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?

Not entirely but thanks for responding. I think we probably don't define patriarchy in quite the same way. It seems the concept of patriarchy is very complicated and manifests in a multitude of ways through a multitude of mechanisms - this is feminist analysis anyway. The 'source' if you like of this status quo is that men dominate women - that is what we mean when we talk about violence.

There are of course huge numbers of men who are not violent themselves as individuals. However these men still benefit from male privilege and they benefit from the violence/force/domination of their group over women. They are likely to have better career opportunities and better pay than women for example.

There are darker sides to the patriarchy in the UK too. Not so long ago, marital rape was not illegal. This was violence against women. There are still many women in the UK who are raped in marriage despite the change in law. (Just look at some of the threads in the relationship section of MN). These women would not think of exercising their legal rights and nor would others encourage them to do so. This is patriarchy in action. It is also violence against these women.

The countries you mention are extreme patriarchies.

If the UK was not a patriarchy, there would be no pay gap, women would be equally represented in parliament and there would be no rape, pornography and prostitution.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything - I just think arguing that patriarchy is natural is going to sound to a lot of people that things are as they should be. I think patriarchy is a social construct, just as religion and indeed politics and political systems are.

I really still don't understand what this pointless fruitless thread has been about.

Basically Himalaya, you appear to be arguing the usual guff - that things are v. bad in far away countries of which we know little, but we're all right here so let's stop talking about male domination which manifests itself in various different ways according to the cultural norms of whichever society we're discussing.

We're not going to stop talking about it in that way. Patriarchy is a very useful shorthand term which enables those interested in analysing society, to make links they would otherwise not be able to make without that concept existing. For example, the mentality which says that if a man feels jealous of his girlfriend flirting a bit with another man, he has the right to beat her up when they get home, is the same mentality which in another cultural context, produces honour killings. Without having analysed the fact that both societies are underpinned by patriarchy, we wouldn't understand the link.

We are not goign to stop referring to the patriarchy. It is too useful a term. People who don't want us to refer to it, are generally people who don't want women in the west to feel entitled to claim equality, on the basis that they're better off than their sisters in the developing world and should be grateful for what we've got.

Well fuck it I'm not grateful. I want my fair share.

We certainly shouldn't be complacent. Every time a woman agrees to do a domestic task an idle husband won't do or agrees she'll always be the one to rush home from work to get children from nursery the innate discrimination is emphasised.

Beachcomber,

Thanks for your response - I guess the difference is in talking about the 'concept' of patriarchy and the mechanisms. Moral concepts such as 'injustice' are important. But fixing injustice means understanding the mechanisms by which it arises.

Concepts can sometimes be linguistic grab-bags that coral together a lot of different strands and prevent the mechanisms behind them being unpicked, understood and addressed.

Patriarchy/anti-patriarchy seems to be trying to do both jobs as a moral concept (which I get) and as an explanation of mechanisms (where I think it is weak) ....As you say what is termed 'the patriarchy' manifests in a multitude of ways through a multitude of mechanisms. It is also intertwined with political systems and religion so it is not one thing but the outcome of many.

For example, you say that if the UK was not a patriarchy, there would be no pay gap, and there would be no rape, pornography and prostitution.It seems to me that in the most absolutely minimal society you could imagine there would be rape (just as there would be murder and theft - because there will always be bad and/or desperate people) and there would be pornography and prostitution because someone would figure out that you could make money from them. These things happen in the absence of societal controls, not because of them.

There would also be a pay gap between people who don't have children, people who have them but prioritise their careers and people who take long career breaks and/or limit their hours, mobility, risk taking etc..because of family commitments. Just saying 'its patriarchy' doesn't distinguish whether the fault/responsibility is with the employer, the state or choices within families.

I realise that looking at naturalistic explanations sounds to a lot of people that things are as they should be (and hence the heated reaction to this thread) But I hope I have at least explained to you why I think this is a fallacy - social constructs (including politics and religion) arise out of the behavior and traits of the species that exhibits them. As we try to understand and redesign those systems it helps to understand how social constructs and biology are connected.

"If the UK was not a patriarchy, there would be no pay gap, women would be equally represented in parliament and there would be no rape, pornography and prostitution."

Ah, I understand: you attribute to "the patriarchy" any perceived injustice against women.

Do you think that there are no injustices perpetrated against men, by women? Do you believe that there is a perfect political and economic model where no exploitation of anyone ever happens?

Herbex -

But it might well be that sexual jealousy, and the urge for males to control the reproduction of women is an inbuilt thing - linked to the almost unique human oddities of concealed ovulation and long, dependent childhoods -- and that is the common strand across the two examples you give.

As you say it is the mentality, not the right, that underlies the behavior.

There is no conflict between wanting to change the behaviour by educating people to understand that no one has the right to beat anyone else up (let alone kill them) and making sure that there are laws and protections to prevent them, and at the same time recognizing that the underlying mentality has some biological basis.

It is like recognizing that the human appetite for eating sweet and fatty foods was adaptive in the environment that we evolved in, but is now killing us.

Most feminists want to root out injustice against anyone including men. Men should have their chance to clean the loos and hold babies screaming all night and that there be no assumption they don't get the right to stay home

"There would also be a pay gap between people who don't have children, people who have them but prioritise their careers"

You actually can't imagine a society where having children isn't penalised with economic hardship can you?

How insane is it, that the production of the next generation, results in financial and social penalty instead of reward? How can you possibly think that is rooted in something natural? It is the least logical response to the production of young, that I can think of.

And d'you know what, who gives a shit if it's all natural or not. So what. It actually doesn't matter. What matters, is that we reconstruct society so that both halves of humanity can function as fully in it as possible.

Herbex -

As I keep saying, everything is rooted in something natural. It is not insane that economies don't reward people for looking after their own families, it is just what happens when people trade with other people for mutual benefit.
That is how economies work - jobs are where you are paid to do things that benefit other people who you don't know (i.e. not your family), at some inconvenience to yourself (and the things you might be doing for your family instead).

Why does it need an extra bit of theory labeled 'patriarchy' to explain why employers will pay less because they can for jobs that are convenient for people with family responsibilities and therefore popular and easier to recruit for, but will pay more if they have to to get people to do jobs that are a pain in the arse like shift work, international travel, working on an oil rig, risky investment in training etc...or why someone who takes multiple parental leaves/career breaks will build up their skills, contacts and earning power more slowly than someone who takes fewer/less time off. It is basic supply and demand.

Which is not to say there isn't also sexism, closed shops, discrimination as well. But I think it is worth giving a shit which is which, understanding why systems have developed in the way they have, to make changes where they are needed (and understand that there are costs involved, and someone has to pay them).

"Why does it need an extra bit of theory labeled 'patriarchy' to explain why employers will pay less because they can for jobs that are convenient for people with family responsibilities"

You need to look at why we have set up the whole system of work which involves overwhelmingly women being the ones who have family responsibilities, rather than both women and men who have family responsibilities and why the structure of the workplace still assumes that the person working there, will have a wife at home.

"...but will pay more if they have to to get people to do jobs that are a pain in the arse like shift work"... what, like nurses and cleaners do?

"or why someone who takes multiple parental leaves/career breaks will build up their skills, contacts and earning power more slowly than someone who takes fewer/less time off."

You talk as if women have ten children and take multiple maternity breaks. Most take one, two or three at most. The speed at which they build up their skills and contacts is not so slowed donw, that their earning power should be quite as slowed down as it is. You also ignore the fact that men who take career breaks, do not suffer the same hit to their career as women who do, even if they take longer out of the workplace. Women are disproportionately penalised for taking time out of the workplace and you are ignoring the fact that even if they take no time out at all, because they don't have children, theystill get paid less than men do on average.

"It is basic supply and demand" What is?

"you are ignoring the fact that even if they take no time out at all, because they don't have children, theystill get paid less than men do on average."

In the US, among university graduates, the reverse is true: the highest earners are childless women, higher than fathers, mothers and childless men.

Up until what age? Source please.

There was good coverage in the media a little while back - I read it in The Economist, so you can look it up for yourself if you like. Or, even better, perhaps read The Economist for yourself regularly, as it covers modern gender issues very well, across the subject spectrum.

You can quote the Economist if you like Bonsoir, but you haven't actually answered the question. The Economist isn't a bible and you haven't provided any evidence which it might have cited.

I'm offering you the chance to do some modern and fact-based reading about gender difference in the world today (rather than reading outdated texts). Which I thought you might enjoy! Up to you whether you follow up suggestions, of course.

Well, there's this:
blogs.forbes.com/jennagoudreau/2011/03/14/jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men/

Then there's this:
blogs.forbes.com/womensmedia/2011/04/12/beware-those-who-blame-womens-choices-for-gender-pay-gap/

The statement Bonsoir refers to was widely publicised along with a British finding that women under 24 were earning more than men of the same age & education.

However, both conclusions were reached through journalistic extrapolation of anomalies (the data were true among very limited populations). I'm another Economist reader, but I always read the retractions and corrections before quoting it!

sorry, forgot to linkify the urls