I don't get 'The Patriarchy'

[Himalaya]

I am your basic feminist, in the equal pay, equal rights sense, but not in the sense that I've read a lot of feminist theory (ok, I'll admit it, hardly any)

Quite often on these threads I read about 'The Patriarchy' as an explanation for unequal treatment of women and attitudes towards gender, and I just don't get it...

It seems to indicate that men as a group (all over the world, and throughout history?) have acted together with the intention of surpressing women - la conspiricy theory rather than consideration of underlying factors like biology (the 'genes eye' view of unequal costs and benefits of 'investment' in offspring by men and women) and the impact of class and economics etc...

But maybe I'm reading it wrong?

[watches with interest]

The way I understand it is like a pyramid. A few white, rich,men at the top, and poor,black, women at the bottom.

But i start to struggle with rich, white, women and poor, black, men.
I've read about kyriarchy which made more sense to me.

I dont think it properly takes in to account class etc. So would a very wealthy, public school educated, SAHM who gets household help really be worse of as a woman than the men I know slogging their guts out on minimum wage in poor areas with not much chance of improvement?

I know that is taken in to consideration but I see the patriachy more as the elites who rule over a lot of us at the bottom, not just women.

Definition of patriarchy:

1. A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
2. A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

I don't believe patriarchy is one monolithic set-up with carefully thought out plans and rules.

It is a collection of deeply ingrained cultural beliefs and prejudices reinforced over millennia by numerous systems of government; religions and interpretation of religions; the media and a whole host of other forces.

'So would a very wealthy, public school educated, SAHM who gets household help really be worse of as a woman than the men I know slogging their guts out on minimum wage in poor areas with not much chance of improvement? '

no, generally not, you're right; and the concept of the patriarchy absolutely doesn't mean that every man is better off than every woman.

but put a wealthy public school educated SAHM next to a man with a similar background, or put the man slogging his guts out next to a woman doing the same, and the woman will be at a disadvantage. The point is that all other things being equal the man will have the advantage.

and also put the wealthy woman with the easy life next to the man slogging his guts out, and though his life will be a lot harder than hers, he may well still have some sense of superiority over her due to his being male - and the odds are he will also still be physically stronger than her.

'and also put the wealthy woman with the easy life next to the man slogging his guts out, and though his life will be a lot harder than hers, he may well still have some sense of superiority over her due to his being male - and the odds are he will also still be physically stronger than her.'

Again stereotype I dont think all or even anywhere near all men would think like this.

If you changed that to white and black and said he may still hold a superiority over the other. Some might think that but nowhere near all of them, it would be a minority in this day and age (thankfully!)

I dont like it when it is seen as every man wants to be above eevry woman and thinks its their right. A lot of men dont think like this and I agree the men at the top oppress us but most men dont and have no desire to.

that's why I said 'may well', Noodle

Patriarchy isn't a conspiracy.

It's just a belief and social system that holds men to be the norm, the default human being, while women are the other.

Man is the measure of all things. Woman is the also-ran.

Even noticing it marks you out as a feminist/ militant/ dissident/ unconventional person. It's so deeply ingrained, that no-one notices.

I was listening to a report on the Libyan conference today. No women there as far as I could see. And I am unreasonable for noticing, that half the population of the country don't have a voice.

It's not a conspiracy. It's just "the way things are". Until we change themn.

I accept may well but what I dont accept is things like being told men are rich women are poor. Its a female issue when plenty of men are just as poor and struggling. I take on board feminist issues but hate it that even though something may be more likely to be a female problem there are still many 1000s of men who are struggling with the same issue.

FGS noodle if you are going to contribute to feminist threads, please stop talking rubbish. The point seth made, perfectly coherently, is that you cannot compare a rich white woman to a poor black man - what you have to do, in terms of privilege, is compare like with like.

So you compare a rich black man to a rich black woman, a poor black man to a poor black woman, a rich white man to a rich white woman, a disabled white man to a disabled white woman, a poor Jewish man to a poor Jewish woman, etc.

Where everything else is equal, a woman is worse off than a man because she has a lower social status than him and is less able to function in the world becasue the world has been organised to be more likely to be welcoming to him, than to her.

It really is very simple.

It's not about individual men going round consciously thinking they are better than individual women. It's about society being structured in a way that affords privilege to men over women, which then operates as a way in which people understand the world. For example, the individual man in the women only group may well be the most careful he possibly can to not exert this privilege but society is structured in such a way that this becomes 'natural'.

Saying that patriarchy structures the world we live in is not the same as saying individual men are all going round consciously wanting to show they are better than women. That would be individual agency rather than societal structure.

And it's not just men that prop up the patriarchy. Women do too.

And class and gender can intersect. I think class is also a structure that shapes society.

Re the original question, I don't see it as some conspiracy. I see it as a structure that has evolved and shaped society, so people see it as just the way things are. I don't think the upper classes get together, twizzling their moustaches, and plotting how to keep the lower classes down either. But I do think society is structure in a way that supports the old boy network, and that the upper class can be utterly unaware of the world outside their box, and that they feel they deserve to be on top, and that's just the way the world is. They're conditioned to think so. Just like everyone is conditioned by the society around them, else the world would make no sense and we wouldn't have shared meaning.

There needs to be a distinction between the theory and the practice/reality, as with every -ism/-archy out there (e.g. Anarchy - the absence of a central, powerful state if very different in theory and reality.)

In theory the Patriarchy is composed of the structures in society that preference men over women - to pick a couple of examples, the way certain jobs/roles are reserved for men (Catholic priests, front line soldiers, freemasons) or the way barriers are imposed to prevent women advancing in certain fields. These can be legal, practical, mental, physical or social barriers - the most obvious example being motherhood/maternity leave/preconceptions about a mother's commitment to her job. This does not represent a conspiracy per se, rather the result of repeated pattern of elites wanting to restrict entry into their circles and thus safeguard their position. The reason why the Patriarchy has outlasted, say, apartheid or anti-Catholic discrimination in the UK, is because there has always been the probability that you husband might be the enemy - and marriage has also provided some women with a shortcut to (nearly-)elite status.

In practice the Patriarchy is not a monolithic conspiracy maintained by the establishment, but an intricate network of related conceptions of men and women that varies from individual to individual. Thus the Patriarchy is manifested in every single relationship you have ever had, or ever will have, with a man. Ever. So for some women, the Patriarchy is very much in the deep background and perhaps only comes to the fore when you go to see a Disney movie or tell your boss you're pregnant, whereas for others it is very much in the foreground, so much so you can't see it, it is so all encompassing. (the women of Saudi Arabia spring to mind - there it is fair to say the Patriarchy is a conspiracy). Misogyny, domestic violence, sexual abuse, rape - these are all the blunt tools of the Patriarchy, usually (though not exclusively) used by men who are not members of the elite and thus, because they have less status to lose, guard what little they have with even greater, and more violent, jealousy. The higher up you move, the more sophisticated, less overt and less conscious the discrimination becomes.

You will come into contact with the Patriarchy on a daily basis (without even needing to meet, see or speak to a man), just as you come into contact with Racism every time you use or hear a phrase like "the pot calling the kettle black" - it's often so subtle you just don't notice it.

Is he pot calling the kettle black racist in origin? I thought it just refers to a pot which is black from being held over a fire, calling a kettle which is also black from being held over the fire, black, as opposed to shiny and clean and new. A bit like the moat in your own eye.

Good point about how the higher up you go, the less obvious and blatant sexism, racism etc. is. Those further down the chain have more to lose and are therefore more jealous of their position. It's one of the reasons often posited as to why the upper classes get on better with the working classes than either do with the middle class. (Allegedly)

But around the world women are much more likely to be the victims of poverty. In many countries they are not even allowed to own property for example.

I don't think anyone's said that men aren't ever poor? Have they?

Gosh this discussion has moved on since I opened the page, got distracted and then posted. :)

I believe it's a 'mote' in your eye HBX btw. Could be wrong though...

LOL yes a moat would be quite inconvenient,.

Come to think of it it's a beam in your eye isn't it.

But I've never quite understaood that - a beam would be almost as inconvenient as a moat!

Yes, I wondered about the pot/kettle thing. I won't go into the details, but I challenged DH on that and after protracted explanations from him, (which I will spare you) I had to unfortunately concede he was probably right.

It's to do with judging people on their appearances (which is what racism essentially is) and the pejorative view of dirt=black.....etc. (too lazy to revisit the discussion in full).

If you accept that Racism is based on judging people by their appearance, then the fact that black is used pejoratively isn't really the point (though of course it does reinforce certain prejudices) - it could have been anything that referred to how they both looked, as long as that word was negative.

I guess you could say the expression is proto-racist: i.e. it establishes the cultural convention required for racism to exist, which is that making a judgement based on something's/someone's appearance is acceptable.

[Although black people were not uncommon in the Castille of Cervantes but most certainly would have been of low social status.]

My point was more that just as sometimes racism is so subtle it's very hard to spot (as in the expression "the pot etc") so is sexism.