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

STBXP?

Stuff The Blood Ex Partner?

I've found that often women who minimise patriarchy/inequality are themselves working in or otherwise immersed in very male-dominated environments (indeed, Eclectic noted this was the case for her earlier).

I think for some of these women there's an element of: I've succeeded in this male world, so you could you if you would stop whinging. It becomes a matter of pride, consciously or not. In a way, it's almost a sense of misguided idealism: they have found a small world where men and women appear equal and they think this is how it could be for everybody, if they just tried hard enough.

FWIW I have worked in two very different male-dominated environments: my current one, where I haven't experienced anything unfortunate, and a previous one where I was overtly sexually harassed all the freaking time. I was the same person acting the same way in both cases. I think it's mostly down to luck what kind of male office culture you get in these cases.

Sorry, back on topic.

SAF, that makes a lot of sense; we're not all oppressed to the same level, but the level of oppression we experience narrows our "life chances", as my old sociology teacher used to call it. So, the less oppression we feel, the more likely we are to believe we're in a meritocracy (a society based on a reward system) which leads to the "I could escape the patriarchy, I'm comfortable where I am, and why should that change?" attitude. They fear that changing the level of oppression the "little people" experience will have a knock on effect to the level of oppression they experience.

Stupid (unfeminist term beginning with T) bloody ex partner, EBAL.

I do think some of it is 'I'm alright Jackism'.

And some of it is 'I'm alright Jackism + cognitive dissonance'.

And some of it is just plain cognitive dissonance as a survival mechanism.

Soon-To-Be Ex Partner, in Relationships parlance

All alternatives suggested above equally accurate.

Ahem, sorry... will need to find another alliteration (have I got the right word?) for him.

^EclecticShock Mon 11-Jun-12 20:48:18
Wasabi, have you thought that thy might be making their decisions based on anything other then your sex?^

Yes. most clients/prospects seem largely rational. these ones seem to be searching for any reason not to use my co & use the other one.

and the other woman in the meeting is the internal expert.

of course they might not perceive themselves as acting against women. they might just be a group of people who overvalue their own expertise and underestimate the experience and knowledge of others but while men hold unequal power that is still patriarchy.

I find the idea that business decisions are always made on logic a bit laughable tbh. Yes they should be. But often they are not.

i work in the construction/engineering industry

i dont experience sexism or prejudice

I often find myself fuming and thinking out loud, that the industry would be much more efficient if more women worked in it. I have to check this thinking I realise because it assumes female and male attributes are inheretly different

-that said, I DO think this to a certain extent shoot me-- (i just dont think it is set in stone, and i dont think any are superior or more important or valuable)

anyway...there is a massive 'blame culture'. I spent a disproportionate amount of time on 'arse covering' and it is definitely competitive instead of cooperative. I blame the inefficiencies on the patriarchy; how business has developed over time, being male dominated. I often find female colleagues (when I come across them) to be much less defensive, if a problem is encountered....

EBL...i would say tactical, not logical

...and you all have to be playing the same game, for those tactics to be successful......and whos game is that???

I have just started reading "Eve was Framed". It is most interesting. I would say Helena Kennedy most definitely believes in Patriarchy....

I agree I am sure there we all defend/don't question things that on the whole benefit ourselves. At the same time there is also a tendency to defend a theory that is part of your identity/education/standing in a group.

I see this in climate change - companies and people whose jobs have the most to loose because they are fossil fuel based tend to be most skeptical about the science. Traditional environmental campaigners tend to underplay uncertainty and the relative cost of taking different actions.

i said largely logical not logical .

may be a better way of waying it, is 'some sort of logic'.

i can go for ages & not think i experience sexism but then something happens & while i dont know the contents of other peoples minds, it i were a gambling person i would put money on it...

Himalaya,

It is natural to see facts which fit into our theories and deny those that don't. It is called cognitive ease and uses what some psychologists call "system 1". It feels intuitively right and therefore we don't engage "system 2" and analyse it in depth. I am just reading "Thinking Fast and Slow" which is a fascinating exposition on how people make decisions.

For instance if I say that in the UK women perform better in education and in the first 10 or so years of their careers, people who can only see the patriarchy at work will either try to deny it or fit it in with that theory. They won't see it as new evidence which may discredit the theory and analyse it rationally (at which point they may revert to their original theory or may have to come up with a new one). The anger that greets the above statement is a good example of cognitive dissonance. People are forced to make effort and engage "system 2" which annoys them.

Equally, I am sure that if someone comes up with facts that show that the patriarchy is alive and kicking in the UK today, I will try to discredit it and become annoyed, as it disagrees with my internal ideas.

It is really hard to be objective (for anyone)!

Okay Larry, I've got my 'system 2' hat on

If you'd like me to rationally analyse your new evidence, I'm afraid I need more specifics or some cites. It's usually at that level that evidence falls apart, not sweeping generalisations.

Watch out: the patriarchy is striking back. At least one in every three women will be beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.

('The patriarchy is striking back' is a figure of speech - a common rhetorical device that seems to create confusion when feminists use it.)

Across the world, the statistics on violence against women are horrifying. According to the UN, at least one in every three women will be beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime; the organisation describes violence against women as "a universal problem of epidemic proportions" and "perhaps the most pervasive human rights violation that we know today". The British Government suggests that domestic violence is the largest cause of morbidity worldwide in women aged 19-44, causing more deaths and ill health than war, cancer or traffic accidents.

intersectionality?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1493307-Taking-a-child-with-a-disability-to-a-brothel

Forgive the hair diversion It was the middle of the night! I'll catch up now.

bejeezus - Agreed and I think it is still a feminist issue

you all have to be playing the same game, for those tactics to be successful......and whose game is that???

Incisive point. The observation is true in all groups - it's perfectly possible for a feminist woman to fall out with a feminist organisation due to differing operational approaches. But, on the grand scale, the game is skewed in favour of men and of patriarchal bis - which are not always the same thing.

Even the feminist organisation would not exist without patriarchy. Women-led organisations would be less judgemental of women on appearance without a patriarchal context. Patriarchy favours the "win-lose" game paradigm, which is the cause of blame culture. It's so strong that the more sensible "win-win" strategy meets widespread resistance at every level. Yet win-win is miles more efficient; you only really need to beat your opponent if the opponent is a sociopath.

Patriarchy, by my (highly system 2, despite the rambledom of this post) evaluation, is a sociopathic institution. Therefore it needs to be superceded. Patriarchy is not the institution of men but, as it favours men over women, is sexist and is vehemently supported by more men than women.

As to whether patriarchy is better attacked from within or outside its own parameters - well, I wasn't too impressed by Mrs Thatcher's effort at playing the game to beat it. I would like to know more about how the women presidents in Latin America operate, as they seem to take a more balanced approach, and I gather Frau Merckel does as well.

There are plenty of male 'win-win' proponents, too, btw. If win-win wins out (heh) in the end, there should be a decline in sexism because of the diminished need for a handy loser at every turn.

• patriarchal bis = failed deletion. Was patriarchal bias

Larry Grylls -

I agree. We all defend our current stories, but we can try to switch our system 2s on.

I mentioned "Thinking Fast and Slow" upthread and was told it was bollocks and and that Daniel Kahneman must be a defender of the patriarchal status quo to have been given a Nobel prize.