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?

That is an interesting article. I read pretty much all of it with my eyebrows raised.

I'm another one who is not happy with a word being coined (I hesitate to say 'made up' only because I'm not an authority on Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza), by a theologian. I can't help but make a face at that. And I love made up words - but I like made up words that make people (especially oppressed people) exclaim "hah! perfect that is exactly what I was trying to say, I can't believe we never had a word for that universal phenomenon before".

Also to quote from the link provided by LRD I was again at these bits in particular;

"At the very least, an on-going and informal conversation of patriarchy vs. kyriarchy would be achieved."

"Solely pursuing your own liberation often comes at the expense of others. That?s not liberation, that?s mainstream feminism."

That sounds like divisive talk to me.

I don't trust academic feminism and this whole kyriarchy thing just isn't convincing me.

(This is off-topic, but I have to say, I am doing a PhD with two feminists as my supervisors, and I still don't recognize what people call 'academic feminism'. I have a sneaking suspicion that some people who're called 'academic feminists' actually - like Fiorenza - just do readings of their own subjects (in this case theology) from what they think is a feminist viewpoint. That may be valuable - one of my supervisors does it very well for medieval lit. - but it isn't going to result in a coherent ideology, is it?!)

Nah, that's a feminist academic

Um, ok.

I just think there's probably a distinction to be made between someone whose academic subject is feminism or women's studies, and someone like this, whose subject is theology.

Perhaps LRD - she is described as a feminist theologian though and her book titles confirm that (I haven't read any of her books).

She isn't just a theologian who is also a feminist IYSWIM. That is why I spoke about academic feminism. I guess by that term I mean 'pronouncements made about feminism from within an academic context by an academic who includes feminism in their remit even if it is in combination with other subjects'.

I have been having a little think about this again and I have had a little personal light bulb moment.

I think liberal feminists and radical feminists do not define patriarchy in the same way. We tend to describe the difference between the two schools as being how we want to go about achieving women's rights. But I reckon the real difference is in how we define patriarchy.

For me, as a radical feminist, patriarchy is Patriarchy with a capital P and it is omnipresent.

Everything within The Patriarchy is patriarchal and everything that is patriarchal is The Patriarchy.

So when I said above, for example;

"white supremacy is patriarchal"

I could equally have said

"white supremacy is patriarchy"

From the wiki page on on Fiorenza, they give a bit of an explanation of what kyriarchy means;

"Fiorenza (2009) describes interdependent "stratifications of gender, race, class, religion, heterosexualism, and age" as structural positions assigned at birth.[3] She suggests that people inhabit several positions, and that positions with privilege become nodal points through which other positions are experienced.[3] For example, in a context where gender is the primary privileged position (e.g., patriarchy), gender becomes the nodal point through which sexuality, race, and class are experienced.[3] In a context where class is the primary privileged position (i.e., classism), gender and race are experienced through class dynamics."

Personally I disagree with this analysis.

That's a nonsense! Either you accept that patriarchy is underpinning everything or you don't. You can't say that in some situations it's the underpinning element but not in others.

beach - thanks for clarifications on both points. TBH, I find the wiki thing useless as a definition. It's over-complicating what is not as far as I can see an especially complicated concept, and I really want to know why she chose that term because it seems the more I read about her ideas, the less I understand what power structures she is thinking of/trying to invoke with it.

It may well be you are right, beach, that there are different ways to defiine patriarchy.

I wish we could have a little less of the at feminists being religious.

Dittany - Your argument just seems to hinge on Sudy not being the right kind of feminist for you so nothing she says is of value. I would have thought this board, with the variety of opinions on show here might have shown you that it's not always as straightforward as that.

Beachcomber - The divisive talk you quoted, "Solely pursuing your own liberation often comes at the expense of others. That?s not liberation, that?s mainstream feminism.", is a reference to the belief that the mainstream within feminism looked after their own interests, rather then those of all women. It's a familiar critique and if you look into the development of Womanism, you'll read more about it in detail. Note though that mainstream feminism does not equal all and every feminist.

From whom, GothAnne? I'm asking because I want to make clear, I'm talking about her being a theologian because I think it's relevant to this word (for which I still don't have a proper definition - do you know why she chose it?) and her ideas about it. I don't mean that as surprise or disapproval at the idea of a religious feminist.

I'm not sure that I am ing at feminists being religious exactly.

I think it is more that I am not entirely happy with theologians who identify as Christians being instrumental in the development of grass roots feminist analysis/theory/analytical tools. I guess the problem it poses me is pretty much the same as the problem of academia.

I think that quote is divisive - I think it is adversarial. Also I don't really know what or who is meant by 'mainstream feminist' so it just felt a bit mud slingy to me.

I don't doubt that white/middle class/able bodied feminists have done things to marginalise other feminists.

LRD - Beach's comment at 11:07

I thiiiinnnk it was a way of putting intersectionality into a system. Why the root word lord to name that system after, not entirely sure, maybe she felt Lord better emphasised someone who was at the top of various power axis. I would never claim to be an expert on the term, just that I can see why some would find it valuable.

Anyway, I'm off to start a thread on fat/size acceptance now.

To clarify - as a radical feminist I don't know if I would identify with a 'mainstream feminist' myself. I might not think they were particularly representative of feminism.

Hard to say without more info on who she means though.

Ah ok.

My 11.07 face was more about academia than organised religion (although as it happens we are in the context of both here - something which gives me the patriarchal heebie jeebies).

I guess it wasn't very clear in my comment, but I did mean theologian rather than Catholic.

Dittany - I will concede that that is a fair criticism and food for thought.

But GothAnne, surely there is a pretty clear problem with a term, coined by a theologian, that sets the Lord at the top of a power structure which we're all trying to get rid of! I don't get it.

LRD - No, no, no the lord/master part is definitely not God. See here:

The word actually κύριος, "kyrios", not "kyrie", which is the vocative is translated as "lord" or "master", but the feminine form κυρία "kyria" is just as valid, and the root κυρι- "kyri-" is gender-neutral. The first definition in Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon is adjectival:

I. of persons, having power or authority over

which certainly fits the way I see it being used here.

From the comments here: www.deeplyproblematic.com/2010/08/why-i-use-that-word-that-i-use.html

Goth ... actually, I didn't say kyrie, which is the vocative, either.

The comment you quote is using a Classical Greek dictionary. She is a theologian. I'm sure she knows what Kyrios means in a non-Classical, religious context. It is not just a generic word for 'lord' or 'master' as it is in Classical Greek. For many English-speaking people, the only way they will have encountered that Greek word (and it'll be one of the few Greek words they'll encounter, so it'll stand out), will be in a religious context, referring to Christ.

Saying that a word's 'root' is neutral is meaningless, IMO. This term has a very specific connotation in the context of Christian theology, and in the context of what English-speaking people may associate with the word (this time, yes, in the vocative) 'kyrie'.

Hence my concern.

It is clear that is it meant to mean Lord/Master not God. Why she chose the Greek word for it, I do not know, but it definitely doesn't mean God. Other then speculating "Ooh she's a theologian, so possibly...", because theologians are obviously dodgy people and not to be trusted or something, there is no actual proof that she meant God. No one in the many, many comments and pieces linked in the post I linked to thinks she means God either.

Here's another definition. Again lord/master but not God: feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/word-of-the-day-kyriarchy/

Perhaps this is taking things on a tangent, but I found it interesting that quite a few folks on the "Honour Killings" thread were saying they don't like the term "honour" when used in this context. Someone mentioned that Southall Black Sisters, one of the main charities campaigning to address this problem and supporting women at risk, use the term "honour based crimes" themselves. In a similar way, I don't like the term "domestic violence" because I don't believe it is either accurate nor reflects the seriousness of the crime. But, I accept it's the most common term for gender-based violence from a partner, so I can set my reservations aside and work with it.

I think there's a risk of getting too caught up in the language part - dissecting Greek and Latin origins and other uses of parts of words and stuff. It's easy to lose site of the important concepts underneath. It sound like some feminists "outside the mainstream" have taken on the word kyriarchy because they've felt excluded from definitions of feminism set by the mainstream. Perhaps they also believe a different word can more accurately reflect the intersectuality and multiple strands of oppression they experience that aren't included within language connected to the somewhat different experiences of mainstream feminists.

Hands up - I didn't bother delving into the links and quotes about the origin of the word. Swathes of bandwidth could be clogged with links and counter links about the term, who uses it and why that are really just opinions, just views about 9 letters arranged in a certain order. Maybe this isn't miles away from all the too-ing and fro-ing about "Slut Walks" that got caught up on the name, sometimes at the expense of the concepts underlying it.

Goth, I didn't in the least mean theologians are dodgy. And I have googled and found lots of definitions that use Classical Greek. What I am trying to say is, in the word 'patriarchy', all the connotations of the word stack up neatly to help us express what we mean. If someone wants to replace that word, because they want to draw attention to intersecting structures of oppression, I would want to know their motives and their mindset. To me, patriarchy isn't a term we want to throw out of the window unless we're very sure. And I admit the first link, about spitting at the idea, did put me on guard.

Now I'm told the woman who coined it is a theologian. Honestly, there is no possible way she was ignorant of what that word means. The translation as 'Christ' is so, so much more obvious than the Classical Greek. If she were a native speaker of modern Greek, and simply thinking of the way the word is used to mean sir/madam (ie., as a term of respect), I suppose I would understand why she'd missed the obvious ... though I would still think it was a bad term to choose and liable to annoy people. She doesn't even have that excuse.

Honestly, there is no possible way she was not aware of that meaning of the word before she chose it. No way in hell. So ... why choose it? Why not use one of the zillion other words for 'lord'? At best, it comes across as if she's not a precise thinker (which doesn't tempt me to trust her ideology); at worst, it makes me feel the word is saying something I really don't want to say.

Kri - maybe you are right. But I think there is a difference between the name you use for a horrific act - which will not change the horror or the act - and the way you think about your ideology and politics. IMO. I don't want to use a word that says something I'm not signed up to. I think that term is, at best, stupidly chosen. And that worries me, because I don't think feminists are stupid and I think patriarchy is a really neat, well thought-out concept that is helpful. Junking it for a concept that isn't so well thought out is not, IMO, the answer.

Well, there's plenty folk who think the word "feminist" should be scrapped for 101 reasons. I genuinely think those who think the word Kyriarchy is crap are saying so for genuine, sensible reasons related to its linguistic origins, use in some cases by those who hold views not exactly in line with feminism (e.g. pro stripping and porn) or that there doesn't seem to be one clear definition, which of course leaves the door wide open for confusion and conflict.

However, I still have serious reservations about those who identify with/are identified with "mainstream" feminism insisting that those who feel marginalised within and by "mainstream" feminism that they shouldn't use a specific word, a word they've chosen to describe their experience. Big ick here.

Yes, Kri I do take your point about that second part and I'm not happy about it either.

I don't want to 'insist' anyone uses a term they're not comfortable with. I do think that it's a poor deal to give people a term that is fundamentally problematic, and let them run with it. Which is what seems to have happened. It may be this prof is a great, subtle thinker - but she's not really using that to benefit the same cause that's been described in all these links, about intersecting structures of oppression ... if that was ever her intention.