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?

I find kyriarchy a really useful concept, and a really useful term that can happily co-exist with feminism. I've had several conversations over the years with young women who've said, basically, well I've never felt oppressed or disadvantaged so clearly feminism is unncessary. Being able to discuss interlocking privileges is pretty useful in those conversations, because I've been able to talk about how their privileged status has (so far!) shielded them from the worst of the patriarchy, etc. I mean, also I'll point out that they've almost certainly been affected by the patriarchy as well, of course. But it doesn't do any harm to point out to them that they are privileged compared to others, and it doesn't do me any harm to remember that so am I.

It doesn't detract from being a feminist. I don't think well I'm white and middle-class and heterosexual so I should shut up - I think well I'll keep fighting against the oppressions that affect me, and keep in mind that there are other oppressions that affect others as well.

Thanks, Tortoise & Goth - I'll hang on to it :)
I find it interesting to experiment with what happens if you take one element out of the "rich, powerful, fit, healthy, free, intelligent, white male" at the top - how do the other cells move, and what happens if you replace one descriptor of a cell near the bottom with one of his?
Socio-political Tetris

Socio-political Tetris - exactly!

Like Tortoise, I think it's an amazing tool. IMHO, it doesn't detract from patriarchy as a concept, but outlines the other forces both underneath and intersecting it.

Kyriarchy = Tetris is brilliant

Mmm, I have a problem with this term if it is intended to be used in the place of patriarchy.

Basically the problem is that women do not have institutionalised power.

I totally accept that a white woman has white privilege, that a woman or man of colour does not have. I totally accept that a rich woman has class/economic privilege that a poorer woman or man does not have.

I also accept the concept of interacting statuses of privilege and nonprivilege of different groups and the individuals within those groups within society.

However - patriarchy refers to more than just privilege. Or even a system of privilege. Patriarchy is just a word used to describe the twin concepts of male supremacy and the resultant female oppression. A supremacy has institutionalised power. A supremacy is the institutionalizing of oppression.

White women benefit from white privilege, and that privilege is lived as oppression by women of colour - just as male privilege is lived as misogyny/oppression by women.

However white women do not have institutionalised power and white women have not institutionalised the oppression of women and men of colour. That has been done by white men.

Sorry, that is probably as clear as mud - I know what I mean but I'm finding it hard to put into words.

I do also think kyriarchy has the potential to be divisive if it is used to replace patriarchy. However I think my main beef with the word is that I don't think it is conceptually precise enough to be anything other than a word that describes interacting privilege and status. An interface of privilege/nonprivilege if you like.

Patriarchy is on another scale altogether.

Great points from Beachcomber.

The radical feminists I admire are deeply aware of other forms of injustice. I have learnt s huge amount about white privilege and straight privilege alongside learning about misogyny and patriarchy.

Unfortunately, language can sometimes let us down. I'm not entirely convinced we need a specific word like "Kyriarchy" to describe the many layers of oppression that people can experience because they identify with (or identified as) more than one socially, economically and/or politically marginalised group in society.

The definitions I have found of the word so far seem rather fuzzy and opaque and I would have reservations about the idea that one "term" should supplant one or more other terms that some disadvantaged groups find important their their understanding of power relationships. It just sounds a bit too "imperialistic" (although I'm not sure that's the right word,) and plays into the idea of the Oppression Olympics - where some forms of oppression are regarded as Gold, Silver or Bronze and others relegated to less perceived importance.

As Charitygirl says, those feminists I most admire recognise that the mechanisms of oppression are remarkably similar, regardless of whether the targets are women, BAME people, disabled, working class, Lesbian and gay, homeless, etc. and that there is an intersectionality of oppression for many people, who do not fit into "neat" descriptive boxes. We can't expect that people will say dissect themselves into the female part, the Black part and the disabled part and feel compelled to "choose" which element they need to campaign for the most.

There is a complex interplay between factors, imho, that give you a "hand up" and those that give you a "slap down." I don't think it's absolutely possible to quantify the factors, let alone produce anything like a league table of those "more oppressed than thou." I don't think it's worth wasting the brainspace on trying to work these things out when we should be working together to challenge those mechanisms oppression that diminish opportunities for so many based on factors they can't control.

It was nearly 20 years ago that I read a condensed version of this article about intersectionality of racism and sexism, particularly in the context of DV and rape by Kimberle Crenshaw [[http://www.publicscienceproject.org/wp-content/themes/arras/images/pdf/6.pdf Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of
Color]] and having found it and had a quick skim more recently, there's still much food for thought in there.

I'm finding this thread very interesting and I'm glad I started it.

CRIKRI - yes I agree that language can let us down, particularly when it comes to invented words by someone who is trying to put forward a new theory of society is structured

CRIKRI - to put it simply, kyriarchy is a way describing intersectionality as it occurs systemically, I think the very last thing it is about is creating 'Oppression Olympics' (a phrase I detest), as the impact of race, class, gender can vary so hugely depending on both an individual or contextual basis.

Beachcomber I would dispute that no women have institutionalized power, some do, but they generally use it to uphold the patriarchy, rather then dismantle it. Someone who gets to sit 'at the top table', in however limited a role, will certainly seem to possess institutionalised power in the eyes of someone who is never going to get that invite.

I'm also very wary of words like divisive being used. The feminist movement is not immune to the ills of society, the most frequently heard voices belong to white, middle class, TAB women. Too often those voices are held up as the mainstream, women from outside of those descriptors may dispute what the mainstream is saying, that disputation is considered an attack, divisive, bad for the movement.

In short, calling someone divisive is a frequent silencing tactic. Anyone thinking that feminists are beyond isms needs to look into the works of feminists of colour, feminists with disabilities, womanism etc.

People are going to have different perceptions and they get to label them as they want. We need to accept our differences and work together, not shame women into homogeneity.

But why was this word coined? Like cri, all I've found is rather useless definitions that tell men layered oppression is bad (yes, I agree), and what the Greek roots are. I feel uneasy about using a word when I don't know exactly what thought process behind it I'm signing up to, and I would agree with others that the fact one user 'spits' at the use of the word 'patriarchy' worries me.

I have googled - can you explain any further what the thought was behind the making of this coinage - not the concept, which I get, the coinage?

I agree with you LRD.

We already have words to describe to intersectional oppression/bigotry.

I don't know enough about it to know if I agree with you that white women don't have some form of institutionalized power ... I would need to think and read up on that, and I am happy to take guidance from women who're not white on that one (I'm white). I just don't see the reasons for this term.

The black women who used to spit at me, and get their toddlers to throw stones, when I lived in Brixton would disagree that white women lack institutionalsed power in comparison to them. They would also disagree, I imagine, that the problems of being a woman are greater than the problems of being black.

I agree that feminism needs to be rather more careful about the assumptions it makes.

I should add, perhaps, that the same women spat at my black friend when she was going to work in her office gear. They called her white inside. That seems to demonstrate their view on whether race or sex is the bigger problem.

I'm of the opinion that women have no institutionalised power because all institutionalised power is controlled by patriarchy. Patriarchy is the root cause of all other forms of oppression.

Twisty just wrote about this subject - it might be of interest to folks here.

blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/09/05/spinster-aunt-slowly-emerges-from-stupor/

I'm willing to be told I'm wrong though. I may be exercising obliviousness to white privilege and I don't mind it being pointed out.

Going to read that page later - just took a quick look. Would I be on the right lines to say The Patriarchy's values are responsible for relative oppressions by skin colour, caste, ability, etc, etc?

If so I would agree entirely but you then get into definitions of what The Patriarchy is, which I suspect may be dangerous.

I quite like what SGB used to say a lot, about how successful societies have always depended on slavery and, if no other slave class is available, the default class is women.

Yes, that is the idea garlic.

I guess that leads us on to the notion that patriarchy is a system of human organisation based on the principles of domination and submission.

Which then logically leads me to the conclusion, that each and every human interaction is 'polluted' if you like, by the twin concepts of domination and submission.

These concepts at group or societal level become supremacy and oppression.

I think this is what the word kyriarchy is trying to represent, except that we already have a word for it already - patriarchy.

This is my opinion though and I accept that other people may not define patriarchy in that way. It just seems the only logical way to me, but I may be over thinking it/acting privileged.

This is just a thought dump. I have no specialist training or knowledge in this subject.

... Kyriarchy and patriarchy are both descriptors for systems of social privilege. They both represent systems of interlocking hierarchies, with a recognisable powerful class at the very top and multiple, recognisable classes at the very bottom.

Both concepts acknowledge the people are the top are all (or as near to all as dammit) male.

The bottom layer at each level of hierarchy is female.

The patriarchy system says that this is immutable - the concept is based on a principle that each layer, and series of layers, MUST rest on a base of women.

Kyriarchy says that relative privilege means the layers may shift around, depending on factors including (but not limited to) sex.

So, in a kyriarchal model, it would be possible for the very bottom layer to consist entirely of men, their having a sum of negative factors that outweighs the fact of being female. Being predicated on intrinsic male privilege. patriarchy cannot encompass this possibility.

... end of thought dump for now.

GAD, I'm still struggling with the word, not the concept of intersectionality of oppression. I suppose my concern is that if people struggle to grasp what the word means, it is more likely to lead to confusion, misunderstandings and (I know it makes me sound cynical) more opportunities for those who would seek to divide.

Also, I think there may be wires crossing on the idea of what or who is divisive. I agree that the faces and voices generally identified with "mainstream" feminism tend to be white, educated and middle class. I agree with your comment, "women from outside of those descriptors may dispute what the mainstream is saying," and their challenges are often rejected by that "mainstream."

But, imho, it is some of those "mainstream feminists" who generate divisiveness when insisting that sexism trumps other forms of oppression. This has the effect of denying the existence of privileges they do have (e.g. due to ethnicity, ability, class, etc.) and failing to recognise the impact of other forms of oppression on women who fall "outside the mainstream."

I'm remembering at the time of the OJ Simpson murder trials, there seemed to be the expectation from many feminists that African American women should view it as a sexist crime while civil rights advocates insisted they should see it as a set up by a racist criminal justice system. Similarly, I've found that some with in workers' rights movements insist that racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc. are just off-shoots of the greater evil that is the class system. They suggest it's not worth spending alot of time tackling these forms of oppression as after the revolution, they will just disappear (as if!) These are the sorts of things I had in mind when I mentioned unhelpful divisiveness.

I agree that, "you are being divisive" could be used as a means to silence those who challenge the exclusivity of mainstream feminism, but paradoxically, imho if mainstream feminists refuse to recognise the impact of other forms of oppression, then THAT is genuinely divisive.

I agree with your 'thought dump' garlic.

CRIKRI, for me this absolutely isn't about minimizing the impact of other forms of oppression, it is about identifying their origin.