To think that not believing in patriarchy is a deal breaker?

[LemurLederhosen]

I was having a little, semi-lighthearted rant in the kitchen the other day about how long it has taken for me to get the help I need to deal with some really awful perimenopausal symptoms. I’ve been off work for months and despite keeping on and on at my GP, only now have I been referred for a HRT appt. I made the age old comment “if men went through all this they’d have been treated straight away, but that’s patriarchy for you”.

DP then simultaneously eye rolled, exhaled and scoffed the word “patriarchy”. So I asked him why. He told me that clearly I’d been brainwashed by all the rubbish on social media into hating men.

I was shocked. So I said I don’t hate men, patriarchy is damaging to men and women so to eradicate it would make a better world for everyone. What are you on about? He basically implied that it’s all a load of bollocks and that I’m only now going on about it because of social media.

I was genuinely shocked. It was as if he thinks that a load of angry women on social media have invented this concept in the last decade? I reminded him that patriarchy is a deeply ingrained system of oppression and has been around for centuries. I reminded him that I specialised in women’s studies at university (he knows this!) and that my PhD in domestic abuse (he also knows this) wouldn’t have existed in the same way without patriarchy at the helm. I’ve always been passionate about equality (for all I might add) and that not only do I take raising our 2 DDs very seriously, but more so the way we raise our DS to feel free and able to express his feelings and emotions in a positive way. He has his moments for sure. But he’s 7!

I’m just genuinely shocked that after 17 years together I’ve only just worked out that he doesn’t actually believe in patriarchy. Is this a deal breaker? I suppose I’ve kept a lid on a lot of my views - mainly because I get to exercise them a lot in the work that I do so never feel the need to “go off on one” at home, unless I’m responding to a news story or something… but now not only am I not at work but I’m also perimenopausal so in full unfiltered/ unmasked mode!

All the other times he’s huffed when I’ve made similar comments I just thought was his social conditioning making him respond that way so I have challenged him and eventually he’s gone quiet… but now I know he flat out thinks its made up bullshit I mean what am I meant to do? He’s a good person, but clearly has never had his world view challenged as much as I’m challenging him now? Maybe he’s just been humouring me all these years - which make me really quite angry. I just don’t know what to think… or maybe he was trying to wind me up?! Which again isn’t good… or funny…

There isn't a gendernpay gap. We have minimum wage. The earnings gap is real, but that's nothing to do with men.

This is one of the big problems with the way the term " the patriarchy" is used.

People just throw of answers like, of that's the fault of the patriarchy.

But how? What is the mechanism? Real things have real discrete and concrete actions that lead to definable results.

In this case if we really look at the numbers they might show us that the gap between elderly men and women counts for a lot of that.

If we can nail down what actually accounts for those numbers, anything that is not legitimate can be acted upon. That is, the real issue that causes the difference.

I'd have real trouble with this! I realise everyone's priorities are different and so forth. For me: I couldn't have a happy relationship with a sexist (doesn't believe in patriarchy), anyone whose politics are much further right or left than the middle, or a religiously committed person. I'd have been devastated to find this out about a DH.

Hope you can 'educate' him, OP 😬

Fuck me, hitting 70 doesn't equate to the final nail in the coffin!

"People seem stuck on prostate cancer, which has actually had a shit-ton of funding thrown at it. It still mainly kills men over 70. Breast cancer mainly kills women in their 40's. Funding is meant to look at years lost in poor health rather than trying to stop the final nail in the coffin but strangely doesn't seem to matter as much to NHS when it is women dying"

Well the misinformation keeps coming

The median age of women dying from breast cancer is 75. Easily verifiable from cancer research UK site

Whilst it is true that on average women who die from breast cancer so so at younger ages than men and is true that average years of lives lost is nearly doubled for that of men - it is 17 years for women Vs 9 for men; not 30 like you imply.

That being said breast cancer screening / research programmes has a lot more money spent on it that prostate cancer.

Heres some facts from google

Breast cancer historically receives higher levels of research and screening investment from the NHS and public health bodies compared to prostate cancer, despite prostate cancer now being more common and causing similar or higher death rates.

"Key Funding and Resource Differences
Screening Programs: The NHS operates a national, population-wide breast screening program for women aged 50 to 71 (costing tens of millions annually), whereas there is no national screening program for prostate cancer. The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) does not recommend routine population screening due to the limitations of the Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) test.
Research and Spending Discrepancies: Historically, government and charity research spending combined has significantly favored breast cancer over prostate cancer (with past estimates showing roughly £36.8 million annually for breast cancer compared to £9.7 million annually for prostate cancer).
Targeted Initiatives: The government and NHS have started co-funding specific clinical trials and pathways—such as contributing £16 million to targeted prostate cancer trials—and campaigns like Prostate Cancer UK’s work with NHS England to find missing diagnoses, though routine screening remains restricted to targeted research or individual GP referrals based on risk. "

This spending on trials is not surprising since the impact of not identifying prostate cancer is that deaths from prostate cancer now exceed that from breast cancer and late diagnosis results in higher treatment costs

Cost of Treatment: While screening and early prevention favor breast cancer, the NHS spends substantial amounts treating advanced prostate cancer (with total treatment costs estimated around £93 million, including over £63 million on hormonal therapies alone for metastatic cases).

I don't think anyone could conclude that breast cancer treatment is neglected or underfunded and the truth is that cancers are diagnosed and progress differently and have differing complications.

The annual spending on breast cancer screening and treatment is about £770 million, btw.

sorry but I have to ask. How do you have a PhD in a women’s studies related subject and somehow the central thesis of feminism has not come up in conversation with your husband in 17 years?

You never discuss your work? Your interests? Your very basic politics? I find it astonishing that anyone educated would get married without discussing these things but also it’s your major academic work? It’s not like having a job down Tescos is it? It comes up.

And yes it would be a deal breaker. He sounds a bit dim to be honest. I would put it in the same box as not believing in climate change.

He is a fucking idiot OP. How lovely to live in his world. I assume he is also white?

So sexism isn’t ok… but you’re totally fine with being racist? Interesting…

Incredible that some women on this thread make it a condition of their relationship that their man has to self-abase himself by blaming all her ills on the sex of which he is a part. Why they would choose to marry a man given their distain for men, I’ll never know!

And then women wonder where the “real men” are, whilst simultaneously insisting that men are self-loathing wretches who have emasculated themselves.

i can almost guarantee that most of the men whose wives would throw them out if they ever dared questioned the “patriarchy” just keep their real thoughts to themselves for a quiet life…

Good arguments… Unfortunately many of those who disagree with this won’t even try to understand it… they’re not used to hearing anything that deviates from their cosy echo chambers.

Incredible.

Patriarchy doesn't mean 'what men do and women don't'. It just means a system ruled by men that prioritises the interests of men. Within this system both men and women will often act in the interests of men, either because there's no choice, because of rules and restrictions they operate within, or deliberately or unconsciously because its learned and internalised behaviour.
On the other hand, some men and women will deliberately work against the patriarchy. A male GP might prioritise women's health for example.
The actions of the individuals don't stop the societal context being patriarchal.

Certain medical models are based on male subjects, so female symptoms for the same ailment are less well known, but that doesn't mean that women's health problems would receive more attention if they were suffered by men.

Statistically, men are diagnosed later, then diseases are more advanced, because they ignore symptoms for longer.

Explain to him about unconscious cultural and gender bias.

unconscious cultural and gender bias

Most films still fail the Bechdel test, already a very low bar. Last night I enjoyed 'Sunlight', directed by, co-written by and co-starring Nina Conti. There is just one short scene in which two women speak to each other: they're speaking about a man.

I wonder how OP's husband would feel if he was of the sex that's usually portrayed as having nothing to say, unless it's to or about a woman?

It’s a cabal of men who openly control everything. Anyone with eyes can see that. If you can’t see that it is largely men who control the world, and that this is precisely what patriarchy is, then you must be in serious denial.

Well I've gone down a Chatgpt rabbit hole now. (Though I should go to bed...)

But there is a big caveat: it would be misleading to say that women's health gets only 3.5% of NHS spending. 3.5% is maternity alone. Gynaecology, contraception, fertility, menopause, endometriosis, PCOS, abortions, miscarriage care and female cancers are sitting in other NHS budgets and aren't captured by that one number. NHS England explicitly commissions specialised gynaecology/fertility services separately, while contraception and sexual/reproductive-health services are also commissioned through local authorities' public-health budgets.

Indeed, what a shocker that some of us actually have standards.

And are educated enough to spell the word "disdain".

self-loathing wretches who have emasculated themselves

Amazing word, that. It actually means 'castrated' but is now used metaphorically. And always in the context of men feeling they've lost power. Men 'emasculate' other men by exerting physical or material dominance, but women can do it very easily by criticising a man or suggesting he's not a godlike paragon to be admired in all ways.

So, interestingly, these men feel a woman can cut their metaphorical balls off with a few well-chosen words (like 'patriarchy'). How fragile must their manhood be?! Hardly worth defending, one might think.

Actually, manhood that relies on unquestioned dominance over women isn't worth protecting. Work on your inner confidence, @SummerAsh.

He's entitled to his opinion as you are yours. People can be in relationships yet be adult enough to disagree on something

Ok, what is the correct % then? You think perhaps 51% of the healthcare budget should go towards reproductive health? The ability to bear children. So thats fertility, STIs, pregnancy and childbirth. It does not include menopause or HRT or any cancers of reproductive organs.

There are literally thousands of other physical health conditions which affect parts of we women that do not relate to child bearing. Plus there is all the trauma/A&E healthcare from accidents, injuries and other emergencies. Then times that by 2 for the men. Then add whatever % you think should go to men’s reproductive health. Do not forget the % that goes to mental healthcare.

It is more likely that 2% just to female reproductive health is a higher than it should be number if we consider for a moment that under any patriarchy our primary function is to bear children.

Really we need to put more than 2% towards reproductive research in how to get pregnant and stay pregnant more often/better? Reproductive healthcare research does not include cancer research for the reproductive organs.

More the women capable of logic and with hard science backgrounds.

Facts and figures that do not prove your points. I mean 2% on female reproduction vs 51% of the population- stated as if you genuinely think that the entire 51% for female healthcare research should go towards our ability to reproduce. Forget about everything else that can go wrong with our minds and bodies!

Thank you glad some fellow women here get how maths work.
Literally thousands of other health conditions.
The 2% vs 51% proves nothing.