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?

You just say Bonsoir when the conversation is getting put of your depth/comfort zone.

The conversation is never out of my depth or comfort zone. I am, however, entirely horrified by the spoilt princesses on the (so called) Feminist threads who think the world should revolve around them.

Bonsoir you have used the term 'spoiled princesses' before.

I think it would explain where you are coming from if you could expand on exactly what you mean by that term and why you are horrified.

"(where health and youth were more important to men in selecting mates, where wealth and status were more important to women)"

wotalotabollocks. Women have always liked health and youth as much as men, they just weren't allowed to have it, their families decided who they would marry, not them (although the history of literature and art is full of stories of young men and women who defied the patriarchy to be together). And you are describing this phenomenon as " evolved traits of mate selection". You mean socially evolved, I presume, as opposed to a consequence of evolution?

Anna it's not princessy to expect society to function for both halves of the human race to operate in it effectively. But you've had that explained to you before. (Women who wanted the vote were also described as princessy, no doubt. )

Beachcomber -

I think we are both talking past each other, I guess because you are looking through the prism of 'patriarchy' as the explanation and I am looking through the prism of 'natural selection'.

i am not saying that the explanation for sexual inequality is that men are innately violent and thereby unable to refrain from abusing power. - that is trying to apply the idea of natural selection to explain 'the patriarchy' - and as you rightly say it is a dogs dinner.

What I am saying is that i don't see the need for a sepperate (and inconsistent) theory to explain why people and society are not the way we would like them to be.

For long, long periods of our evolutionary history might, aggression, guile, deception and obsequeous followership have been wining strategies (as have being smart, solving problems, being brave, caring for our family etc.. all the good stuff ...) so it's hardly surprising that those nastier characteristics are hardwired and softwired into human nature and societies, and are hard to change.

Justice, fairness, care for strangers, accountability; these are not part of a 'natural order' we need to return to, they are what we are trying to forge.

I am not convinced that imbalances in power and life chances between men and women are explained by violence at all.

On the other hand I do think that HUMAN BEINGS (men and women) do have traits that tend to lead them to abuse power, and let others abuse it if it benefits them. The idea that underneath our socially costructed exterior is some naturally kinder, nicer, fairer version of our selves is intellectually incoherant once we know about evolution (although the idea has a long religious pedigree, which I guess accounts for why it is so pervasive).

Maybe we are talking past each other Himalaya.

I just want to say that it is because I agree, in part, with you, that human beings do seem to abuse power; it is vital that power is shared out equally.

Herbex - "(where health and youth were more important to men in selecting mates, where wealth and status were more important to women)"...wotalotabollocks. Women have always liked health and youth as much as men, they just weren't allowed to have it...."

First off, the human rights position is that people should be able to have relationships with whoever they want and marry whoever they want. Finding out that there are somewhat different evolved preferences between men and women would not change that one bit (and there is no need to argue against evolved difference in order to make the human rights case).

That said male and female reproductive systems in humans are quite different, and it would be quite odd if this hadn't resulted in evolved preferences as it has in every other animal.

In humans:

• females usually have surviving children that number in single figures.
• females are born with all their eggs in place, as we get older chances of birth defects and difficulty in conceiving get higher.
• females reach menopause
• females have hidden ovulation which means they can hedge their bets about who fathers their children, and who brings them up.

-babies are strongly dependent on the mother for the first two years

-males can have surviving children in the 100s (if they can afford to support them)

• males make fresh sperm all the time, so the impacts of age or of a spell of illness or poor nutrition on later fertility are not so great.

-males can continue to father children until much later.

• males don't play a particular biological role in child survival, but can contribute resources which make a significant difference particularly in harsh times.

For most of human history we were hunter gatherers or subsistence farmers, life was hard and survival was not assured. Being an economically independent single mother was not an option. To raise a child through the dangerous early years took the resources of more than one person, so the way that people related and shared resources between birth families - parents, children and siblings, and between sexual partnerships were part of the survival strategies that evolution would have selected for.

Given the basic biological factors I have outlined males would have evolved a stronger preference for youth and health in their mates (less likely to be carrying another man's child already, more likely to conceive and survive childbirth) and for females to have evolved a preference for status (can he support me and my child?) and be less worried about age.

Social constructs then build on top of evolved preferences - and also reflect the fact that parent's evolutionary pressures (to maximise survival of grandchildren accross all their children, is different from their grown up children's evolutionary pressures (to maximise their own surviving children,while not disadvantaging their siblings too much) - so you get conflicts between generations, as you point out, and social structures that are not supportive of our modern conception of human rights.

Beachcomber - agreed !

...and even then need checks and balances. Power shared out equally has a habit of not staying equally shared...

"the way that people related and shared resources between birth families - parents, children and siblings, and between sexual partnerships were part of the survival strategies that evolution would have selected for"

You are assuming that resources were shared between birth families. It's much more likely that everyone in the tribe looked after the babies. It was a perfectly good option to be a single mother, you weren't economically independent, you were (inter)dependent on the whole social group, not on the good will of one man. It's highly likely that the actual father wasn't all that important as he was just one of many adults who would take care of the children of the tribe. For eons they wouldn't even have worked out that there was a connection between fucking and babies - the aborigines hadn't when Europeans went to Australia.

It's just a silly sexist myth that health, youth and fabulous bodies are only valued by men because of evolution. You've really bought into evo-bollocks haven't you.

There wasn't really a concept of single anyway - everyone was interdependent on everyone else, individualism wouldn't have got a look in.

Herbex - you don't have to have worked out the genetics underlying selection for those genetics to effect instinctive behavior. Animal species from primates to bees do not understand genetics and have no intellectual conception of the connection between fucking and babies, but their instincts are still shaped by those forces.

Of course it is a silly sexist myth that health, youth and fabulous bodies are only valued by men because of evolution.

But it is equally groundless to think that these preferences have no foundation in evolution.

This thread gives me the feeling I'm trying to scoop water with a sieve. I agree with 90% of what you say, Himalaya, but can't see why your prism of understanding prevents you accepting the "The Patriarchy" concept. I haven't got any issues with human development having led to a patriarchal construct, or with human intelligence determining that as unfair and wanting to change it.

I realise you think I'm thick (am still smarting from "read a book"!) so, please, will you explain to a thick person why you think patriarchy is the natural order and/or must be embraced by those it disadvantages?

It may be a natural system however just because it is natural does not mean it is good, as a species we will have had many environmental pressures for efficiency in the way we live, there was very little 'choice' for anyone invovled as survival was the key agenda.

That being said we are now in a society where such factors are no longer such a concern, there is no longer a need for society to still be based on the same structure as is has for the past 200 thousands years.

Himalaya, I don't understand what you are making an argument for.

Are you saying patriarchy doesn't exist, or are you saying it is the natural order?

For me, patriarchy is about privilege and the abuse of power; unequal political representation, the feminisation of poverty, rape, domestic violence, femicide, the treating of women as 'other' and 'lesser', the social construct of femininity, the domination of women, etc.

If this is natural behaviour on the part of men we have a big problem on our hands, and one that cannot be solved. We are back to what was said upthread about if men 'can't help it' they need to hand over the power.

I'm finding such an argument very anti-men.

Garlicbutter-

What Saltatrix said!

I don't think patriarchy must be embraced by those it disadvantages, but I do think it is part of the nature, in so far as everything is part of nature. I am not sure that thinking about a 'natural order' is useful, it implies that natural is good, and really harks back to pre-evolutionary/creationist/intelligent design thinking.

My problem with the concept of 'The Patriarchy' (at least as it has been described here in a nutshell as 'men chose to take power and the mechanism for that was violence' is that it doesn't seem to have much explanatory power over the individual processes that result in inequality today (e.g. in wages, number of female politicians, business leaders etc..for example) and it doesn't line up with my understanding of how evolution happened (e.g. that the evolutionary pressure for, and use of violence has been competition between men).

I don't think it is necessary to reject the idea that there are evolved traits, and the historic survival rationales behind the structures and outcomes we now recognise as unjust, in order to uphold feminism. I do think that if feminism rejects science it is weaker for it.

I do realise that most people/daily mail etc.. who use a 'its natural' argument are trying to justify continued inequality. But the kneejerk reaction of therefore denying all difference or historic rationale is an intellectual dead-end. The key point that is rarely made is that natural doesn't mean good, or inevitable.

Sorry I didn't mean to imply you are thick at all. I just meant it is hard to explain the mechanism of evolution on a message board, where people are arguing against it on the basis of ideological opposition. It is not intuititive and it doesn't work in the way that 'general knowledge' thinks it does, so it is really worth reading a book or two (I recommend Dawkins, Pinker and Dennett (harder going))

See, I agree with everything you & Saltatrix have just posted - thanks, both - but am still blindsided by where, exactly, the argument is! I have, however, concluded that it's irrelevant. Whilst I am a bit of a bugger for wanting to know How and Why things occur, my guiding premise is "Start From Here". Afaics, "Here" is a place which disadvantages women in favour of men. I think that's unfair, so agitate to change it.

As you've said, natural isn't necessarily good. Our species survived & thrived thanks to extraordinary mental adaptability and the gift of critical thought: the qualities that led us to build shelters, cook food and talk, instead of "naturally" staying in the tree-tops, also lead us to effect social change and improve our circumstances. Hence, I suppose, I only care intellectually whether god made it all, men have always bullied women or there was a prehistoric egalitarian paradise. What matters is what now :)

Are you using the term natural in the way I once heard it used thus:

"Nuclear power stations are natural because people made them adn people are part of nature so therefore anything they make is natural"?

Nuclear fission is natural - we couldn't live without it (ref: sun, universe.) It's a conveniently ill-defined word, no?

Indeed.

Beachcomber, Herbex

I don't think 'the natural order' is a good way to think of nature. It implies design and that morality/rightness comes from nature. The mind blowing thing about the theory of evolution was that it showed that wasn't the case. But even though most people say they believe and understand evolution I think many people fall back instinctively into older ways of thinking - that natural is good and what is bad must be unatural/ a perversion of the way 'it is meant to be'.

Therefore it seems from this discussion that many feminists have defined the bad stuff ('the patriarchy') as 'unatural'/ purely socially constructed in order to fight it. But this makes understanding human behavior from a naturalistic stand point a no-no. I think this is a mistake - it is never a good idea to wall off an area of knowledge from investigation (and is not necessary - bad stuff is bad because it is immoral, not because it is unatural)

What is described as 'The Patriarchy' seems to me to be a describe many facets of human behavior, and social structure -inborn traits and instincts, individual choices, economic consequences, traditions cultural attitudes, laws and institutions... and each of these mechanisms are connected (and are not exclusively determined by males' actions).

To say it is all one thing: purely cultural, enforced through violence, and brought about through the collective choice of men alone just doesn't seem like a robust explanation (as I've said before the idea that men could have evolved the strength to carry out this global coup, in an egalitarian society is incoherent from a natural selection perspective - suggesting it just didn't happen this way).

A naturalistic understanding is not that the way society is is the result of 'natural behaviour on the part of men' but natural behavior (and cultural practices which developed on top of that) on the part of human beings - men and women. But we are also smart enough to mess with nature (inventing agriculture, contraceptive pills, democracy, cities, trade systems and the like) so there is hope!

Yes we (humans) have a big problem on our hands - we did not evolve for scrupulous fairness, consistent rationality, sound assesment of risks - instead we are ruled in part by instincts for nepotism and tribalism, shortermism, passions, fear and irrationality. Even the best of our institutions are far from perfect, and many remain downright shit.

My attitude isnt anti-men at all, but pro-human.There are 6billion + people on the planet, by the time our grandchildren grow up there will be 9billion. That is unprecedented. We, those of us with the time, literacy and technology to hang out on MN are amongst the worlds most privilidged. Making the world a better place for women and girls is hugely important. But it isn't a zero- sum game which has to mean making men and boys suffer (or ignoring or downplaying their suffering where that is the case, on the grounds of historic injustice to women - which is where the discussion on class, race etc.. began...)

It isn't about men and boys suffering though.

It is about women and girls not being oppressed.

Of course, in order to achieve this, the menfolks will have to relinquish some of their privilege.

I'm not particularly inclined to think of natural as good. I just think of it as natural. Natural events like earthquakes are natural, they are neutral events but they have bad effects on humans.

I don't think women being oppressed is natural. I think it is a social construct, just as people of colour being oppressed is.

Would you argue that the West exploiting Africa is natural? I wouldn't, I would argue that it is oppressive and calculated.

Beachcomber -

I feel like this conversation is going around in circles a bit, natural explanations don't just apply to earthquakes, but to ant hills and wolf packs and human societies. We are part of nature. Our social costructs are linked to our nature.What we do is natural: governed by natural processes (including the fact that we have evolved consciousness and act with agency/free will) - there is no 'unatural' - unless you believe in the supernatural.

Is it in human nature to fight, conquer and oppress others. Yes it looks fairly likely that that is a universal human trait which comes out under environmental pressure (being oppressive and calculating are in themselves human traits. You look at a bee colony, it is a model of inequality, but we wouldn't say the queen bee is oppressive and calculating - because those charcteristics only make sense in relation to human beings (and animated cartoon animals...)

Does this mean that it is right for one group to oppress another? No.

Africa is in the West, but anyway... Was there something inherant in Europeans that enabled them to conquer and opress Africans and Native Americans and not the other way round? No, it was an accident of geography - I think the argument that agriculture starting in the fertile cresent and spreading more easily along lines of lattitude (similar climate/day length) than longtitude, and that Eurasia happened to have more of the worlds domesticable livestock were critical factors is quite convincing ( read Germs, Guns and Steel if you are interested)

Oh please, I quite obviously meant the west as in westernised countries.

You are right, we are going round in circles

I don't understand the point you are trying to make and you don't answer when I directly ask you the question.

Are you saying patriarchy doesn't exist or are you saying it is natural?

In actual fact, it doesn't really matter to me much what you answer. I think patriarchy is unjust and oppressive and there is no excuse for it.

Patriarchies exist eg in Saudi Arabia, Ancient Greece, Europe up to modern times but gradually dismantled.

Even where patriarchy is dismantled there remains inequality, injustice etc... so to tackle it we need to understand why and how it arises, calling it all 'The Patriarchy' and saying it is all down to one mechanism (male choice and violence) isn't useful in offering explanation, contradicts the evidence of natural selection (eg secondary sexual characteristics would not have been selected for in a completely egalitarian society).

Anything humans do is natural, because we are part of nature. The point I am making with this is not to justify it, but to understand it.

Hope that answers your questions Beachcombet, I am being as clear as I can be.