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

"Seriously you have nothing better to do with your time and energy? nothing you're passionate about?"

Sure lots. Like most people on MN I am here to chat about things I am interested in in between doing other things.

Beejeezus started the thread with a question mentioning me obliquely so I answered.

I think its kind of a 'shut up' tactic to tell someone who is chatting politely on a forum (like everyone else who is chatting on the forum) that they must be a sad sack with no life for being there. I can't really win with that question other than by shutting up.

Beachcomber

I do not question that violence against women, rape, porn, prostitution, trafficking, domestic abuse, sexual harassment, the glass ceiling, lack of financial power, unequal social status, lack equality for female politicians etc. are serious, real issues, injustices and problems.

I don't defend any of them.

I just don't think the explanation of 'The Patriarchy' is adequate, or consistent with other stuff I believe about how the world works.

I do think it is conspiracy theory territory when people say that by definition, Nobel prize winning work can be dismissed without addressing what it says, as it must be bullshit put there to uphold the patriarchy. I don't think that kind of anti-intellectualism does women any favours.

The Patriarchy is a theory. Theories should be able to be questioned and discussed. It is not rude to discuss a theory.

I see "The Patriarchy" more as a value system than a specific theory, conspiracy or otherwise. It is a value system that conspires to keep women down.

It is, certainly, deliberately invoked on a regular basis by men keeping women down. That doesn't mean they all sit round some kind of patriarchy conference table, devising sexist strategies. It means patriarchal values are employed in decision-making. That happens a lot because patriarchy is a very pervasive value system.

Nothing to believe or not believe.
It's there.
It's been there for centuries.
Shutting one's eyes and screwing up one's ears wont make it go away.

Him - Is it the word patriarchy that is the issue? Because honestly, I agree with Zombie, its like saying you don't believe in racism imo.

The Big Pat is a conspiracy theory?

So, you don't believe that the routine financial, emotional, physical, psychological and sexual oppression of women, both as a singular and as a group, exists, then?

FD - I think if a theory causes someone to think they can dismiss research as bullshit without engaging with its content, but because the the Nobel Prize is part of the patriarchy then yes I think they have entered the conspiracy theory zone.

Don't you?

Or is that ok?

And that's exactly what happened, isn't it?

Misrepresentation of what was said, I think you'll find.

The nobel representation, btw, is organised by the patriarchy, and supported by the patriarchy. But, y'know... It's a conspiracy theory...

Ebal -

I believe in sexism. I believe in "institutional sexism" in parallel with institutional racism - I.e. Where there are specific things about the way organisations and laws opperate which create sexist and discriminatory outcomes.

I believe in patriarchy - rule of families by fathers, and the laws that support that (in countries where it does)

I don't believe in The Patriarchy theory as the overarching explanation for these things.

Going back to your parallel. The patriarchy has been defined here as = male supremacy. I don't think all forms of racism are explained by a belief in white supremacy. And I don't think all problems experienced by non white groups are explained by White supremacy. Even in a country like South Africa where white supremacy was the problem, its legacy means dealing with patterns in industry, education, infrastructure etc...which mean you can't just keep saying 'we are fighting white supremacy'.

I think the parallel with racism is useful. But the major difference is that sexual differences go back much further than racial ones and women (at least in terms of the survival of their children) benefited from patriarchal family relations just as much (actually moreso) than men. But we don't live in the same harsh environment that we evolved in, so it's no justification to continue that way.

Him - So just to be clear, I think you are saying you believe in patriarchy, but not that it is the explanantion for all inequality. Am I right?

I don't think anyone doesn't think 'overcoming the patriarchy' is very complicated and will involve involved changes to infrastructure and institutions etc

What do you think people who 'believe in the patriarchy' think is the solution? Are you objecting because you think it is short sighted and people aren't looking at the solution enough?

Frothy dragon

So now I have to search back to see what was said and whether I am misrepresenting, thus proving SAF's point that I have nothing better to do.

Me (Sun 10-Jun-12 22:59:28): 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.

SAF (Mon 11-Jun-12 09:57:07): you are applying a biological term and process to non biological 'things'. and yes they'll win nobel prizes for theories that support the idea of the status quo being natural and good and some evolved state ffs. who do you think doles out these prizes and grants and accolades???

Me (Mon 11-Jun-12 11:19:40): Have you read any of Daniel Kahneman? How do you come to the conclusion that his work exploring the irrational ways humans make decisions about risk is about 'supporting the idea of the status quo being natural and good'?

(and just by the way, in case anyone misreads I don't think that natural =good)

Then a bit later

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

No one popped up there and said ?don?t be daft Himalaya, no one said that'

I still am bemused as to why the system 1/system 2 stuff is classed as a theory that supports the idea of the status quo being natural and good. I didn't get that from my reading of it at all.

**

This is one of my pet hates on MN

so rude

Himalaya we are having a discussion about patriarchy (ie how men dominate women and use power structures and institutionalised power to do so).

You mentioned two books - both written by white men, both about a massively male dominated area; the economy.

Both of which appear to be presenting an 'evolutionary/natural' theory about the economy, and doing so from a male perspective.

The global economy is very very clearly a patriarchal power structure. I don't doubt the books you have read are clever and complex but surely you can see why feminists might snort at a man being awarded a Nobel prize for writing about a male dominated power structure? Jolly good for Kahneman, no doubt he is very clever - his theories and writings don't change the fact that society is male dominated however.

I believe in sexism. I believe in "institutional sexism" in parallel with institutional racism - I.e. Where there are specific things about the way organisations and laws opperate which create sexist and discriminatory outcomes.

I believe in patriarchy - rule of families by fathers, and the laws that support that (in countries where it does).

I don't believe in The Patriarchy theory as the overarching explanation for these things.

Eh? You what? Come again?

What is 'The Patriarchy theory' when it is at home?

There is no 'The Patriarchy theory' in feminism. There is just observation of institutionalised sexism and male dominance (rule of fathers or legacy of), and by consequence, protest against it.

Are we back to Feminists Must Not Use Figures of Speech again? Does all this just come down to you don't really 'get' it when feminists wryly use rhetorical devices?

Economic evolution is the result of three interlinked processes: Physical Technology; Social Technology (e.g. the rule of law, money, venture capitalism) and business designs, which turn physical and social technologies into economic reality. In each of them ?evolution is at work, churning through possible designs, finding and amplifying ones that work, discarding those that don?t, and thereby creating the order that we see in our technological, social and economic worlds.?

I haven't read the book but I sort of figured that this was the sort of thing it would be about. (From you link Himalaya).

This sounds to me like evolutionary economics, best mate of evolutionary psychology.

my point wasn't that you have nothing to do or are a 'sad sack' - but nice twisting and melodrama.

my point... well short of repeating what i already wrote and you chose to misinterpret....

not much point is there.

and no i didn't say what you said i said about the nobel prize either unsurprisingly. it's reductive and frankly childish to twist people's words into pathetic charicatures of nonsense.

however consider that obama got the nobel fucking peace prize. you think that was down to achievement? something he actually did? or politics and power backing?

Can I go back to larrygrylls' point about women losing the gender pay gap and doing better at university?

I think for me it is illustrative that you are talking about women aged 20 - 29. The average now for a woman to have her first child is 29. I think you can only really start talking about the balance being redressed when women in the 29+ age group start closing the gender pay gap. When it starts to become possible to balance a career and family and both sexes play an equal part, you might start to make real inroads into male privilege.

But as others have pointed out, it is obviously also about more than money and educational opportunities, though these are important.

Sorry, I realise that the discussion has moved on, and I am behind here...

Actually, I'm going to stick up a bit for Kahneman here, because I think Himalaya's description referring to 'natural cognitive processes' makes him sound like he has a certain agenda, which I don't think he does (I have not read his books but have come across his arguments a lot in my work). Behavioural economics is not the same as 'evolutionary economics' or anything social darwinistic, it is simply trying to make sense of perceived irrationality in human decision-making. As such it's actually a direct challenge to the existing orthodoxy, which presumes people make economic (and other) choices on a purely rational, cost-benefit, universal basis. It does not just look at psychological tendencies but broader social contexts as well.

A more interesting case (to me) is Duflo and Banerjee's work with 'Poor Economics', which is directly challenging the status quo by encouraging a focus on what people in developing countries think and what they actually want, instead of just having technocrats in western countries give out aid for projects they think will be useful.

Anyway I don't really think it has much place in this discussion, but just wanted to point out that behavioural economics can actually be a good vehicle for understanding the effects of patriarchy, as it would help reveal women's coping mechanisms for living in an unequal system.

Haven't read the thread but of COURSE I believe in patriarchy!

ok dreaming - thanks for letting us know that kahneman was just being misrepresented like the rest of us. funny that