do you believe in the patriarchy?

[bejeezusWC]

A poster on another thread said she views feminism as the struggle against patriarchy. That is how I view it too. I believe that is considered the rad fem stance?

Another poster said she didn't believe in patriarchy

I don't geddit

Why/how are women so unequal if not for patriarchal societies? WHO has been oppressing us?

Please tell me what you think, if you don't believe in patriarchy

SAF -

I am not sure what you mean by human beings did not evolve the capacity to be 'murderous'.

I know that murder is a legal term which has changed over the years as to who is in the "in group" whose life is protected. I did not mean that a particular legal definition of murder is encoded in our DNA of course.

But human beings have evolved the capacity for intraspecies violence with lethal force (what I mean by "murderousness" - killing others).

If you think this capacity - which is universal across human societies and some primates - isn't the result of evolution I am truly puzzled as where you think it came from?

Hotheadpaisan - I haven't said anything about "not natural" if you mean me?

People defending injustice as part of the status quo etc... say "it is natural. It is unnatural for women to work, vote, lead whatever...." so I understand why feminists take the position in opposition to this.

But I think people take the wrong position in opposition and end up backing themselves into a corner where they are defending the idea that what is natural must be fair and vice versa, which has no basis in fact and as you say is draining and pointless (and unnecessary).

All kinds of things are recognised as natural/human universals but not
good - murder, cancer, taking too much risk, jumping to conclusions, nepotism, in group-outgroup discrimination. You are falling for a fallacy if you fall for the sexists' reasoning about 'natural' being a justification.

The question about political representation is different to the question about participation as policy makers.

Women have equal and fair political representation where their votes count equally, where they have equal access to the ballot in practice and to petition their representatives.

Women MPs do not "represent" women in a political sense. Just as male MPs should not think that they only represent their male constituents.

Women in many countries do not have equal involvement as policy makers and legislaters. This is probably due to the same mechanisms which prevent women reaching the top of many other professions in equal numbers - I.e it is about the glass ceiling and work/ motherhood issues more than equal political representation.

Both questions are important but different.

Hotheadpaisan-

I think it is a huge huge shame that "natural" had become such a loaded word.

But I am not going to erect mental roadblocks to say that trying to understand the world, people and societies in a naturalistic way is forbidden because it might show that there is a justification for oppression or violence or injustice.

There is no justification for oppression, violence or injustice.

There is no reason not to study the nature of human beings.

Hotheadpaisan-

I agree there is no justification.

It is you (and the mysogynists) that are linking natural causes to moral justifications.

There is no link.

So what is the problem with a naturalistic analysis? Why are you pulling me up for talking about a loaded word?

OK, lots of points, will try to be clear and logical.

1. Himalaya, 'patriarchy' is used to describe the current global status quo in which women have lower status than men. How this status quo manifests, varies from culture to culture and over history. However what remains a constant, is women's lower status, male exploitation of women, male control, male power holding and male violence. This is what patriarchy refers to - I prefer the term 'male supremacy' myself because I think it is more descriptive.

Now you may not recognise this state of affairs, or you may think patriarchy is a silly word to describe it. Fair enough. However what makes you think that you can then declare that anyone who politically analyses the current status quo, and has developed a term to describe it, as being comparable to someone who believes in god?

A person who believes in god has abstract faith. A person who recognises the existence of patriarchal society, is doing so based on concrete observation of real women's lived experience. Again, this is unbelievably rude of you to speak of others in this way just because you don't understand. You have had it explained to you over and over again that patriarchy = male dominated society. I'm at an utter loss as to why that is such an abstract and airy fairy concept for you, that the only 'comprehension handle' you have for it is; 'what a bit like god?'. No, it isn't like god when women are being raped, assaulted, mutilated, beaten, killed, imprisoned, trafficked, prostituted, pornified, exploited, oppressed, paid less, enslaved, sexually exploited, taught to submit to male will, under-represented in power structures, etc.

It is a huge fucking human rights travesty.

It is absolutely concrete, physical reality. There is nothing abstract or godlike about the word used to describe this sorry state of affairs. Patriarchy, male supremacy, female oppression, call it what you will. Patriarchy is when girls' feet are bound in China, when girls are genetically mutilated in Africa and the UK, when girls and women are murdered for 'honour' in the UK, Pakistan, India, etc, when rape victims are stoned in Saudi Arabia, when a woman can't get an abortion despite PIV being mandatory, when women are raped, beaten, killed and prostituted the world over. Patriarchy is rape culture, domestic violence, the objectification of women, women as less than human, women working when they are needed for an industrial revolution and becoming Stepford 50s wives when their 'workforce in reserve' is surplus to requirements.

To compare having observed this pattern of human behaviour, and having a word to it, to believing in god, is very very offensive. (No offence to spiritual people - I think it is a pretty offensive comparison to you folks too.)

2. I used patriarchy as encompassing how humans evolve. I think bad punctuation probably meant it read as societies and economies evolve too. IMO societies and economies develop. (Important difference.)

3. Himalaya, I'm confused as to how you are defining 'evolve', 'natural', for the purposes of this discussion. I have already said on this thread, the natural order is neither fair nor unfair - it just is. Your example of humans murdering other humans is not an example of a natural order. An example of natural order would be a lion killing an antelope for the purposes of survival - the killing of the antelope is neither fair nor unfair, neither right nor wrong, it simply is.

Here is the definition of natural order that I use;

natural order - the physical universe considered as an orderly system subject to natural (not human or supernatural) laws.

4. Your answer about political representation is either utterly naive or disingenuous.

it's not contentious or anything other than a statement of fact to say that societies and economics do not 'evolve'. you are comparing apples and oranges which was a mistake made a lot by early hijackers of evolutionary theory.

evolution is a biological process. development of societies and economies are all about choices and arrangements and ways of organising that are chosen - there is no natural process involved in them - it's all man made and therefore none of it is fixed. resistance to change is about power, not nature.

also 'murderous' is not an evolutionary trait - it may well be a social trait connected to the choices made in development/organisation. the only 'natural', 'evolved' element is the flight or flight instinct - a survival response triggered by perceived, immediate danger. wars and genocides are not about an instinct or evolutionary purpose they are about power and choices in the social arrangement.

tbh himalaya it would take writing an essay to look at your questions and it's an essay i wrote many times over as an undergraduate and i'm not being rude when i say i can't be bothered to write it again - i'm just stating a fact because i don't have time to write essays on mn that i'm not gaining ucas points for and i did my first degree in the time of floppy discs so it's not like i can copy and paste

the mistake of seeing societies as evolving or as placed on an evolutionary scale with was a kind of cultural imperialism - a hijacking of evolutionary theory which only applies to biological phenomena to try and say that victorian western society was at the pinnacle of evolution and smaller, 'other' societies were less evolved or 'savage' or 'primitive'. it was an early version of the kind of crappy evo-science crap we see now that tries to naturalise phenomena by applying crazy arsed mis-theory to it.

i don't believe in a golden era when things were wonderful, i don't see us as on a line of evolutionary progress or regression in social terms. i see a set of power relations that then mould social reality to benefit those in power with the status quo. i don't see society as on a straight line going from a to z - it's wiggled and swirled all over the place in whatever way suited those who were benefiting and had the power to steer it.

this isn't about evolution it's about power.

SAF -

I get a bit bored with these discussions too, but I also get that feminism seems to be built on an analysis so divorced from modern biology.

Your arguments are based on an idea of evolution which owes more to Victorian social Darwinism than modern science.

Just about every statement you have made about evolution has been a misunderstanding. Evolution doesn't have a purpose, there is no such thing as "less evolved", there is no such thing as an evolutionary line of progress, there is no evolutionary scale, it doesn't go from A to Z etc...

You are arguing against a folk idea of evolution this one?. (which is the same folk idea of evolution which is used to promote the argument that if sexist patterns of thinking and action have a basis in evolution they must be justified because "evolution = progress" (it doesn't))

It saddens me that feminists buy that argument, rather than understanding evolution and knocking it down.

If you are interested in ideas on how economies evolve I really recommend the book "The Origin of Wealth" by Eric Beinhocker review which summarises a lot of recent research very well. At the very least you should note that it is not a basic and noncontroversial "statement of fact" that economies do not 'evolve'.

Similarly the work of psychologist Daniel Kahneman (Thinking Fast and Slow) who got the Nobel Prize for Economics, which looks at how our economic choices (often irrational ones) are related to natural cognative processes.

The books i mentioned are not fringe ideas, and they are not focused on distinctions or relations between men and women. But they do highlight new fields of work that are uncovering surprising conclusions about how human nature, society and economics interact (which is hugely important for designing policies to meet feminist goals and address injustice, poverty etc..)

In contrast the idea of "the patriarchy" as the singular explanation to everything about the relations between men and women, and society's institutions seems to close down on feminists ability to engage with modern biology, behavioral economics etc.. because it is built an a foundation which sees human beings as not part of nature.

i really don't know what to say in response to you responding to something i did not say at all

it's like gaslighting 101 in here.

SAF - gaslighting? That is a new term to me. Wikipedia says "Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory and perception."

Psychological abuse? WTF?

You said: it's not contentious or anything other than a statement of fact to say that societies and economics do not 'evolve'.

My response: this is not true, there is mainstream research and books about how economies can be understood as evolving. You can disagree with then of course, but your perception of uncontentious fact is wrong.

You said: development of societies and economies are all about choices and arrangements and ways of organising that are chosen - there is no natural process involved in them.

My response: there are people getting Nobel prizes for studying the natural basis of decision making and choices. This is not a fringe idea. Again, you can disagree, but thinking this is a crazy-arsed fringe idea is a mistake.

You described ideas of evolution and society (which you counter) in terms of "evolutionary purpose", "seeing societies on an evolutionary scale", " seeing Western Society as the pinnacle of evolution", "a line of evolutionary progress", " society as on a straight line going from a to z."

I agree, all these ideas are nonsense on stilts. But if you think they are descriptions of concepts in evolution in modern science (progress, pinnacle, purpose, straight line of development etc..) you are mistaken. They are ideas from Victorian social Darwinism and the folk idea of evolution.

Same here.

Your argument is all over the place Himalaya. Could you stop speaking for feminists with patronising strawfeminist phrases like this;

It saddens me that feminists buy that argument, rather than understanding evolution and knocking it down.

And stuff like this;

In contrast the idea of "the patriarchy" as the singular explanation to everything about the relations between men and women, and society's institutions seems to close down on feminists ability to engage with modern biology, behavioral economics etc.. because it is built an a foundation which sees human beings as not part of nature.

a) Nobody has argued the first bit.

b) Therefore second bit is false.

Basically your argument seems to come down to "feminists are a bit thick and cling to a belief in the existence of male dominated society despite evidence and theories which show the contrary". except they don't

Too much cognitive dissonance for me I'm afraid. I just go by the body count.

Feminists refuse to engage in bullshit about social constructs being confused with a natural order. That doesn't mean we are so thick as to think that humans are not part of nature.

Sheesh.

Himalaya, I think your posts make perfect sense.

Beachcomber (this is response to your previous post... Just catching up)

1. I don't mean to cause offence. I was using the analogy to describe how this conversation feels to me, and why we seem to be at an utter loss to understand each other, despite not bring in opposition IMO.

2. See response to SAF

3. For a definition of 'evolve' i would go with - "A process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." (NB good discussion here on how many dictionary definitions are wrong).

It primarily refers to biological evolution where the unit of selection is the gene, but there are good arguments for parallels in the gradual changes in technologies, business models, ways of organising, language, ideas etc...that make up society.

By natural I mean everything really - I don't think there is s clear dividing line where 'nature' stops and an independent domain called 'man-made' takes over.

Having said that I don't think in terms of "the natural order" which has connotations that natural means unchangeable and predetermined. Your definition "natural order - the physical universe considered as an orderly system subject to natural (not human or supernatural) laws." reflects this. Yes the physical universe is orderly at the level of atoms, and we can talk about laws of physics. But at the level of organisms, ecosystems and societies it is much messier and to talk about natural laws as being analogous to human laws or supernatural laws is misleading.

How can you be so sure that the capacity for a lion to kill an antelope is an evolutionary adaptation, but the capacity for a person to kill another person (for resources, for pride, for sexual jealousy whatever) isn't? For things to be evolutionary adaptations doesn't mean everyone has to do them all the time (not sure if this was your reason why not?)

4. Not disenguous. I take a question about political representation to be about political representation, not the representativeness of politicians in respect to the make-up of overall population (both are important questions). I wouldn't say the male population in a dictatorship where the dictator is a man have political representation. Similarly if he dies and his wife takes over I wouldn't say the women gain political representation.

There's all the definitions done.

I think at the core of the disagreement is the different approached to thinking about nature and therefore the logic line that flows from that

You: (if you will allow me to try to summarise) Nature is morally neutral. Patriarchy is wrong. Therefore patriarchy can't be part of nature. Therefore any attempt to describe it in natural terms are attempts to make it appear morally neutral.

Me: There are injustices, suffering and wasted potential in the world. Not every bad outcome is the result of simple oppression and victimhood. Understanding where things have complex causes, including elements of human nature does not justify doing nothing about then but is crucial to better address them.

My argument is that patriarchy (male dominated society/male supremacy/female oppression) exists.

Because I can see it. I can observe it. I can count the number of women damaged and killed by it. I can see with my own eyes how women are killed, maimed, imprisoned, pimped, trafficked, exploited, bought, sold, beaten, assaulted, raped, harassed, subjugated and considered lower status.

And I'm against that. Feminism is against that.

That's all.

You: (if you will allow me to try to summarise) Nature is morally neutral. Patriarchy is wrong. Therefore patriarchy can't be part of nature. Therefore any attempt to describe it in natural terms are attempts to make it appear morally neutral.

What the actual fuck?

You are really pissing me off now.

See above for what my argument actually is.

Himalaya, why didn't you just write;

You; bit thick and simple.

Me; clever and sophisticated.

?

Er, because I don't think that and it would be rude.

Beachcomber

What you said "The natural order argument against feminism, is that the current state of affairs is a natural order, and not one influenced by human laws or intervention.

It is the natural order that men have higher status than women.

The natural order is neither fair nor unfair. It just is.

'Fair' and 'unfair' are human constructs.

It is contradictory to argue that the current state of affairs is the natural order, but concede that it is unfair.
er, and not one influenced by human laws or intervention.

It is the natural order that men have higher status than women.

The natural order is neither fair nor unfair. It just is.

'Fair' and 'unfair' are human constructs.

It is contradictory to argue that the current state of affairs is the natural order, but concede that it is unfair."

I.e you pull up the sexists' argument because you say there is a contradiction in seeing unfairness if there are natural causes.

My point is that the sexists' argument falls apart much earlier. There is no such thing as a "natural order" uninfluenced by human customs, laws or interventions.