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?

Hi MillyR

This has been a wierd and wide ranging debate. I just want to clarify some things you've picked up -

I recommended the Jared Diamond not because it had anything to say about how the relationship between men and women in society has developed, but because people had brought up the question of slavery, with assumption that a natural history understanding of history must be a rascist one.

The key point of disagreement (as far as I see) has been whether the reasons for the social position of men and women are purely cultural and constructed and cannot be understood in any way in relation to natural history and the evolution of human nature or if there are adapted differences between males and females accross the population that can help to understand why the systems of society have developed the way they have (and therefore how they can be overcome).

I think what POP was saying in terms of pre-cultural times is that we need to look at how biology and culture have interacted throughout all times, not assume that culture can be explained without recourse to biology.

I completely agree with your conclusion: And we don't live in the past - we live now. We should use the evolutionary advantage of having the ability to modify our lives through culture to create societies that give children, both boys and girls, a decent opportunity to live and make environmentally sustainable choices. I cannot see how patriarchy or raping women is going to achieve that.

But I don't think anyone is arguing that. Evolutionary processes are not pretty. they are amoral. they are not a guide for how we should live.

But then you go on and make the same mistake yourself ..."so some people pretend that evolutionary success (and consequently the rights to determine our children's lives) is primarily about impregnating someone, as it aids that devaluation to say so.--- Evolutionary sucess has nothing to do with rights!

Garlicbutter - "How does referring to pre-human phenomena support your position wrt humans? confused"

I think the point is not to support a position but to understand a phenomena.

Human beings evolved from prehuman beings, things that follow are affected by the things that led up to them. There is no logical way to draw a line around human phenomena and say this is culture and this is biology and the two are not linked.

For example in thinking about how humans came to be able to develop computers, you can trace the development of the capcities it right back to the first human and prehuman tool makers.

OK, not wanting anyone to be creeped out by the fact that both myself and MrIC post on this board, it's probably only fair of me to point out that I started posting here after MrIC did. His own interest in and support for feminism drew him to this board. I started reading after he alerted me to its existence, then found my own previously rather latent feminism being reignited and thus started posting here myself.

I have learned a lot and found the experience both fascinating and rejuvenating.

I'd like to make it clear that I have no problem discussing the effects of male dominance on my life, despite the presence of MrIC on this board.
I don't feel specifically dominated by DH and if any power issues arise within the context of our relationship, I don't hesitate in tackling them head on with him.

The one thing I do take exception to is the accusation that MrIC is racist. That is a serious accusation to make and one that would never be made by anyone who had met him in RL.

Anyway, this is an aside to the discussion, but I felt I should clear up the position as it had been remarked on.

I have found this discussion fascinating for various reasons and it's taught me a great deal. Thanks to those posting.

StewieGriffinsMom -

You don't need scientific evidence to dispute your moronic relatives if they are saying that evolutionary biology justifies or excuses rape.

The point is that evolutionary biology doesn't justify anything. It is not a moral system. Just because something is or was adaptive at some point doesn't mean we should continue to do it.

StewieGriffensMom - everything is a natural part of natural history. culture is a natural part of natural history. There is no meaningful way to sepperate human phenomena into natural and artificial.

"There is no meaningful way to sepperate human phenomena into natural and artificial."

Really? You don't think that there are universal human traits? What about a baby who is just born being placed on its mother's tummy and finding its own way to the mother's breast and suckling? Surely you think that is a natural and not a learned/cultural behaviour?

Himalaya, yes I agree that evolutionary success has nothing to do with rights, but people often use what is an is not natural as a justification for why some people shouldn't have rights. I think this is particularly the case with homosexuality, but has certainly been applied to women a great deal in the UK's past.

But the two processes - evolution and human emancipation are not themselves connected in the manner either of us are talking about here.

While evolutionary processes are themselves amoral, there is a morality to how we make choices about allowing other people the conditions to keep on evolving (i.e passing on genes, having children who survive), which does involve understanding how evolution and ecology works. If we don't do this, we risk doing a lot of damage to the planet and the lives of humans.

So for me an important part of understanding how fitness in humans operates is to use that knowledge to make sure that people have sustainable options open to them in order to raise and feed their children. But I am going a bit off topic.

SGM, I will see what I can dig out on Monday. Counteracting such statements kind of falls into the 'explain why there is no chocolate teapot in the sky' school of argument though, but I'll do my best.

.

"The answer was 'because men are stronger' and they as a group have made the choice to use violence.

I have asked how the theory explains economic inequalities that remain in modern, western societies through violence. No answer "

The answer is, violence of course as Dittany points out. Women are perfectly aware that if we overstep the mark, we will have violence inflicted upon us. That's why many of us go along with the patriarchy - because we make a (usually unconscious) calculation that going along with it, will result in less violence to us, than rising up against it.

"I asked how the theory postulates that men get to be stronger than women in the first place before there was any inequality or differential gender roles? No answer"

The answer is, who cares? Why does it matter? The fact that they're stronger than us, have more muscle mass, more testosterone etc., isn't an explanation for why they own 90% of the world's wealth but do a tiny minority of the world's work.

Bonsoir -

Yes there are universal human traits and instincts, and then there are learned behaviors. My point is you can't separate them and say the first are natural and the second are artificial.

For example people learned how to grow food, and how to cook it - that's cultural passed down from parents to child etc, what is good to eat, when to sow and harvest etc...

But as a result of that humans evolved smaller jaw bones, less powerful jaws because we didn't need to eat raw food, but could eat cooked meat, soft grains etc...

And changes in our physionomy allowed for more mobility of the jaw, we could use our mouths for complex speech rather than primarily for breaking down foodstuff.

So agriculture and cooking which is 'artificial' leads to changes in the body which is 'natural' -- that's what I mean - over time artificial causes and natural causes, nature and nurture are not two separate streams for explaining how humans and societies developed, but are completely intertwined.

SGM -

No I am not justifying the holocaust.

I am just saying that any explanation for history has to be consistent with our understanding of human beings. And human beings are mammals, natural.

Our capacity for violence, for hatred, for blind followership evolved.

So did our capacity for love, empathy, rationality, communication, imagination.

How did we come to have these capacities if not through evolution?

MillyR -

I really think it is a mistake to try to connect evolution to morality, either looking back (justification) or looking forward (rights).

People don't have rights to freedom, sexual autonomy, safety etc.. not because this is good for the evolution of the species. They have those rights because they are human beings. today.

Evolution is driven by what is best for individual genes. That isn't the same as what is good for people.

I think that giving a false or misleading impression of what is involved in individual people or kinship groups being able to support and raise children does have negative consequences for human rights. And we do have to discuss how people raise children as part of understanding how evolution works.

Himalaya - thankyou. You have said what I was trying to say much more clearly than I could.

Looks like we've come full circle. 'Natural' does not mean 'good'. The theory doesn't 'justify' anything. Disease, starvation, parasitism, tsunamis ... all 'natural', none of them good. We rightly work hard to stop these things from happening or to mitigate their effects. We're generally more successful when we understand the causes.

But that is meaningless. The instant we perceive something it ceases to be 'natural' and becomes cultural. So a tsunami may be 'natural' but we are unable to perceive its 'naturalness'. The instant we engage with it in anyway whatsoever, it is dependent on human understanding. So whether the 'natural' 'reality' exists over there or not has no impact on anything.

I don't think genocide can be considered to be natural, as it involves lots of cultural constructs. I think the term natural does have connotations of meaning good. It is easier to replace 'natural' with materially real. Genocide is both a social construct and a material reality.

Lots of things that are materially real or 'natural' haven't evolved in the biological sense anyway. A rock has not biologically evolved.

So I think using the word natural to mean an innate trait or capability is a bit confusing.

It always surprises me when people use the word 'natural' - often coupled with some kindergarten theory of evolution - to make egregious human behaviours seem okay. Before you assert that morality doesn't come from evolution (and/or isn't natural), you must first define morality. If your definition includes such things as making individual scarifice for the sake of your community; working as a team; caring for the sick and for others' children; protecting and defending others in your group - then you'll find widespread examples of morality throughout the animal kingdoms. Presumably birds, rodents and fish spend little time debating the meaning of their behaviours; they come naturally.