Kyriarchy?

[ChristinedePizan]

I saw this term on a website:http://fuckyeahfeminists.com/ and it's not something I've come across before. I googled it and didn't feel much the wiser when I got the wiki definition

Anyone feel able to elaborate?

Aargh at links not working

That's fuckyeahfeminists.com/

It's just a way of saying, for instance that a white woman may experience gender oppression yet racial privilege.

So strata of oppression?

More like intersecting contradictions, I think.

Yep, makes sense. Ta :)

Thanks for the link. Now following them on tumblr. :)

A better link is here, which explains what is is and who invented the term: myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.html

Yes, I don't think it's necessary to dump the idea of patriarchy to explore how racism and class affects women's experience of oppression- feminists have been examining these differences since the 1970s at least, without having to throw the baby out of the bathwater.

Yes I agree with that. Patriarchy comes first, everything else comes after IMO

Oh, and one more thing: when you lose the unifying voice of feminism in order to distil down individual's experiences of oppression (which can include disability and racism, for example), then you tend to get into a fragmentary politics of identity which ultimately pits women against each other and cuts of the possibility of any cohesive action as a group. We have to be able to trust each other to discuss difference while still retaining the capacity to act as a group.

It's a very odd term to use if she wants to reclaim christianity, IMO.

I agree there are inequalities that modify or complicate each other, obviously. But this is a weird way to think about it.

In a Christian context, it would mean 'rule of the (risen) Lord' ... which says nothing about social inequality IMO, and has the disturbing implication (to me, anyway) that the social inequality that exists, is structured like that with to the benefit of the kyrios, or God. Because 'patriarchy' means 'rule by the fathers for their benefit, right?

So I am a bit confused by what the term is really saying.

Dittany - as a feminist who is also a woman of colour, Sudy has every right to prefer a term which to her, better describes the intersecting oppressions she faces. One size fits all feminism, far from being undiluted, is alienating to many women. The power systems in our society do not impact all women equally, kyriarchy is a way of analyzing that.

Also, Dittany, I'm very disappointed that yet again, you're pushing the idea that feminism is only for atheists. Your fingerwagging at someone because they happen to be Christian is sad.

Kyriarchy is not about obscuring the reality of patriarchy. Iit does not say that patriarchy does not exist, it does not argue that men are not at the top of the tree, what it does do is explain why some men are more powerful then others, why some women are more powerful then others, it's all about the varying axis of oppression and I can see why many women would find that valuable.

GothAnn, can you explain a bit more why that term was chosen and what the thinking was? I've googled and so on but all I get is etymology.

I see the sense in talking about intersecting strutures but I agree, spitting at the idea of using the word 'patriarchy' seems (to me) unnecessarily hostile to feminism.

I think she might have been being slightly tongue in cheek there. If you read her blog, she's obviously not hostile to feminism. I don't have lots of links, but certainly it's a term you tend to find more often in blogs by women of colour who are feminists.

So? I'm sure there are parts, sects within feminism that you're pretty hostile to. I feel you've seized on one tiny part of her post and used it to completely dismiss what she's saying, rather then actually engaging with her argument and it's an important bloody argument and deserves better then being waved away with a tone argument.

It's not less accurate to her Dittany, for reasons which are clearly obvious. To her, patriarchy is not as useful a term as kyriarchy because it ignores the other oppressions, e.g racism, that she faces.

You're happy to pick over one sentence in her post, but ignore what she's actually saying. It proves her point, I can see exactly why she choses the term kyriarchy because it's her way of saying this is my reality, these are my issues and you don't get to ignore them in the name of 'purity' or for 'the good of the movement'.

Saying that a woman who is affected by racism and sexism, can only discuss the latter or she's diluting feminism is nonsense, especially when it's put forward by people who do not experience racism themselves. Do you not see the problem with this and with you so casually deeming her viewpoint as "less accurate"? Who exactly is the judge of what's accurate and who gave them that power?

As for "why should I engage her argument, she didn't post it here?", shall we ignore the content of all links posted in this section because they weren't directly written by MN members here?

the term Kyriarchy was created to be used instead of patriarchy, not as a replacement those other terms.

Oh, bother, really? I first heard of kyriarchy on one of these threads, did some googling and ended up reading a very interesting essay about it (by a man) which decidedly did incorporate feminism & patriarchy. I came away with a mental visualisation of a honeycomb of power structures, each affecting the others. To me, it was a useful and descriptive tool for thinking about tiers and balances of power.

If it actually means we pretend there isn't a 'patriarchy' I'll have to throw it out of my toolbox! Please can someone knowledgeable tell me if it's supposed to be a conceptual device or an extant system?