Let's Talk about what Patriarchy Is

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 too.

Just how exactly are men setting up this system to just benefit them. If they are then looking at the above we really dont have anything serious to worry about as they wouldnt be doing a very good job at it and seem to getting it the wrong way round.

There are a lot of possibilities, but t's not necessarily all that easy to imagine that any of them would actually erase differences in outcomes, no matter how woman centred they were or how they valued caring.

The fact that women give birth and a baby is dependant on them for the first few months of life, believe it or not, is not a concept of the patriarchy. Its unbelievable the wilful ignorance of some. I really do worry for the future of mine and others sons.

I think patriarchy is definitely related to the extent a woman has bodily and reproductive autonomy, the opportunity for economic autonomy, and the ability to keep all those things no less than a man after she and he reproduce together.

Plus the safety to move around freely without threat of harassment or harm from males any greater than that which males going about their business face from females in said same society, and facing no greater risks and disadvantages of any kind in a society than males face, such that Caroline Criado Perez's book Invisible Women would not need to have been written.

There are a lot of possibilities, but t's not necessarily all that easy to imagine that any of them would actually erase differences in outcomes, no matter how woman centred they were or how they valued caring.

We shouldn't try to control the outcome in these situations, its a dire way to do things that leads to bad results and has done time and time again. We should ensure everyone has an equal opportunity and let the cards fall where they may. Thats the only truly fair way.

Re # 2 - intent is something that has to be established in most crimes, so I am not convinced this is accurate. While murder or battery wouldn't accept that kind of argument, it's not that hard to imagine someone showing that they reasonably thought they were supposed to take the neighbours car being accepted as a defence against theft.

No one said anyone has got to accept it, thats a matter for the jury, but someone can still use any defence they like and should have the freedom to able to do that. At the end of the day if its believable or not is down to the jury and they will decide whether they think he's truthful or lying. Thats due process. Its something we pride ourselves on as a nation and are the benchmark legal system that most countries look up to.

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.

aren't you just saying, female biology is wrong?
Only if you insist the binary has a right (male) and wrong (female) end. That's patriarchy.
In a non-patriarchal society we would accept it's necessary for society to procreate and not penalise women for being the ones who biologically bear most of that burden. 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.

@QuentinWinters
I found the Secret Barristers blog about the 'rough sex defence' pretty informative:

thesecretbarrister.com/2020/07/03/the-truth-about-the-governments-claims-to-have-ended-the-rough-sex-defence

Its not something we've allowed thats just the way it is! its biology.
It's really not. If we were to start again from scratch with the aim of not putting women at a disadvantage society would look very different. Governments are continually making policies which (possibly inadvertently) disadvantage women, often because women are not part of the decision making process.

Surely the onus would be on me to prove why I thought you gifted it to me though, rather than on you to prove you didn't!

The onus in both instances would be for the prosecution to establish you had criminal intent. For some types of crime that's easier than others.

It's pretty rare for someone to agree to let them break into your house and take your valuables, to the extent that it would take a pretty bold person to try to convince a jury that they had a reasonable belief that you wanted them to do that. On the other hand, it's quite common for people to consent to sexual intercourse, and so the defence of "I thought she consented" had a better chance of being accepted by the jury.

Having said that, there do seem to be many cases where juries seem to be willing to accept quite unbelievable defences in rape trials.

I gave a few examples of how societies could have developed differently if there wasn't the patriarchy. I see those have been ignored.

So many concepts of "common sense" or "it's just the way it is" really aren't. They're deep seated systems that have developed as part of ensuring men's lives are easier, more flexible, more power etc.

To use the women of child bearing age being viewed with "suspicion" in the workplace. In a non patriarchal society, those women would be seen as more important. They're able to bring life. Their value would be significantly higher. The skills they gain would be more valued.

The only reason you think it's perfectly reasonable to discriminate against them is because you've bought into this idea that working requires complete focus, no breaks, and that it's reasonable to expect employees to put work before all other considerations. You can't see that its socialisation because it's bloody worked so well.

Oh yeah actually that's another great example. Previous case law established that you can't consent to harm (R v. Brown), and that case was about BDSM. So even if someone said they consent, if you harm them, you are breaking the law.

But that doesnt apply to women in rape and murder cases. If you are a woman, a man can say you consented to be harmed or even killed and that's a defence. Despite previous case law saying it shouldn't be

Many cases now are frought with unclear intentions due to both being drunk or whatever, you cant exclude specific defences.
So the removal of the rough sex defence, which has been fought for by women's group is against your idea of justice? What do you think is the origin of men treating women in a way that would contravene the Geneva Convention if sex wasn't involved and calling it pleasure?

t's structural because we have allowed workplaces to evolve in a way where pregnancy may be seen as an unacceptable inconvenience rather than an unavoidable fact of life which needs to be wholly incorporated into working life in order not to disadvantage women.

Its not something we've allowed thats just the way it is! its biology. Guess what, kids are inconvenient. if you want to have them thats what theyre likely to cause. We're so used to getting everything we want we actually think we can circumvent biology so things arent inconvenient or that differences in our biology and sexual characvteristics aren't going to make a bit of difference. But they do it turns out, despite our efforts.

Surely the onus would be on me to prove why I thought you gifted it to me though, rather than on you to prove you didn't!

At the moment alleged rapists can say they never even spoke to the victim and still successfully use the "reasonable belief" defence.

There are no other crimes where a defence is "I believed it was ok".

Erm, any crime which is not strict liability has a defence that "I believed it was ok".

For instance, if you took something from me and I accused you of theft, a legal defence would be that you had a genuine belief that I had gifted the item to you.

This straight away shows these are things you've repeated instead of actually going and considering them carefully to form your own views.

I have considered my own views, and I am enjoying this thread which is also broadening my views. I don't think there is a need to be dismissive because we don't agree. I don''t pretend to know everything, but this doesn't mean I can't contribute based on my current opinions.

Regarding your question as to how it can be 'structural' if a woman is not chosen for a role because she is of an age where she may be likely to have children? It's structural because society has developed in a way whereby a person's ability to be active economically is at the heart of their ability to have meaningful power in society - i.e. the power to feed or house themselves, or find a new home, or move away, or to be free as an individual to make their own choices. Compared to men women have less freedom in this regard if they, between the ages of 25-35 (for example) are more likely to be turned down for a role because they might have a child.
It's structural because we have allowed workplaces to evolve in a way where pregnancy may be seen as an unacceptable inconvenience rather than an unavoidable fact of life which needs to be wholly incorporated into working life in order not to disadvantage women. Obviously huge strides have been made in respect of maternity provision and sex discrimination laws to protect women against such discrimination, and many employers are a lot more progressive than they used to be. But is has been a long road, and many women still get dismissed when pregnant, or are not employed because of the risk of pregnancy, and are financially disadvantaged because of low stat maternity pay.

Your answer to @QuentinWinters about rape cases doesn't address her point. She isn't saying that the presumption of innocence shouldn't apply. She is saying that there is a defence available to the accused which is that the accused thought the complainant consented to the act.

Also the belief that men are so vital in the role of parent that even if they are abusive they will be given access to their children and the please of the mother ignored - which occasionally leads to family annihilation? This is definitely a structural inequality.

I can do examples of patriarchy all day, those two were because you said our legal structures weren't biased

1. all pregnancy risks death or life changing injury to the mother, as well as the more common ongoing issues that many women experience. Women should be able to choose not to take that risk without permission. It infantilises women and there is nothing comparable for men

2. Innocent until proven guilty is absolutely fundamental. I was talking about "reasonable belief in consent". A man had sex with a sleeping woman in a hotel room, thinking she was his partner. He was found innocent because he "reasonable believed" it was his partner. The victim was incontrovertibly penetrated against her will, but it's not a rape because he didn't mean to do it. There are no other crimes where that happens.

Are you deliberately missing the point? Of course presumption of innocence should not be removed. But there have been many rape cases where men have been treated leniently or found innocent even in the face of incontrovertible evidence, even video footage. There have been many cases where men have been considered more important than the victim due to their status and because it might negatively impact their future. Do you not concede that the scales are tipped fairly heavily in favour of the accused in rape cases? While the victims have to prove they didn't "ask for it"?