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?

So you admit that talks of evolution are irrelevant. Blaming the current power structure on evolution means that men have no moral accountability

why are breasts damaged by implants desired by lots of men when they can't even nurture a newborn?

Sakura -

Understanding the role of evolution does not mean nothing is culture.
Noticing that there are cultural differences does not mean that humans are the only animals immune from evolution (how would that work?)

Early humans invented ways to prepare food - using heat and power to make things more digestable. Less chewing was needed. Modern humans evolved smaller jaws and teeth than our ancestors. We are evolved to eat prepared food.We also evolved to like some tastes instinctively - sweetness in particular, but to be more wary of bitter tastes (you need to learn which ones might kill you).

The fact that every culture has their own cuisine, and that some cultures eat things that are considered quite disgusting to others does not mean that there is no evolved basis in food preferences.

you are wrong,

If, as you say, male perception of beauty is connected to evolution, men would be appalled by breast implants, which cannot even feed a newborn. Instead they are fetishized by western men.

CHinese men would have been apalled by the lotus foot.

And do you agree that blaming evolution for the oppression of women by men is morally suspect?

African men believe FGM is beautiful because it neatens the vulva. It makes chilbirth extraordinarily difficult and caused infections. Accross time and cultures we repeatedly see that beauty practices required of women by men make childbirth and child nurturing difficult to impossible

I'm having difficulty seeing your beauty-evolution connection.
Where does an infertile beautiful woman fit into your theory?

I think if an individual of whatever choses to do something where they could have done something different, which directly causes another persons human rights to be violated then 'evolution made me do it' is not a moral justification. It is not even morally suspect justification. It is just irrelevant. I have never said that the two should be connected, it is you that keeps saying that.

But many harms are not caused by individuals making culpable choices. They are caused by complex systems. Fixing them means understanding the complex systems, not looking for the bad guy. To try to understand complex human systems without looking at the factors that drive them is intellectually suspect and foolish.

Of whatever sex...

You are right, patriarchy is a complex and well-thought out system of oppression and I understand its complexity very well.

YOu haven't answered why you keep bringing up the subject of evolution. Are men so morally inept to not even realise that oppressing, exploiting, maiming and killing other humans is wrong? If not, then they are morally accountable, and evolutionary theory is a straw man.

I don't think Himalaya is very bright.

To any lurkers who can't be arsed reading this thread, Himalaya is arguing that male oppression, exploitation, maiming, rape and murder of women has its roots in evolution.

Men cannot be held morally or ethical accountable because they are unable to see that oppression is objectively wrong.

In other words, men are lacking in morals, due to evolution.

Sakura: What I said 6 posts up was 'if an individual of whatever sex chooses to do something where they could have done something different, which directly causes another persons human rights to be violated then 'evolution made me do it' is not a moral justification.

I don't know how you managed to twist that into "men cannot be held morally or ethical accountable because they are unable to see that oppression is objectively wrong."

But I would appreciate if you would stop telling people what you think I am arguing because you have consistently got it wrong.

Don't be silly Himalaya, we're not talking about individual men choosing this that or ther other. We're talking about entire cultures, global patriarchy. A systematic domination of women, by women.

This is objectively, morally wrong. Why would you argue otherwise unless you believe men cannot be held accountable for women's oppression

of women, by men

Men could end rape tomorrow by not raping. They could make the moral decision to no longer rape.

Classwar. Is that someone who is against the class system, against the bourgoisie

Not a very authentic proletariat if you've got a PC are you Classwar

oops

Sakura, Not a very authentic proletarian if you've got a PC are you Classwar is just a weird comment! There's enough weirdness in this thread already, surely no need for bonkers classist interjections too?

FWIW it looks to me as if Himalya does get "The Patriarchy" after all; it's more a matter of answering some of the most tediously well-worn objections to the concept: namely, that male supremacy is caused by male superiority and male control of the birthing resource is an evolutionary advantage. Himalaya, you have demonstrated that you don't agree with such Victorian idiocy - are you basically trying to get some clarified answers to those objections?

yes I know it was weird,

Hence the oops.

I posted on the wrong thread. You ever done that?

Go to the other thread and you'll get it

Ah, I see!

God sorry to say this, but those unending posts about evo-bollocks really are extremely tedious. Who cares about what makes men more muscly etc.?

What are you actually arguing Himalaya? That patriarchy doesn't exist? That we're imagining that most power in the world is held by men at the expense of women? Or that it is a natural state of affairs, that men own 90% of the world's wealth and that they have constructed a society with all the institutions in it geared towards their needs and excluding women from all but a serving role in them? Is that what you're arguing, that this is natural and inevitable because of evolution? Because that's what it sounds like you are arguing.

And if you are arguing that, can you explain why such a natural state of affairs has needed such incredibly repressive policing? Why have men needed to be so incredibly cruel to women throughout history, in order to maintain their dominance over them? Surely if it were natural, women would simply go around being submissive the whole time and men would never actually need to keep them in line by rigging the whole world against them, ensuring that they could never compete for jobs, property, land etc., on an equal basis. They wouldn't bother to mutilate our genitals or rape us or exclude us from public life, because they wouldn't need to in order to control us. We would just accept their control unthinkingly and automatically, without question.