Let's Talk about what Patriarchy Is

I've been thinking about 'examples' of patriarchy. Itnisndifficult to fit things into a conceptual box, and I do take the point about the benefit of going on about 'patriarchy' vs actually campaigning on or addressing specific problems. However I think there is still a benefit in identifying and commenting on the overarching structural problems contributing to the distinct issues.

1. The ONS reported lasted year that women on average earn £263000 less than men in their life time.

1. Sexual assault stats from 2017 reported that 20% of women and 4% of men have reported some form of sexual assault since the age of 16.

1. 90% of single parent families are single mother families. Single parent families earn 27% less than other families.

1. Rape conviction statistics are insanely low, only 1.7% of reported rapes are prosecuted .

1. 34% of UK MPs are women, and only 27% of senior cabinet members are women.

1. Women account for just over 25% of higher rate tax payers.

1. Only 17 per cent of the top 1 per cent of earners across the UK are women.

I appreciate progress takes time and steps being taken now may correct these imbalances in time, but if one accepts that access to money and power are desirable, it would seem clear that women are less advantaged in accessing these things than men are.

*No need for rudeness.
Maybe we wouldn't have capitalism without patriarchy.

There is lots we can do within capitalism to benefit women. E.g. use it or lose it paternity leave for men - 6months at least. Evidence from Scandinavia is that helps men to be more involved in parenting for the rest of the child's life, benefiting both parents.

It suits the status quo (patriarchy) to define child rearing as the mothers job. But after breastfeeding finishes, there is no reason for that to be true.*

Sorry I don't mean to be rude.

There is lots we can do to benefit women under capitalism including much that has already been done. But, I only see men as contributing rather than trying to do things that only benefit them. Most of them have families you know who they also want to see benefit.

I dont think anyone should be wishing away capitalism. Its the worst system we have, but its not as bad as all the others out there.

I’ve been watching Douglas Murray on YouTube (it autoplayed after some GC stuff). Whatever you think of him, he said some things that I found thought-provoking,

Yes indeed, theres a whole host of fascinating speakers out there. DH has got DS into watching Douglas Murrey, Jordan Peterman, sam Harris and similar ones. They truly are some of the most sensible voices out there and an absolutely vital source to young guys growing up around so many faux activists who haven't even got the first idea what they're even fighting for half the time.

Companies like the motor industry go as far as attempting to illiminate even single steps of distance to their work stations so good luck.

And also a lot of other impressions are rooted in patriarchy
E.g. homophobia has a root in suspicion by straight men that gay men might be a threat to straight men in the same way straight men threaten women.

Well I kinda agree. I don't like the whole "privilege" angle because I can see a working class unemployed man would laugh at any implication he had a privilege over someone like me, a middle class woman with a good job.
But class analysis and talking about the structural reasons why certain categories of people do worse is useful to change things imo. Class analysis can help that working class man understand why his opportunities are limited - because he doesn't have access to the education or network of other men. Or women - because they are penalised for having children.
Patriarchy is useful shorthand for class analysis of men v women

I think the patriarchy is real (I guess the sort of stuff described in Caroline Criado-Perez’s book sums up the sort of structural inequality I’m talking about) but...

I’ve been watching Douglas Murray on YouTube (it autoplayed after some GC stuff). Whatever you think of him, he said some things that I found thought-provoking, one of which was something about how our society is aiming downwards. Everybody wants to claim oppression, act offended, insulted, outraged. I suppose that’s what’s meant by the oppression olympics. Anyway I started wondering whether it’s possible that all this talk of the patriarchy is holding women back in some way and whether it would help us to be more optimistic about womanhood. I don’t know. I’m still forming my opinions about this.

It would be self evident if what you're saying were the case

just have to point out that this argument was used to "prove" that discrimination didn't actually happen during Jim Crow because if any firms discriminated irrationally against black customers they'd lose out in the marketplace against firms that didn't.

This is old hat now but at the time it was quite exciting scholarship - turned out that huge new realms of hitherto unheard of stupidity could be invented by treating the various simplifying assumptions of economics as if they're immutable laws of physics.

You really don't understand how economy and capitalism work do you?

In this non-patriachal society, just exactly how do you intend to monetise the 16-18 year dependency of offspring as thats what would need to happen.
No need for rudeness.
Maybe we wouldn't have capitalism without patriarchy.

There is lots we can do within capitalism to benefit women. E.g. use it or lose it paternity leave for men - 6months at least. Evidence from Scandinavia is that helps men to be more involved in parenting for the rest of the child's life, benefiting both parents.

It suits the status quo (patriarchy) to define child rearing as the mothers job. But after breastfeeding finishes, there is no reason for that to be true.

It would be self evident if what you're saying were the case.
Just because it would be beneficial does not mean it will get done. What a simplistic view of the world you have.

But the question is, how would they work?

If we have a society and we know that, say, 80% are going to have something like a 10 year hiatus or partial hiatus in their career due to child related work, how could we set up a society so they were not disadvantaged? And what do we mean by that word? Maybe we expect that households with children will usually have something more like one or 1.5 paid "careers" rather than two, and try and make that stable for families, and also find ways to make it stable in care of marriage breakdown or a death.

The point is that we don't know because these societies haven't developed. You're still assuming these societies have marriage, two-person relationships (usually one male, one female) etc. But the point is that this society would be completely different.

For the record, I think it's pretty clear that the patriarchy doesn't always benefit men either. Suicide being a good example - this idea that men must be tough, not show emotion, seek help etc. These are things that have become part of the fabric of our understanding of me (albeit, it's changing) and that has significant opportunity for harm.

The thing is that the patriarchy wasn't developed on a set day and time, "In 2000 BC the patriarchy was created..." But ultimately, it does centre men and "traditional" requirements for them. And that isn't always a good thing for men either.

But if you go back to the question of work places etc - you can bleat about men performing less well at school and dropping out of university all you like, but while we still only have fewer than 10% of top jobs held by women across pretty much all industries, I'm afraid I'm struggling to feel too much sorrow. I can feel for individual boys who are likely slipping through the cracks, but I'm not going to change my view that the world is ultimately set up to make sure men maintain power and control and, often, autonomy.

You really don't understand how economy and capitalism work do you?
You really don't understand the actual position the world is in do you?
Climate change, AI, robots, whole swathes of jobs disappearing and unlikely to be replaced. Sex and women's bodies increasingly commoditized.

Now is the time we are shaping a new world order and it won't be good for women unless we are active in the design.

[quote totallyyesno]@Alisonjabub There are plenty of studies which actually show that working fewer hours results in greater productivity. You seem very tied to the idea of the status quo as being the best for everyone and women just have to suck it up - why is that?[/quote]
If that was the case, then the very nature of capitalism means that those companies could increase productivity and uin turn profitability and we'd see hours change to match the best most profitable hours.

It would be self evident if what you're saying were the case.

Its not.

So your viewpoint is "It's worked for me and tough if it hasn't worked for you - life's just not fair (and you probably didn't work hard enough)".

Hmmm.

If women hadn't worked so hard over the last few hundred years to achieve what we now have would you be so keen to dismiss the remaining inequalities as biological hiccups to be graciously tolerated? Because without the understanding that society was unfairly weighted in male favour at a structural level, you probably wouldn't have had the choice either way.

Yes we spend all sorts of money so who is preventing you from spending this money to get ahead, or do you want others to pick up the tab for you.

I dont WANT women to be disadvantaged. The fact is that biology determines whast happens not me. And also ALL women do not lose out. I don't consider that i lost out. I'd of been DEVASTATED if i had to go back to work the week after giving birth. To me, being able to spend the earliest years of my childrens life watching them grow was something i'm so grateful for the privelege of. If thats the patriarchy then a big thanks to whatever the hell that system is.

@Alisonjabub There are plenty of studies which actually show that working fewer hours results in greater productivity. You seem very tied to the idea of the status quo as being the best for everyone and women just have to suck it up - why is that?

Do you think men have designed it so that many more of them commit suicide? How about so they drop out of school more & get lower grades?

Why would they design it so that more women got university spaces? They would surely make it so much more women are in prison than men but thats the complete opposite.

You would think it would be of benefit to them also to make sure it was mainly women who risked lives doing the dangerous jobs, yet thats nearly all men. A definite winner would be to ensure than tens of thousands of women were wiped out during wars...Nope, again almost entirely men dead there

There you go again, no one ever said men were competent, capable of fore seeing unintended consequences, treated each other well.
There is a long tradition of warrior culture and the honours that go with it. Actually women and civilians now suffer more than combatants. Have you really not heard of rape as a weapon of war?
As for education the old 11 plus was designed by men who expected a 50/50 split between boys and girls (quite revolutionary cosidering the history of girls education.) Well the real results - girls outperformed boys so they changed the pass rate for boys to keep the balance.

Yeah, I've pretty much given up too.

I fucking can't with this thread, the way that total idiocy is interspersed among all the interesting thoughts and ideas and the idiocy is wrapped up in a big shitty bow of condescension is too fucking much. As if anyone needed more evidence of patriarchy.

Should the people who partake in this be treated as criminals in this case. If so we'd have to lock up all the women who do dom work. Not a good stance.

In this non-patriachal society, just exactly how do you intend to monetise the 16-18 year dependency of offspring as thats what would need to happen.

Its not 'the patriarchy' thats responsible for setting hours, thats simply the rate of efficiency that needs to be maintained to maintain a competative advantage in the market place! Its not some guy that sits there looking down on women thinking "haha if i set more hours i can stop all those women with kids from working". Lordy lord.

No ones said female biology is 'wrong' it simply is what it is and you have a choice with how you go about things. Not everythings fair or just, nor should it be.
You seem pretty determined that women should be disadvantaged! It's not really true that you have a choice though - if everyone made the choice not to have children that would be the end. What you are actually saying is that you recognize that society will always need children to survive but you also think it is acceptable that women lose out by providing them. If we wanted to create a society which was fair we could do - physically giving birth and babyfeeding are tied to biology but they are also work. We could choose to reward this work but we often don't. That choice is not because of biology, after all we spend money on all sorts of things as a society - why not this?

I agree with blingloving that the world would look so different if designed by women for women that we can hardly even imagine it

Is it not the case that in the few matriarchal societies that do exist, or have existed, that motherhood is the supreme goal; and that women tend to be single mothers ( maybe taking lovers) and assisted in childcare primarily by sisters and other women of the community? : www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/

So we would trust women to judge for themselves whether the physical and mental risks of childbirth and parenthood were too much for them.In a non-patriarchal society workplaces would be structured to accommodate childcare (by both parents). So not 9-5 full time jobs with 80+ hour weeks necessary to be seen as a success

Isn't that where we are now at? Many women now choose not to have children, or they prioritise other aspects of life over and above motherhood, and end up leaving it very late, or not having any. It is quite common now for women not to have their first child until their 30's........just at the same time when they may be achieving progress or stability in their career.

Personally, think this idea that men have just the same feeling/maternal instinct towards newborns and young children, or else they should( in the interests of equality) is a funny one. No doubt some do; and no doubt some women do not feel any strong impulse towards being with their baby or young child - but I'd guess that most women do.....because it is genetically programmed and hard-wired to kick in after childbirth. It's tough for women. I agree!

I agree with blingloving that the world would look so different if designed by women for women that we can hardly even imagine it.

On a large scale, I doubt we would have nation states. Or the armies needed to defend them or invade other nation states.

On a small scale, what idiot who had ever looked after small children would design houses with staircases for toddlers to tumble down or pavements running alongside roads but no barrier inbetween pedestrians and moving vehicles? My world would involve sensible design to reduce the state of semi-permanent heart attack involved in trying to keep toddlers alive.