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?

I think that's a very fair point about natural himalaya, both your response to Dittany and your original point. i suppose where the shift occurs is when men, in particular, and society in general start extrapolating doctrine and customs from natural differences

i.e. that some women are not at their best during menstruation is natural. To then state that menstruating women are "unclean", and to impose codes of behaviour surrounding them that are enforced by both men and women is the Patriarchy in action.

Mind you plentyofprimroses there also needs to be a distinction between natural nature, and acquired nature. That women give birth is completely and indisputably natural (yeah, I know. like, duh!) but that men are more aggressive, well that's just years of natural selection, and isn't true across the board.

I guess the big difference between 'patriarchy' as an explanation for discrimination and abuse and racisim, nazism, apartheid, class discrimination is that it is possible to have completely divided societies where people and families are on one side or the other and defend their own interests though some form of in-group/out-group thing or basic nepotism. With gender it is not like that - everyone has a mother and father etc... structures of the elite will tend to favour members of the elite, rather than others of a common gender.

sure, and this is why the Patriarchy is soooo much more successful than systems developed along class, caste or racial lines. You could, however, draw an analogy between wives and daughters being the chiefs of native "homelands" in apartheid South Africa, or the paid soldiers used by the upper classes to keep the workers in their place. Except that while there can only really be one homeland chief, there can be lots of wives (indeed, in Saudi Arabia lots of wives) - so women can be co-opted, and thus kept in place, to an even greater extent. As such it will take a lot more to destroy the Patriarchy, as it has so many heads to cut off and needs to be fought on so many fronts.

[side point: you get born into the elite, but if daddy needs to sell you cheap you might not stay there - marriage is what cements your position. Not so much these days of course....]

great discussion this....

Or you could just read SGM's post, which makes my point much more succinctly!

Dittany - it was a response to this - 'Also, you're not a basic feminist if you think that male dominance over women is natural. You're an anti-feminist, because your argument is against everything that feminism believes.'

You saying you can't be a feminist if you think (any part?) of the dominance of men in society has a root in biological pressures and genetic differences associated with gender.

Like POP says we don't have to be slaves to biology. But it seems odd to assume that human beings are completly immune to gender differences which birds, bees, lions, chimpanzees etc.. all exhibit.

Damn I missed the webchat. Would have been interesting...better read the book.

I am sure she is right that most popular notions of gender difference and daily mail media reporting of scientific research is ideologically driven bullshit, but doesn't mean you can't study this stuff.

Does she subscribe to a completely 'blank slate' theory.

Dittany, for heavens sake, someone is allowed to say if they think a point is fair.

The term 'Patriarchy' is correct if you are speaking purely about the relationship between women and society. If from that viewpoint then patriarchy accurately represents the difference between men and women when compared to a similar position i.e class/job etc with women in general (we are talking throughout the population not individuals) being worse off.

However if you are trying to label society in it's entirety then kyriarchy is more accurate as sex is only one factor in many with which people may be disadvantaged and these factors effect both sexes.

Patriarchy does exist, in that women will often have to make sacrifices that affect their lives more (due to pregnancy) however I don't really subscribe to the men (as a group) much as throughout history the majority of males did not have actually have that much power. The majority on top however are men and they cause society to turn in a certain way which favours them, this does benefit men (as in the general population) but only if they fit a restrictive criteria. But like I said before with women on the same 'level' as them they would often be better off economically and socially.

Biology does have an effect to say otherwise would mean you have to ignore virtually all other life on earth (in species where different sex exists) and also homo sapiens origins. The pink/blue brain I think is silly (purely societal influence in my view) the biological differences are a bit more basic than that.

"Patriarchy does exist, in that women will often have to make sacrifices that affect their lives more (due to pregnancy)"

Eh? Why should pregnancy result in more sacrifice? I don't follow that. Women who don't ever get pregnant, are also disadvantaged by patriarchy. At certain times and in certain cultures, even more so.

I've read & argued this point so often, I'm not contributing directly to the conversation as is - apologies. I just have one little thing to add: how many times have you heard that "a woman has to work harder than a man" to get to the same place ... and have you countered it with "A woman is as good as a man"? If you have, that statement itllustrates your default patriarchal position.

The definition of "Good" in career terms is male. A woman is not a man but, in order to be "Good" in this sense, she must meet criteria defined for and by men - most notably, but by no means exclusively, being unimpeded by pregnancy, childbirth and related matters.

If anyone can persuade me I'm wrong by, perhaps, showing me batallions of women who've attained positions of great power or a long list of multinationals with differential criteria, I'll be most grateful and relieved.

Saltatrix wrote - "throughout history the majority of males did not have actually have that much power"

The majority of males have never ruled a country but they have had plenty of power over the women and girls in their own households.

Eh? Why should pregnancy result in more sacrifice? I don't follow that. Women who don't ever get pregnant, are also disadvantaged by patriarchy. At certain times and in certain cultures, even more so.

I'm not saying pregnancy should result in more sacrifice just that in most cases it does end up with the woman having to make more changes than the man invovled. Because this setup is so widespread throughout our society women are often 'guilty' by association even if they never intended to have children anyway. That's why you get sexist comments like "shes only going to go get pregnant anyway" etc does the person know if she is even intending to have children? nope but she is considered guilty of it by association.

I think there are many factors though that was just me giving one example although I feel childbirth and the area surrounding that topic is one of the major reasons why societies throughout history have ended up in a certain manner.

The majority of males have never ruled a country but they have had plenty of power over the women and girls in their own households.

I think I tried to say that whilst they themselves did not have much status/power etc they were often better off than the women the same level as they were.

I can't speak for other people but in this country it feels to me as if some men have all the power.

And the rest of us muddle along the best we can.
Men and woman of the social group I'm in seem pretty equal.

POP - I pretty much agree with what you are saying.... Apart from some of the last bit -

I wouldn't jump straight from acknowledging that there are evolved gender differences that underlie some social roles & norms to saying women don't make good engineers and are more natural carers. I don't think that follows (and I haven't seen convincing evidence of it).

There are lots of proffessions that were traditionally male - secretary, school teacher, doctor, vicar that are now often female.

The thing is when women start to do a job in large numbers it tends to loose status and and relative pay goes down It turns out it's not about society not valuing the particular jobs that women do, it's about women workers generally not being valued in the market.

You could put that down to sexist attitudes 'the patriarchy'. But that doesn't explain much. Particularly how attitudes can shift so far one wat to let women into what were previously seen as jobs they couldn't do, and then so far the other to downgrade them. It seems capricious and it leaves me wondering how that could happen?

Or you look at why women workers aren't valued, and that has biological and economic roots I.e. Because women tend to be marginally more inclined than men to give up other opportunities to raise children (because they know they are theirs and because they've already invested more throuh pregnancy and BF) they tend to be less inclined to do the things that drive ambitious careers - e.g. work long hours away from home, relocate, be completely work focused etc.. So they come cheaper, because there is less opporunity cost. Also because of the partnership deal struck between men and women domestically (paternity for security) women have tended to be the second wage earner in the family and could afford to work for less (as long as the job fits family commitments)... Social reasons stacked on top of biological reasons.

So employers aren't paying women less because they are being irrationally sexist, but because they are being rationlly mean and getting away with what they can.

Dittany -

Not arguing against that observation at all (if I'm allowed to come back despite the fact that I didn't march with Emmeline Pankhurst?!)

The question is why?

The answer - its the patriarchy, and it's all cultural all the way down seems like a deadend in terms of explaining why people in Asia and America, and Africa, and Europe and Australasia all ended organising their gender relations along such similar lines, despite other purely cultural and learned phenomena like language turning out so diverse?

Why did men end up on top everwhere?

Because historically men literally hold the power - the physical strength, the swords and the valuables. And they choose to share that power with people like themselves, so mostly other men.

The emblems of power, the means to exert power, have changed over the millenia - but the social and cultural constructs still favour sharing power with those most like yourself, which has become equated with being male.

Piprabbit -

But why? Why are men physically stronger?

... Evolutionary biology says that secondary sexual characteristics (the peacocks tail, the deer's antlers etc...) are driven by sexual selection - competing for mates, either by fighting with other males (that's what the swords were for) or by proving fitness to potential mates.

There is no possible time in the past when men were so much bigger and stronger than women, but gender relations were equal. It just doesn't work like that - physiology, psycology and culture evolve together (that's why it's so hard to break - not impossible though).

There is limited altruism beyond kin groups and those we share a joint genetic investment with (co-parents) and it is driven by mutual benefit. Any strain of early humans that evolved to share resources indiscriminately with other unrelated males, over their own kin would quickly die out (because the others who favored their own kin would take advantage and invest the resources in protecting and feeding their own children, or in 'winning' more sexual conquests.

OK - I've read your most recent post several times and I'm not sure if you are asking me a question, or telling me the answer.

I would assume that the relative size and strength of males reflects the mammalian background from which we evolve. Male apes tend to be larger and stronger than females, as do elephants, lions etc. I realise that there are some animals where the female is larger, but we are hardly unusually in having males that are taller and have a bigger muscle mass than females.

Are you saying that logically power should be shared within a kinship group, and shared with female kin in preference to male non-kin?

Females are a resource which have always been shared outside kin groups. All animals need to find ways to ensure that breeding between close family members is limited. Sometimes it is the male that is forced out of the family group to find a mate - but there is an awful lot of human history in which women are forced from their family and become part of possessions of their husbands kin group. Intermarriage is also a chance for kin groups to form new alliances and power-sharing arrangements - but that would be agreed between the leaders men of the groups. So we develop a culture in which men talk politics and women are assets to be used in negotiation.

apologies Dittany - I genuinely thought that Himalaya made two good points, separately. I pointed out that one was in response to you for the sake of clarity, rather than to take sides or try to undermine you. Perhaps I should have just quoted Himalaya instead. Anyway, there was no conscious subtext (though far be it for me to stop you reading whatever you like into my comments!)

Why are people struggling to see that men have the overwhelming majority of power all over the world, and have had it for millennia?
What's difficult about noticing that?
Is it because it's too obvious?

Yep, I agree. You can't see the wood for the trees.

The thing is when women start to do a job in large numbers it tends to loose status and and relative pay goes down It turns out it's not about society not valuing the particular jobs that women do, it's about women workers generally not being valued in the market.

You could put that down to sexist attitudes 'the patriarchy'. But that doesn't explain much. Particularly how attitudes can shift so far one wat to let women into what were previously seen as jobs they couldn't do, and then so far the other to downgrade them. It seems capricious and it leaves me wondering how that could happen?

So employers aren't paying women less because they are being irrationally sexist, but because they are being rationlly mean and getting away with what they can.

Well that'll be capitalism and globablisation in action then. If there is a greater pool of potential candidates for each job (e.g. men AND women) then it is easier to find a suitable candidate that will accept less money, and in a capitalist system this will always happen - if it doesn't then the business can't compete and goes under.

Of course it isn't helped that even female bosses view a woman that asks for a promotion/raise as pushy and over-ambitious, while a man who asks for the same will be viewed as healthily assertive and aware of his value. (I remember reading about a study on this a couple of years ago).