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

Why is dittany being brought into this when she isn't posting on the thread?

All the feminists I know define feminism as being a political movement - why single out one particular feminist?

Also I don't think it is right that you speak with authority on what another poster 'puts' and 'infers' etc. especially when they aren't around.

For me it's just a way to explain the system whereby women are not yet equal to men.

larry I accept of course that as a western woman (and a rich educated one at that) I am less oppressed than women in other countries. But I am still not equal.

When will I know that patriarchy has had it's day? When I don't worry about my daughter being raped. When I don't worry about my daughter being subjected to domestic violence. When I don't worry about my daughter not being able to access excellent medical care during her birth. When I don't worry about my daughter hitting the glass ceiling. When I don't worry about my duaghter being sexually harrassed in the work place. When I don't worry about my daughter having less pension than her husband (see today's report on the pension gap in the UK).

Shall I go on?

Beachcomber,

Apologies for singling out a poster. However, if you all agree, what is the issue, what is the real problem? As I am sure you realise, I was thinking back to the thread on a suitable feminist PHD and those posters (Dittany amongst them) who made the point that feminist is political and therefore a thesis which questioned the patriarchy was not feminist.

You do seem to be trying to catch me out , though, rather than addressing the substance of what I have posted. If you feel I have misrepresented her or the general perspective, why not point out how?

So "patriarchy" refers to all of us. It's not a group of people. It's not men. It's a bunch of ideological underpinnings. You have them. I have them. We all have them. It's not a group of white males. It's not a single white male. It's not an organization. It's a whole, deeply entrenched system that informs and shapes how we think, how we interact, how we see each other

Basically society then

Yes. Thats the point isnt it sigmund?

Wordfactory,

I think the comments re rape and domestic violence will never be met due to the differing sizes of men and women and the different nature of their genitalia. Men can be subjected to DV too and other forms of intimidation and, in some cases, can be raped. I don't think any political movement will ever stop criminal behaviour.

As to the "glass ceiling", what real evidence is there that it still exists and is not just a hangover from historical sexism (as per my previous post).

And, as a counter argument, how do I explain to my sons that they are not equal in the world of education as it is structured around tasks where females outperform males? How will I explain to them that, on average, the girl sitting next to them in class will earn more than them until they decide to have children? How do I explain to them that a whole slew of females will regard them as potential predators and rapists and not fit to be around children until they have been vetted?

Patriachy and feminism are social constructs that have a political ideology to them Patriachy as an ideology ahs been around since nomadic tribes settled and started to have property. Patriachy nowadays is a dominent ideology which does not fully inform political sphere however in times of scarcity or challenges patriachy comes to the fore.You can have feminist principles and not acknowledge patriachy if you do not enter the political.

No, I'm not trying to catch you out Larry. I just think it is weird and rude to authoritatively cite a poster who isn't on a thread and then use that as a basis with which challenge an entire movement.

structured around tasks where females outperform males

Why do females outperform males? Is it because we praise little girls for sitting quietly and expect little boys to do more running around, and then we are surprised when boys find it harder to sit still in a classroom?

I wasn't on the phD thread so I have no idea what you are referring to.

Have you checked with dittany if you can cite her in this way?

Larry -- I see where you're coming from, but I think to understand the belief in patriarchy you have to think a bit outside the box.

For instance, you say:

'Where I and a lot of feminists on this board will disagree is whether there should be a cost career-wise in women choosing to take time out for babies. I feel that someone with nine years experience of work (for instance) should statistically earn less than someone with seven years experience.'

That's a pretty logical conclusion coming from the mindset of a system where men traditionally have been the main participants and there was no question of taking time off for having children.

I think in a more feminist system, however, having children would not be seen merely as a personal choice distracting from one's career, but as a vital contribution to the future of society after all, if no one had children, where would we be? Thus, taking a year off for a child would be seen less like a personal holiday and more like a sabbatical not the same work, but an equally valuable contribution that should not be penalised.

At the very least, in a non-patriarchal system, you would not have our current situation where men get 2 weeks of parental leave and women get 9 months! That sets up a structural condition whereby of course women are more likely to stay home and thus suffer in their career.

I don't believe patriarchy is consciously implemented by most men. But there are countless structural conditions that we take for granted that inherently disadvantage women, in many different ways.

There is very little biological difference between girls and boys until they hit puberty. I agree with Trills - we treat them differently, we expect them to behave differently.

like ecclesvet says- i dont think anyone believes in groups of rich old white men sat round making decisions any more

but its covert and mostly subconscious in most decisions that are made. Becoming less and less so as it is pointed out and dragged into the 'conscious'...but still along way to go, no?

Beachcomber,

You are absolutely determined to get into a huge argument about nothing.

Citing someone as an authority is generally considered a compliment. Did I misrepresent her? If not, how on earth is it "rude" or "weird" to cite a frequent and well known poster as an authority on something? If someone did that to me, I would regard it as a compliment.

And, if I either misrepresented her views, or you feel that her views are NOT representative of the movement, why don't you explain to me in what way I have erred?

The whole current work model is set up to fit men. Long hours, presenteeism etc. With today's technology and 24 hour culture there is no reason why it should continue like that - it is possible to build flexibility into many, many jobs.

Porto - Agreed, boys and girls are treated very differently. And of course that shapes who they become as adults

Portofino and Trills,

The concept of a male and female brain is well known and documented and is due to exposure to testosterone in the womb. Even in the book most often cited against this, the professor acknowledges that there are neurological differences but says they are overstated.

Generally, girls do better at project related work and boys at exams under time pressure. Is that due to conditioning or biology? There will be a load of people who will say 100% conditioning but that is VERY hard to prove and the actual science is quite equivocal.

I don't think it is just having children that impacts on the pay gap, although that plays a major part. It is also the idea of women's jobs and men's jobs, with women's jobs valued less and paid less.

larry yes, there will always be criminal behaviour. But when one group is regularly subjected to it by another, then there is a political dimension to it.

It's quite simple really. Men who are not sexist do not subject women to domestic or sexual violence.

And yes, some men are subjected to violence but it is simply not somehting that most parents worry about for their sons. These are random and thankfully rare acts. They are also more easy for men to avoid and free themselves from.

As for the glass ceiling, well sadly it does still exist. Less so, but still there. If my DD and DS decided upon the same career, I wouldn't worry that my DS would find much to prevent him gaining access to the top flight. I would worry that my DD might. Statistics and also personal experience tell me it might. Yes, I can arm her with tools to overcome, but these are tools my DS will in all likelihood not need.

As for boys in education. I do think you have a point that the system seems to discriminate against poor males (certainly not rich ones!). This needs to be addressed.

And boys and vetting. Seriously I do not think this is an issue. Most women do not see men as predatory. I don't. Nor any of the women I know. We accept that there are predators out there. And that most of them are men. But we don't extraploate from that that all men are a risk!

To be honest the whole tone of your post makes me absolutely certain that there is a patriarchy.

As my DH always says some men are opening sexist, at least you know what they are getting. Then there are those who pretend that sexism doesn't exist. These are tthe real wankers!

I'm not determined to get into a huge argument. I'm just pulling you up on your posting etiquette.

Don't (authoritatively) try to tell me what my motivation is.

Citing someone (authoritatively) who is not on a thread in a critical manner, and singling out one poster, when many share their view, is unpleasant.

Have you asked dittany if she thinks it is a compliment? Hang on, I think I will.

Larry, sorry but the idea of a male and female brain is bollocks. This link takes you to an article that explains why the research you cite is rubbish.

biologicaltheoriestrans.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/sexual-hormones-and-the-female-brain/

'The whole current work model is set up to fit men. Long hours, presenteeism etc.'

Of course, this assumes that it is what men want. Well, I don't. I'd like more time at home with my family. This system suits those who put career progression above any close relationships, whether they are male or female.

Portofino,

I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. However, I don't think many men like presenteeism any more than women. Why would a patriarchy impose such an unpleasant thing on themselves?

Dreaming,

"I think in a more feminist system, however, having children would not be seen merely as a personal choice distracting from one's career, but as a vital contribution to the future of society after all, if no one had children, where would we be? Thus, taking a year off for a child would be seen less like a personal holiday and more like a sabbatical not the same work, but an equally valuable contribution that should not be penalised"

I think that is an interesting point. But, in practice, how would it work? You compare it to a sabbatical. I don't know many big careers where people do not pay a penalty for taking a long sabbatical. And, if someone is genuinely more up-to-date and better able to do a job as they have remained at work, are they going to have to report to someone with out of date knowledge and less relevant experience?

I don't believe it exists in the Rad Fem sense of 'something to be overthrown'. It is a modern societal construct used to explain the unequal treatment of men and women. It does not exist in the way that say a Dictatorship, Government or Club or other defined group does and therefore cannot be 'overthrown'.

As a societal construct, it can be changed, but as we are all, male or female inevitably part of society and therefore part of that social construct, it can only be changed from within by correcting the inequalities that lead us to construct the idea in the first place.

Inequality in the workplace, under-punishment of sexual violence against women, attitudes that make many believe that DV is acceptable and therefore punish it less than other types of violence etc etc - these things are real and can be 'overthrown' but 'Patriarchy' is just an umbrella label.

To say 'I blame the patriarchy' or 'It's Patriarchy's fault' as if it is something that exists externally to the person saying it also seems faintly ridiculous to me. You may as well just say 'I blame society' or 'It's society's fault' and we can hardly overthrow society, but we can change it.

The patriarchy is not to blame for inequality, people are - men for their sense of entitlement and superiority, women for putting up with it. Most are not even aware of the subject positions they inhabit. You can't 'overthrow the patriarchy', you can change people and attitudes.

(This is why, although I want all the same things as feminists in terms of equality for women, better rape conviction and punishment, improved attitudes towards violence against women etc, I do not call myself a feminist because I just don't view the idea of patriarchy in the same way that seems to be so central to mainstream feminist ideology)

This is an interesting article re. brain differences.

Also, it's a bit disingenuous to attribute rape/DV to physical characteristics and differences. Rape is hugely influenced by social attitudes toward women and the use of violence.

As an extreme example, look at Bosnia during its war, when it went very quickly from a society with a modest level of sexual violence to a place where tens of thousands of women were raped, even held in 'rape camps'. There was no change in the physical size of men and women, there was a change in men's beliefs as to what they were allowed to do and get away with.

The UK is not at war, but there are all number of social influences porn, adverts, celebrities, the tabloids that facilitate predatory sexual behaviour in some men.

So yes, I believe in a less patriarchal society one that did not genuflect to male sexual preferences, even when degrading to women sexual violence would be reduced. It would be less likely to occur, and perpetrators would be jailed for far longer than they are currently (which given rapists' recidivism, would go a long way to addressing the problem).