Let's Talk about what Patriarchy Is

And if these are the only 2 examples you found of an aparent patriarchy then they hardly put forward that the whole of society is just an oppressive patriarchy. What if it was mainly women who decided on something? Would it be a Matriarchy?

Neither of these are examples of a patriarchy. It would be plain evil to remove the presumption of innocence just because the accuser has a vagina. This is supported by a majority of women in this country.

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

This thread is utterly hilarious in the contrasts it offers.

Good points @QuentinWinters.

I'm a bit flummoxed by the implication of the PP that whatever is wrong with society women are doing it to themselves - or imagining it.

Ok here are 2 examples which fit the criteria of structural as built into our legal systems.

1. Women have to get permission for a termination (in the UK) or it's illegal inmany parts of the world. Pregnancy in all cases puts a woman's life and health at risk. There are no circumstances where men need to get permission from someone else for a medical procedure to safeguard their own health.

2. "Reasonable belief in consent" is a legally defined defence in rape. It means the offenders perception of a crime (who is always a man) is given precedence over the victim (who is usually a woman). The onus moves to the victim proving they didn't consent, rather than the offender proving they did. There are no other crimes where a defence is "I believed it was ok".

"Yammering" ???

I thought a bunch of women were chatting about what patriarchy actually means and trying to establish the usefulness of the term.....

This is why we need to stop yammering about patriarchy and why it will damage the progression of women in modern life.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0966735006059510?journalCode=ftha#articleShareContainer

Blimey.I 'm convinced. There are no structural biases against women due to the disadvantages imposed by biology and used to ringfence power, money and bodily autonomy in favour of males. We've all bee imagining it because well, you know, hysterical women and all that.

Thank you for re-educating me and reminding me of my place......

That was their decision It was the fathers' decision too - but somehow they are not penalised, why is that?

Presumably someones going to have to work to care for this child. If you were to cast the child straight into the arms of the father then im guessing he would be equally as penalised. Although he may be penalised more as if we're continuing the same narrative then he's also penalised by the childcare structure for his inability to be able to breastfeed.

Of course the CSA doesnt wor perfectly, thats not an argument its a patriarchy though I disagree. What about other government policies that disproportionately affect women? Still just chance?
Thats a terrible example of course its going to affect women more because they get paid most of the benefits. The argument that we get less free money isn't really an argument.

Erm - women of child bearing age are regarded with suspicion in the job market regardless of whether they reproduce or not - because at any time they may choose to change their mind and it may negatively impact their employers.

The devils in the detail there. Isn't it just obvious that if someone was going to impact you negatively you may regard them with suspicion slightly??

I dont know how on earth you can claim thats structural. What makes it in any way structural?

Aren't you ignoring the question of why the structure rewards male biology and not female biology?

Just because things arn't designed to take into consideration the weaker physical strength of women doesn't mean its designed against them, it just means that additional measures arn't in place. Who's going to pay for all these extra measures as we would complain straight away if we were. Monetary value isn;t placed by people, its a manifestation over time of the market of both men and women through alianation of labour for one thing or another. Its not simply set!

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

'The institution of marriage was primarily set up to benefit children'

^^ Oh god this is hilarious.

Really interesting discussion and I've tabs of interesting articles to read. Personally think that its ingrained in our society even with equality laws etc in place. I'll be back after I've done my reading!

The patriarchy is a social and economic system designed by men that prioritises their priorities and desires.

Where the patriarchy is incredibly efficient is in how it has made so many of these things seem totally normal or common sense, so that when people point it out, they are derided. Hence posters who think that of course women are going to find it harder to cope in the workplace because they have had babies. It's this idea that biology automatically means certain things. But that concept was created by the patriarchy.

But why is our society set up to reward professions that require additional qualifications? Obviously, it's because as a society, men were in a place to get those qualifications so over time those became the ones that were rewarded the most. But what if a society placed a high monetary value on roles that were unpleasant and/or unfulfilling on the basis that the people doing those roles had to make sacrifices? Carers, garbage collectors, cleaners etc? There's no reason such a society couldn't exist.

Even supermarkets - was it Tesco that had many of its (mostly female) cashier staff complaining because the (mostly male) staff working in the warehouse were paid better than them? As I recall, the argument was that the warehouse staff needed to be stronger and do more physical jobs, which justified increased pay. But in a non patriarchal society, perhaps we'd value more than ability to engage with individuals. Or perhaps, strength would not be seen as necessary because warehouses would be designed differently (eg, at some point, a decision was taken that when transporting pasta in bulk, the appropriate box size and weight was X. But in a society that didn't see strength as an issue, that box and weight would have been lower to make it easier for all members of society to engage in this job. Instead, we are expected to see this box size and weight as a god given fact and to accept the limitations it therefore puts on women).

Men become parents too. Men are not expected to lose their ability to fully participate in the workplace because of becoming parents. They do not lose their access to money/power because of parenthood in the way that women routinely do.

So it is the structure, not biology, which is holding women back because the structure supports men, not women.

Thats not a bad thing.
Really? So you believe that society is better if we raise children in stable relationships (ok) but if these relationships fail women should bear the brunt of the fall out. Basically you're happy to throw women under the bus as long as it means the tax payer doesn't have to fork out.

That was their decision It was the fathers' decision too - but somehow they are not penalised, why is that?

Of course the CSA doesnt wor perfectly, thats not an argument its a patriarchy though I disagree. What about other government policies that disproportionately affect women? Still just chance?
www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/09/women-bearing-86-of-austerity-burden-labour-research-reveals

Erm - women of child bearing age are regarded with suspicion in the job market regardless of whether they reproduce or not - because at any time they may choose to change their mind and it may negatively impact their employers. That, right there, is structural inequality - caused by the mere fact of biology. men can father children at pretty much any age but it's not a concern. Laws to prevent this exist but can be circumvented with little recourse for the woman involved. Unless it is explicitly stated you cannot prove that an employer passes you over due to your sex or whether you have / intend to have children. That doesn't strike me as much of a choice.

I just mean that as a result of male dominance (patriarchy) our society is structured in ways that enforce female economic dependence on men.

Thats not a bad thing. The institution of marriage was primarily set up to benefit children and it still does that today. It may be worth considering how children and siociety may suffer in the long term were we to discourage marriage as an institution in which to raise children. We need to see that gowing up and engaging in a relationship where EACH person depends on the other will go much further to providing a positive outcome for everyone.

Well...just about everything! I gave you the example of men not providing for their children and you dismissed because the CSA exists. The fact that the CSA fails so frequently to oblige men to adequately support their children is an example which supports what I am saying.
Why are there few women in parliament? Partly due to the way parliament is structured again. There is no real reason why parliament has to sit so late into the night which again makes it difficult for mothers to attend

totally worong about everything there. Thats biology thats holding them back, not the structure. Its not the structures fault that those women made the life choice to have children. That was their decision and they had the option not to do that and they could have just as easily had the same opportunities as the men. Its the choices that are made that have affected choice nothing else. No structure is perfect. Of course the CSA doesnt wor perfectly, thats not an argument its a patriarchy though

I don't think it is
No, it is, honest.

Going back in time, that is probably down to the fact that a family was an self regulating economic unit - dependent on hunting, gathering growing crops, animal husbandry & exchange of produce - and not on wage labour.

I think that's too broad an analysis and raises all kinds of questions like "how are you defiining family?" I don't know why male dominance arose alongside the invention of agriculture, that's a very big question - I just mean that as a result of male dominance (patriarchy) our society is structured in ways that enforce female economic dependence on men.

What are these so called structures that are only built to serve men? Where are they? What do they look like? It shouldn't be this hard to list what they are.
Well...just about everything! I gave you the example of men not providing for their children and you dismissed because the CSA exists. The fact that the CSA fails so frequently to oblige men to adequately support their children is an example which supports what I am saying.
Why are there few women in parliament? Partly due to the way parliament is structured again. There is no real reason why parliament has to sit so late into the night which again makes it difficult for mothers to attend. There is no real reason why only a few months ago a heavily pregnant MP had to be wheeled in to cast her vote or lose it because she wasn't allowed to vote from hospital. What about in academia? Again, the system favours those without children (and in particular men who have wives to help them out as unpaid secretaries). It is far harder for female professors to get ahead but most of these barriers are not actually necessary, they are created to favour men. My SIL gave up her job as a lawyer because her firm refused to allow her to work part time or to job share - despite there not actually being a clear reason why this wouldn't work. A male colleague took her place.

If you want to earn money from something that thing has to be hold value in which an exchange can be negotiated. You cant monetise raising children. How would you do that? Thats just a responsibility you have. But, you have a choice of whether or not to do that.

Why do you think that it's the case that caring for young children, one of the most important jobs in our society and the job which has the most significant long term economic impacts, is financially unrewarded

Going back in time, that is probably down to the fact that a family was an self regulating economic unit - dependent on hunting, gathering growing crops, animal husbandry & exchange of produce - and not on wage labour.

Women with small children are more tied to home and hearth, and it is the men that go further afield in search of food, resources, opportunities etc. And so a duality arose. women in the private sphere, men in the public sphere. This then became codified and enforced in most societies, and still is in many today.

the comparison of children from 1 or two parent families

This discussion is going over your head a bit, sorry to say.