Patriarchy

[Footlong]

A certain poster declared that once half the MP's were females then she would accept that patriarchy didnt exist.

Well what if a western country.. had a female PM or president, nearly 40% female MP's, head of the largest corporation was female, the governer general was female (if they had one), the speaker of the house was female, large portions of the opposition leadership were female, the mayor of the capital city was female... I am guessing that poster would think Patriarchy was non existant there?

weeeeeeeeell, depends which values the government etc are upholding really. you'd have to look at policies etc.

i suspect strongly that 'the poster' felt that if more women were represented in the uk, then there would be a different feel to society. if the women 'in power' continue to uphold patriarchal when legislating/ speechifying then it'd still be a patriarchy in effect, if not actual theoretical reality.

eh?

oops, patriarchal values natch.

I think you are right Nick.

I dont actually believe the patriarchy exists in the fashion that some people believe.

I dont think a certain % either way indicates wether a society is partriachal or matriachal.

As I am sure people will guess this country does exist.

percentages in themselves not necessarily the defining factor.

but with more women in parliament, theoretically, there ought not to be the pressure on female politicians to conform to the patriarchal norm, (a la Iron Lady, only needing two hours sleep, ball breaking blah) thus freeing them to influence policy change however they see fit.

whether this happens, (has happened) is a different kettle of fish entirely.

having spent a fair percentage (lol) of my life in a male dominated environment, conforming/ choosing not to conform in the face of male domination is a tricky business.

but maybe you'd like to give a quick breakdown of some of the policy decisions of the matriarchy of which you speak, and we can see whether it fits the utopian model? (voting patterns would also be interesting)

that said, cultural differences rather than gender differences have effects all of their own.

I will try, but thats quite a large undertaking!

And for the record I dont believe they behaved like Matriacrchy, just as I dont believe male led govts aalways act like a patraiarchy.

The govt was popular for most of the time and held power for 3 terms.

apols, typed a huge reply during downtime which got eaten

suffice to say - yes, big undertaking, but necessary to discuss whether policy has indeed been influenced by an increase of women in 'power' in this case, or whether the women in question earned their position by virtue of not challenging the status quo.

employment policy wrt mat/pat leave, early childhood flexible work patterns, (and uptake by both genders), education stats wrt science/ law/ eng/ business/ medicine (entry and grads) by gender, also nursing/teaching. just a snapshot before and later for comparison... state provision of childcare/ affordability, available benefits/ uptake, elderly provision, disability provision, benefits policy associated and uptake by gender, etc.

theoretically as society becomes less gendered, these figures would not be so polarised. more men would enter teaching/ nursing, take advantage of more flexible work patterns to shoulder their burden of child/ elder/ disabled care responsibilities - less penalisation of one gender by long time earnings would occur as a result.

i'm not sure 3 terms would be long enough tbh, unless the balance of power shift was due to a gender-specific uprising and voting pattern, on a specific equality mandate and ensuing policy revision.

i'm not too interested in prostitution policy etc, but interesting to see if any changes were made/ outcomes. (difficult to get unbiased reports in either direction)

specific cultural differences account for a lot though.

or just a quick skim through the successful manifesto, with a breakdown of actual changes.

in the same way that it is possible for a man to be a feminist, it is presumably possible for a country with women filling 40% of government positions to remain a patriarchy.

i'd like to think that the balance of power would equalise over time, but depressingly time can be a lengthy business.

Footlong why are you misrepresenting what another poster said on another thread without; a)asking if the poster in question minds, b)linking to the thread in question, c)quoting the poster's actual words as opposed to putting your own (incorrect) interpretation on them?

Very bad form.

"A certain poster declared that once half the MP's were females then she would accept that patriarchy didn't exist."

No she didn't. It was Lenin on the cognitive dissonance thread and what she actually said was this;

"for me one simple mark to assess how well we're going with creating a more equal society is when 50% of the members of parliament are women."

Rather different to footlong's simplistic spin understanding.

I can see where you are going with this footlong - you're going to try to come up with a country that has fairly equal representation and then gleefully shout 'Gotcha' as you declare the evidence that patriarchy doesn't exist.

Point number 1: you are misrepresenting what was actually said.
Point number 2: governments do not operate in isolation or in a vacuum.

Patriarchy (along with a gazillion other concepts) is not simple enough to reduce down to one (or several) statistics. Women can (and do) reinforce patriarchy. I could expand, but I can be pretty sure that isn't the agenda of this thread, so I'll leave you to your 'big reveal'

im wondering exactly who are the patriarchy?

i never heard of the word before i come here i used to see it as society and "puppet masters"

so who exactly are patriarchy-is it the church?

Sparky the following definition is what I mean when I refer to patriarchy;

"Literally ?rule by the father? but more generally it refers to a social situation where men are dominant over women in wealth, status and power. Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a ?patriarchal ideology? that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women."

bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?term=PATRIARCHY

I think people use patriarchy or sometimes The Patriarchy to refer to the system IYSWIM, in the same way people will refer to capitalism.

The question who exactly are/represent the patriarchy is an interesting one.

Also, if you only take government and law into consideration and ignore the impact of the patriarchal religions (ie all of the big ones) then you may well be able to illustrate that there is a fair respresentation of both sexes etc but this does not mean that patriarchy is not inherent in the culture of the country.

beachcomber - you are absolutely right about points 1 and 2 - both of which have been alluded to already in my replies (and indeed his), but tbh - i'm happy for him to have a good look at the actual reality of a country with a larger proportional share of women in 'power'... and see if he can draw some conclusions. the intent is a no brainer, it might as well have had a flashing neon sign in the op.

and whilst we're looking at that, he isn't de-railing another thread.

whether the 'another poster said' is right irrelevant tbh, he obviously wants to discuss women in government, so why not get on with it (or ignore it). (lenin, i wouldn't bother getting into the 'are you misquoting me' saga. it's an interesting discussion - the whole 'ta daaaa' moment probably isn't going to be as clear cut and 'i told you so' as he supposes.

and whilst we're discussing patriarchy, he's recognising it as a concept, whether he agrees with the reality or not.

i know he was a pita on the cd thread (read half of it, but got bored with the swinging bollocks stuff - tbh i would have found it really offensive if i'd joined a male dominated forum and been told they couldn't carry on with their discussion because my bouncing tits were in the way - however much of a twat i was being - that wasn't directed at you personally, but i found it all a bit uncomfortable in both directions - there wasn't a lot of mutual respect for differing opinions going on anywhere)

as far as i can see, he's done what you all wanted and buggered off to start his own thread about what he wants to talk about.

bit rude to come in and start another fight. two wrongs don't make a right and all that boring jazz.

anyway, i don't have a lot emotionally invested in this particular thread, so if it descends into another tedious argument, i'll wander off and occupy myself with baby names or something.

Fair enough NickofTime.

Although I do think it matters to start threads which involve misrepresenting what another poster has said - especially if there is an agenda.

I'm a bit sick of the feminist forum not being a space where feminists can just get on with a bit discussion about feminism without being heckled TBH.

I clicked on the thread because I was interested in a feminist discussion in the feminist section about patriarchy.

sure - but it would be quite interesting to have a look at government with a larger proportion of women and see whether it had made any difference to equality in the country concerned - or whether the women were elected merely by virtue of their handy position as enablers with bosoms

it may not be discussing patriarchy in the uk - but it is looking at whether increasing female representation in positions of responsibility/ power is in every case a win/win situation. i think it's a valid feminist question tbh, whatever sparked the thought process.

and i'm not a fan of heckling (which is why i didn't get involved in the cd threads after the initial couple of pages) so not condoning that in any form - just think this is an interesting and valid subject.

i'm also interested to see if he does come back with some stats etc - not a complete picture, but a glimpse into the effects for sure.

if he doesn't, then i guess it was just to see if another argument would ensue, but i'd like to think that he's generally just interested in expressing his opinion (aren't we all) and wants to discuss it meaningfully...

but i'm off to work. i'll drop in later and see what's occurring...

Oh for crying out loud. Do you guys just sit there waiting for something to pick at? I wasnt to interested in the exact details of what I thought the poster said, I was just using it as a starting point. I dont even remember who said it, and to be honest I didnt much care, it was a just a comment that got me thinking about the issue.
I didnt quote anyone, I didnt name anyone. So who exactly was I offending?

NickofTime - I havent had the time (and not sure I will) to do an in depth analysis. But 2 policies which were obvious were changes to maternity leave and improved and heavily subsidised child care... 20 free hours a week for any child over the age of 3.

Well I very much doubt you will get the childcare policies to go through. Childcare was supposed to be pushed to be a graduate led sector and improve but most council nurseries are being put ut for tender and the people who did get paid a better amount are now paying less and unfortunately it is meaning a lot of people leaving the sector.

Then again it might be a good thing as they might only have been in it for the money. However cuts are hitting hard to the Early Years Sector so very much doubt that things will change or be supported.

You misundertsand I think sunny, those childcare measures are already in effect in the country concerned.

changes to mat leave, or pat leave as well?

are men entitled to the same benefits?

Waiting for something to pick at?

"A certain poster declared that once half the MP's were females then she would accept that patriarchy didnt exist."

That. Is. A. Lie.

It's not even a lie about someone from RL who will never read it, it's a misrepresentation of what someone here on this board said - what - 24 hours ago?

Why not start your thread on an honest footing?

Oh, because you're being dishonest.

No NickofTime, only females I believe.

Interesting point though... maybe I need to check to see if it was one parent, and not necessarily the female.