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?

But everything is both simple and more complex. Every single thing. So why does it need stating about patriarchy, as if it's something unusual or some kind of barrier or deficiency? I spend stacks of my writing about one tiny little concept. One thing that on the surface and in common parlance is pretty simple, but of course when you dig further it isn't. You could do that to anything.

My 'but...' was to MrIC btw

"I think talk of The Patriarchy in the singular is wrong and misleading"

Of course you do. It wouldn't do for women to name what we're up against, because then we might start fighting it properly. It's in men's political interests to try and muddy the waters and confuse things.

"The reality is there are a myriad of patriarchies, dependent on how the particular men in power view the power structure they control."

Once again there you go trying to claim authority on what reality is. Do I need to say where that sort of attitude in a man comes from?

I never claimed to be an authority on anything - I was just expressing my opinion. something my mother taught me to do. I was hoping words like "personally" and "I think" would have made that clear. It was certainly my intention - it's all about intention, right?

Anyway, I want you to start fighting the Patriarchy. ideally I'd like you to tear it down asap; before my daughter starts primary would be great! So go ahead, hunt down that singular Patriarchy and destroy it.

I notice you also haven't quibbled with the actual content of what I'm saying, more just the way I saying it, the intentions you assume I have when I'm saying it and the fact that I have the audacity to say it at all!

I mean, seriously, what do you think? Do you think that talk of The Patriarchy as one, single male conspiracy is accurate, or are there many, operating independently?

But everything is both simple and more complex. Every single thing. So why does it need stating about patriarchy, as if it's something unusual or some kind of barrier or deficiency? I spend stacks of my writing about one tiny little concept. One thing that on the surface and in common parlance is pretty simple, but of course when you dig further it isn't. You could do that to anything.

AW right. which is why, way back in the dawn of this thread I made the distinction between the Patriarchy in theory (as in: a simple, defining notion of what the Patriarchy is) which is simple, and the Patriarchy in practice (which is more complex). We can agree on that, right?

Bullshit. Men geographically and temporally have been the ones holding on to power. They have universally used violence to gain that power. The concept of patriarchy does not fall apart in specific situations, in fact it is demonstrated over and over again.

dittany I don't disagree with you about how they gained power; I'm interested in how they sustain it. Is it still always just violence? Or is there something more. personally, in my opinion, with no claim to any kind of authority, I think there's more to it. If all violence against women stopped, permanently tomorrow, would women suddenly start enjoying equal status? In my view I think other things would need to change too before the Patriarchy disappeared.

Some men.

Ooh, this is getting quite refreshingly heated.... it seems to me that the terms 'patriarchy', 'male dominance', 'sexism' etc are being used interchangeably in ways which could cause difficulty. 'patriarchy' as a system in ancient Rome isn't the same as what some people call 'patriarchy' in modern Western cultures. Well, that's my opinion - does anyone agree? Disagree? Why?
I'm v. interested in the evolution/anthropology debates. What is the problem with my idea on men's investment in promiscuity being overstated, with opposite being true for women?

Ditany,

I don't think I have been disengengenuous.

As I said in my OP I consider myself a feminist but i guess i am what you would call a wishy washy liberal type (and I haven't read up on the theory) I have lurked on this board for a while but didn't want to hijack in to one of the many threads that mention the patriarchy with this question and debate. I think it's been interesting. There have been a diversity of views, so it's not clear that everyone understands it as the same thing.

I made clear from the outset that my frame of reference is biological/genetic/evolutionary pressures and behavioral economics so yes I am interested in what people mean by (the) Patriarchy here and whether it fits with a naturalistic view.

I am not sure what you think my hidden agenda or disegenuity is. Perhaps you'd like to say?

I will do an answer to your question, but I have realised that it will take some time to write. There is not a common undestanding of evolution on here - people have talked about group selection, survival being the only driver of selection, the interests of individuals being the same as the interests of their genes, the idea that racial differences are evolutionary equivilent to sexual differences, the idea that characteristics evolve 'by accident', the idea that some groups of people are more natural than others etc...So it needs to start a bit from first principles. I will do that since some may be interested.

I have since quite early on asked the question how did the outcome of men being in power become so widespread if it had no basis in human nature, and was something that was 'invented' seperately in thousands of locations?

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

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.

Well you don't have to share the secret recipe. It's your call. I'll go read the books. Thanks for the recommendations.

Dittany:'If male violence against women stopped today, women would be free.' Is the economic system of capitalism with a sexual division of labour where women are responsible for unpaid domestic labour a consequence of male violence? Obv. mv is part of that but not the primary cause. Please don't assume I'm arguing some kind of orthodox Marxist 'it'll be OK after the revolution love' bollox, that's not my aim, nor to diminish the impact of mv potential or actual on all our lives. Genuine query.

Sorry, xposted. Can only restate my original point that ancient Rome was a patriarchy, ie men got political and economic power by being head of a household which was a productive unit; that hasn't been true in our culture since the married women's property act and universal suffrage. Well, in theory...
Totally agree it's not 'natural' and that all other inequality takes precedence over ours. Which is invisible even to ourselves most of the time.

Anyway, no I don't think it is a patriarchy. It's sexist, misogynist, woman hating, phallocentric, but not a patriarchy because the slave-based patriarchal household isn't the mode of production, capitalism is. That is usually used to mean that the subordination of women is comparatively insignificant; I don't believe that. If you have a different definition of the word 'patriarchy' to mean 'men hold the majority of power', then self evidently, yes. The question is, is that the result of some other system?

Alicelidell

Sounds right to me A patriarchy as a formal system in Anxient Rome, Saudi Arabia or wherever (the definition Immaculada gave early on) seems like a different concept to The Pariarchy outlined as the radical feminist view by Dittany and others as the underlying explanation to the state of gender inequality -men decided individually and as groups to dominate women through violence.

On whether differences in parenthood investments and costs and opportunities by the sexes are too small to drive evolutionary changes. I think I posted on that already, but tiny changes marginal differences
drive evolution (over millions of years).

Also remeber whats driving sexual selection is not competition between the sexes for resorces, but between indiciduals of the same sex for mates. Men compete with men to sire more children, and women compete to attract the best mate they can to have children

with and the best one they can to help raise them. There is battle of the sexes stuff going on too, but it's not direct competition here, its more an arms race between men and women for men to avoid raising someone else's children, and women to avoid being left holding the baby. People don't have to really think this way consciously, but genes that promote characteristics and behavior that are more sucessful at these 'strategies' end up in more live offspring down the line.