumanism. Woman are not broken and in need of fixing.

Quite a few people have given a POV as to what they believe patriarchy means, which boils down to a bias in many areas in favour of men

See I don't think this is what "the patriarchy" means at all. In the original rad fem formulation women and men are distinct social classes locked in a class struggle, and "the patriarchy" is the social system created by men as a class in order to dominate over women as a class, just as Marxists see "capitalism" as the system by which the bourgeois dominate over the proletariat.

So it's not just the observation that a bias exists, but also an explanation for why the bias exists.

Thank you for that - definitely food for thought.

So the discussion here is really about whether patriarchy as a label is an unhelpful ideological theory, or a factual / historical descriptor?

That's just the first thought off the top of my head but I think I'm getting to grips with it now...... I shall ponder some more :)

As to your second assertion this is also not credible. I worked for a time as a criminal defence solicitor. I know for a fact that Shoplifters were not treated harshly. From the off, they would typically get a conditional discharge or a small fine (which typically wouldn't get paid in any event). As number of convictions would increase the magistrates would start looking at other disposals such as community punishments. Only once you reached the point of them continuing to offend, not pay fines and engaging with community punishments, do the magistrates then start to look at custodial punishments - and even then suspended at first.

If you want to find out more about sentencing for the groups of offenders you mention, sentencing guidelines are available online for you to find. Judges and Magistrates follow these carefully and give reasons for the sentences they decide upon in case their decisions are appealed.

Sorry, just to be clear — I don’t mean the second type of bias is directly caused by patriarchy … the bias in favour of the wealthy etc is caused by our class system and very liberal capitalism. Which happens also to favour men though, so it probably is linked. But in any society those deemed the ruling class will enjoy significant advantages. As I said before, though, how you’d ever ensure women enjoy a meaningful and sustainable place at the top of the tree is unclear, given the ability of men to overpower women as a class should they ever wish to.

In a patriarchy rape will always be difficult to convict because those perceived to be in charge/with power/the ruling class (whatever you want to call it — some of these are loaded terms) will always be given the benefit of the doubt.

It’s the same bias that means execs and wealthy people who commit fraud etc are not punished as harshly as benefit fraudsters/shoplifters etc.

Prosecuting sex crimes. and the difficulty in doing so isn't anything to do with a patriarchy. Are you saying you'd make them easier to convict and lower the standard of evidence? Are you insane? You dont make things fairer by making them unfair.

No. No one is saying that.

There are some interesting discussions taking place around the role of the jury in rape trials. Jury bias is a serious issue, if it is caused by socialisation (the acceptance of rape myths as fact); then blind selection cannot create a fair jury.

theconversation.com/is-jury-bias-preventing-justice-for-rape-victims-60090

www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/news/2019/10/8/press-release-should-juries-be-abolished-in-rape-trials-my-jury-is-out

www.thejusticegap.com/rape-trial-influence-jury-bias-verdict-outcome/

Looking to eradicate men that should say, sorry.

Okay, help a sister out here..... this whole thread has left me feeling dumb as a bag of hammers......

Quite a few people have given a POV as to what they believe patriarchy means, which boils down to a bias in many areas in favour of men - their biological form in design, their advantages in the capitalist system because they don't (generally) bear children, the default to male models for researching and treating diseases that affect women differently, and the fact that although rape is common, it is now under-reported (hence convictions going down) because women have experienced having to prove they really were victims to a higher standard than men proving they didn't do it (sorry, bit ham-fisted there but I'm sure most will get the gist).

Apparently none of these things down to any form of patriarchal bias, but are just one of those things due to natural effects of biological differences and we should be focussing on the "real" issues that women face, which aren't that many apparently because all the big changes have been made and what more do we really need?

The fact that these are often complex issues that are deeply rooted in human beings struggle with nature in general is not simply not convenient them to consider, and so evidence, rational reasoning and science are just tossed out and all labelled as part of the patriarchy as thats what everything has become and must be to the 'feminist'.

Struggling with nature is how the human race has got where it is in general - as we've progressed men have taken the lead in that but the results have often over-looked women's needs and also rejected and downright stolen / appropriated womens contributions. Why do women sell more books if they write under a mae or gender neutral pseudonym? Why would people assume a written tome is less interesting or worthy or valuable if written by a woman? Why do we assume a doctor is more likely to be the male in a room? Gender construct has evolved in society since men used to have the reins entirely and women mostly accepted it because they were too damn oppressed and weary from child-rearing and too scared to oppose it - who wanted to be burned as a witch?

For me there's nothing fuzzy minded about a word that encapsulates that women must always put others needs and wants first no matter their comfort or safety or suffer the consequences from society at large.

Women who don't do this are being threatened with violence by male bodied people claiming to be women on public platforms and praised for it because of their enlightened outlook. Is that not a product of a patriarchal society?

I am also a bit bemused by the constant drumming in of the message that if we think there's a patriarchal bias still, we're thinking wrong and are man-hating dangerous types looking to eradicate women. Feminism is about centering the needs of women - recognising them and accommodating them because they have been over-looked, dismissed and neglected for so long and ensuring that they are treated equally to men - not better, not worse, equally.

Why is that so dangerous?

There are some countries and societies in which patriarchy definitely still exists, if one considers patriarchy to be a society in which women are denied equal rights and opportunities, and in which gender roles are heavily policed, especially for women.

However, the use of catch-all terms as 'Toxic Masculinity' ,'Male Privilege' and 'Male violence' have had their day, certainly for me. They no longer describe our society as I see it. It seems to me that these terms have become somewhat of an indulgence; and are now used in just the same way as any other form of intersectional, oppositional ideology.

As with any other 'ism' ( socialism/marxism/atheism etc) feminism has become a kind of identity - with its own creeds, articles of faith, slogans, and approved ways of thinking or framing situations.
I've used the term patriarchy myself in the past, but when I hear it used these days it makes me cringe - and I reject it.

As with any other imposition of ideology ( & we are increasingly confronted with many competing ideologies) nobody likes to feel coerced or manipulated into accepting another's interpretation of events or situations. Contemporary life is too complex for such rigid analysis.

And neither of you can be botherd to read the article.

I do think that it is fundamentally true that capitalism involves the exploitation of labour

Not only involves but that the exploitation of labour is literally what defines capitalism in that we are free to negotiate for any and all alienation of ones individual labour..

And that part of the problem feminists have with this is looking at it only in terms of women's position vs men,

This is precisely what the problem is. Modern day feminists rely heavily on playing fast and loose with buzz words like 'patriarchy' and 'toxic masculinity'. It still amazes me how a group that are meant to be a collective fighting against a cause, are still unable to clearly define the problems they claim to face.

I mean throughout this thread even, we've heard "well it means this" "no it means that but with this" or "i dont think its anything". How on earth can you expect to fight against something with any degree of seriousness if your collective haven't even put together a coherent analysis of the problem?

Of course this brings us back to the very issue, that there isn't one and its one big ghost chase at best, lead by a minority of loud, angry women who have a personal beef with men but no real evidence or argument that its anything close to a societal or structural problem so they just pick a word that widely encompasses men, and blames them for every and all problems they face regardless of the cause.

The fact that these are often complex issues that are deeply rooted in human beings struggle with nature in general is not simply not convenient them to consider, and so evidence, rational reasoning and science are just tossed out and all labelled as part of the patriarchy as thats what everything has become and must be to the 'feminist'.

I would urge people, especially if you have sons to take a step from this dangerous and irrational group of women before they really cause some harm.

Can i assume that most women were in support of James Damore having demonstrated, even in the memo that he was committed to the comfort of women in the workplace?

Prosecuting sex crimes. and the difficulty in doing so isn't anything to do with a patriarchy. Are you saying you'd make them easier to convict and lower the standard of evidence? Are you insane? You dont make things fairer by making them unfair.

All crime do and should have an equal standard, so it seems the primary complaint from people on this thread is that the system is too fair?

I also think its a good thing there are less convictions. Convictions have been going down steadily, year after year since the 70s. Being that conviction rates usually are an indication of the level of a particular crime I don't feel that rape and sexual assualt would be any different.

Although convictions have been dropping steadily, reports have actually increased steadily, but i do think that is something to do with the political climate and other reasons I dont feel would be suitable for discussion here.