Still confused about patriarchy

[PixelZing]

What's the feminist take on the fact that, even if we live in such patriarchy, the attention given to issues affecting men/boys is insignificant compared to the same attention given to issues of women/girls?

The list of such issues seems pretty long to me (paternity leave, family court bias, domestic abuse shelters, unequal sentencing, workplace fatalities, due process for false accusations, under-representation in HEAL, men's health funding, suicide rates, homelessness, ...) so I'd say there is plenty to advocate about.

(and BTW I don't even understand why we clump men and boys in the same category, wouldn't be more humane to put boys in the same category of women/girls, since they are affected by similar problems that affect girls?)

No, it does follow through. YOUNG women are outearning men and it then reverses around the approximate age of motherhood (35-40yo depending on the study) which is often presented as proof of the patriarchy when it could equally be women becoming less focused on work now they've got kids and financial stability with a decently earning husband, meaning they can choose not to work or work part time.

Don't forget that over 90% of women in the UK don't identify as feminist so aren't considering the patriarchy as a factor in their life choices.

Exactly! You've articulated precisely what I was trying to say.

What's a feminist?

Depends if you're talking about radical or liberal etc.

Often, like most isms, it's somebody that's myopically focused on one issue (typically one that affects their own demographic) to the point that they tend to disregard other demographics.

Like the feminists who suggest bonkers ideas like a nationwide curfew for men, and would happily introduce extreme infringements on the freedom of 100% of men due to one in five women facing sexual harassment at some point in their life. Stuff like that.

I'm asking you what a feminist is, in your opinion. You keep talking about feminism and feminists - what is feminism/a feminist?

As I said, depends if you're talking about radical or liberal.

I'm not sure the distinction matters that much in regard to the thread topic as it's usually things like sex work and men who think they're women that different groups of feminists disagree on.

I'm asking what YOUR opinion is. You aren't defining what you mean in your posts and are making blanket statements about 'feminism'. I am therefore asking you what you mean.

What type of feminism are you asking my opinion on?

But this is where feminism often falls down IMO, with it's rigid division of men/women and dismissal of many others factors like ethnicity, poverty, etc.

Strictly speaking, feminists don't advocate for women. They advocate for feminism. I say this because the majority of women don't identify as feminist nowadays. Last study I saw was only 7% of women saying they'd identify as feminist. It was a study by a feminist charity too so unlikely to be biased.

Don't forget that over 90% of women in the UK don't identify as feminist so aren't considering the patriarchy as a factor in their life choices.

The above are quotes from your posts. When you talk about feminism and feminists, what do you understand by those terms?

Got it. Ok - very clear you don’t understand what patriarchy means. Its existence and influence on (all) our lives has nothing to do with whether one identifies as a feminist or not - it’s a system in which we all live. I think you think that feminism thinks patriarchy is a conscious conspiracy of men to keep women down and are reacting to that. That’s not the case. We’re all in the patriarchy, we’re all complicit, it’s not men’s ’fault’ but it does disadvantage women over men.

someone earlier also
mentioned that the gender pay gap had been disproved as an earnings gap related to job choices but not for the same role and that is two big errors in one; a) why do you think those choices are disparate (come on… think it through, you can do it!) and b) yes it very much fucking does still mean disparity in pay for the same work too.

Often, like most isms, it's somebody that's myopically focused on one issue (typically one that affects their own demographic) to the point that they tend to disregard other demographics.

If your demographic makes up half of the human race, focusing on it really doesn't strike me as terribly myopic, especially when pretty much the whole of human history has prioritised the other half.

@PixelZing Who leads the country? Who are the heads of major corporations? Who hold the most power in healthcare, insurance, government office etc etc etc?

Patriarchy is a social system that benefits men. It doesn't guarantee they get every advantage, it's a broad scale system.

Yes, it's ironic, that many of those benefits actually hurt men, but that is a by product of trying to maintain a patriarchal status quo.

I never noticed structural sexism until I had a child. Then I saw it was everywhere. I did cut back on hours and stopped aiming for promotion once I had her. Not immediately but gradually. It wasn't because I lost interest or ambition: it was because I didn't have enough time to do lots of extra work on two fronts so something had to give. DH is a decent dad and does a lot more than the vast majority of other dads I know. It's absolutely not 50/50 though.

His employer were really nice to him when he reproduced and gave him loads of flexibility. At no point did he have to cut hours or take a pay cut. His commitment was never viewed with suspicion. He got loads of praise from my mum and his for "doing so much."

To answer your actual question, it's about power and who has it.

Those without take it out on those with less. Twas ever thus.

Young women have outearned young men for over a decade now, with this only reversing around the age of motherhood, which suggests that it's women's choices that cause this reversal (because motherhood is a lifestyle choice really with the planet already creaking from the number of humans on it).

The 'motherhood penalty' hits whether the woman in question has children or not, so it would suggest that there is something else going on beyond women's choices

Now, young women are earning 9% more than young men (£2200 per annum) which is I think greater than the lead young men had previously. In the US there are now several cities where women earn more full stop.

Only for a very short span of 'previously' given that for a lot of history, women were restricted to only certain jobs, or were as a matter of policy paid reduced wages compared to men (and fired when they got married)

And the same article mentioned that the number of men that are NEET (not in employment, education, or training) has risen by 40% since the pandemic but only 7% for women.

I don't know in the US, but how many women vs. men were NEET pre-pandemic? If the proportions were already significantly different, then these differences in proportion could actually be evening out the resulting proportion of those NEETs.
https://cepr.net/publications/are-young-men-falling-behind-young-women-the-neet-rate-helps-shed-light-on-the-matter/#:~:text=Among%2016%2D%20to%2029%2Dyear,the%20same%20as%20in%202019.
Actually a quick google finds the above which states:

Young men are likelier than young women to be employed or in school. Among 16- to 29-year-olds, 17 percent of women and 13.5 percent of men were not employed or in school in 2020. The male-female gap in the 2022 “NEET” rate — the share of young people not in employment, education, or training — is about the same as in 2019.
and
About 36 percent of young women not employed or in school are mothers living with one or more of their children. Only about 5 percent of young men who are not employed or in school are fathers living with one of their children.

This echoes another US stat I saw which said that the percentages of women earning >$60k and men earning <$35k are rapidly increasing. Certainly, white working class boys seem to not be doing too well over here

Are they comparing like for like? White working class boys against white working class girls? This is patriarchy - study after study shows that when you control for everything else, women are disadvantaged compared to men.

whilst 'straight white males' are demonised.

Simultaneously demonised (by some), but also the majority in the positions of power, top earners (earners in general), less likely to be in poverty etc. vs. (for example) single mothers, who are both demonised, more likely to be NEET and living in poverty. That's patriarchy.

Demonstrably not true though - which is why places like Google have unconscious bias training, CVs are often anonymised etc. because it's been shown that women are consistently less likely to be offered a job, and when they are offered a job, offered a lower salary than men.

The paygap you're speaking of is an example of you painting with a broad brush in exactly the way you then go on to criticise. For example, when I was at Uni I worked in a supermarket. I went on the recruiting day, and despite expressing an interest in any of the shelf-stacking positions, I was put on tills (at a lower wage than shelf-stacking), the shelf-stacking jobs went to the men. I talked my way into a sales job at another store, where the only other women worked in the cash office or on tills (both jobs with no chance of commission, unlike sales), whereas the warehouse, was again, entirely staffed by men.

The CIPD (HR org) lists multiple reasons for the paygap, which yes, is negative for younger women, but as time passes, reverses itself for a lot more reasons than 'women want babies' - the compounding effects of unconscious bias on pay raises and offers, women taking on various caring responsibilities, the occupational segregation I spoke about above, the persistent under-valuing of women's contributions (great idea Miss Smith, now perhaps if one of the men would care to make it - happens more often than you probably notice)

Chance would be a fine thing

It's existence and influence on (all) our lives has nothing to do with whether one identifies as a feminist or not - it’s a system in which we all live.

No, it's a feminist theory which (despite what some people claim) is not a given reality. Plenty of people don't believe the patriarchy exists in the manner in which feminists present it.

If your demographic makes up half of the human race, focusing on it really doesn't strike me as terribly myopic, especially when pretty much the whole of human history has prioritised the other half.

Feminists don't make up half the human race. They comprise about 7% of UK women and more in some countries (40% in the feminist utopia of Sweden I believe).

It irks me that they try and speak for all women when really the majority of women don't identify as feminists. And all this stuff about "you're a feminist but you don't know it" is annoying too.

People will often say things like "if you believe in equality you're a feminist" but it's not that simple. There seems to be a strong current of sexism/misanthropy running through a lot of feminist circles and it becomes evident when you stop listening to the claims and start, xactually observing the behaviour and what they say/do.

Most women understand that each sex had their own issues and forms of oppression, sometimes contributed to by the other, but most of us want to work as a society rather than drive division/separatism.

You don't know what a feminist is so I've no idea why you're waxing lyrical over it.

I don't need a textbook definition. I can see how they act online. 'Not all feminists' obv but far too many of them.

You can't define what you mean by feminism or feminists. I think I've asked for three times but you don't know so you can't answer.

Feminism seems to mean 'women I don't like'.

Yeah, I read this a lot. So, to recap, you have:

• Feminism is actually good for men/boys.

It's irrelevant. It's not for men/boys. It's for women. A less patriarchal society would actually benefit a lot of men but that's not its intention

• Feminism is not about solving men’s/boys’ problems.

Indeed. And your point is?

• Men must help in the feminist battle; it’s their duty (HeForShe, etc...).

Again, feminism is not for men it's for women. Men who (genuinely) help in the "feminist battle" are welcome. But we can do it without men.

• It’s not women’s duty to help men; it’s up to men to do it (and we call them misogynistic at the first slight misstep).

Women help men all the time, in all walks of life and in practically every interaction the two sexes have with one another. If we were less inclined to help men we wouldn't get married to men, work in caring roles to support men etc

• Boys outperform girls in STEM: we need progress, we need to intervene 😱

Girls outperform boys in STEM academically. It's only in the workplace where men outperform women. And that's because, wait for it, patriarchy makes it very hard for women to earn and work at parity with men.

• Girls outperform boys in general in school: well, girls are just smarter and better behaved, not much we can do 👻

Er, yep. Not that it helps us much when we leave school. Again, patriarchy.

Patriarchy is the answer to most of these questions. But as PPs have pointed out you either don't understand patriarchy or are pretending not to understand it.