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

Dreaming Bohemian -

I don't think my description of Kahneman did misrepresent. I agree with your description - it is just a bit longer.

'natural cognitive processes' means studying how people make decisions.

I don't see how that description is misrepresenting him or making it seem like he has 'a certain agenda'.

SAF -

I really don't want to derail this thread any further but went back and cut and paste the text because I was accused of misrepresenting the conversation.

Beachcomber -

I don't think its a good idea to snort at ideas without reading them just because the race and sex of the person who wrote them.

I believe that economics can alter the patriarchal structure of our societies - all of them, because there is no 'society' without 'economics' if you accept the broadest & basic interpretation of those words (and ignore Mad Thatcher's!)

Of course economics are organic & evolutionary. They're no more than a reflection of how a society works, its values and its priorities. Studying economics affords insights into those values and priorities. They change over time and location. Ownership represents power. Changes which alter the balances of power alter the society that contains them. Change can be effected from within an extant economy because economies are organic; the exceptions are totalitarian states that have removed the element of 'expression' from their economies - those are static for as long as the controlling authority prevents change.

Psychology, sociology and philosophy have an important place in studies of economics. It's impossible for an economy to operate without them. It's ridiculous, imo, to dismiss studies of how those interactions take place.

This may look, to some, like a defence of capitalism against communism (I am a capitalist) but, in fact, my most pressing concern at the moment is that our own economy in the UK is being converted to a totalitarian regime by stealth. If this happens, women will be stuffed

Ok Himalaya, it seems that you don't see why feminists might snort at white male dominated institutions, awarding prizes to white males, who write about white male dominated power structures, from a white male perspective.

No. Feminists just snort because they are sexist and racist. Nothing to do with being a bit sick of constantly being asked to consider white male perspectives of white male dominated power structures.

I still do not have a clue what all these books by white men about white male power structures are bringing to a discussion from a feminist perspective on women being dominated and controlled by white make power structures.

I am reading this at the moment The Role of Patriarchy and the Political Economy in Wartime Sexual Violence: The Case of the Democratic Republic of Congo which has a jolly interesting analysis.

No international system represents a ?natural? ordering of society, and both patriarchy and the global political economy require substantial input from its stakeholders. Patriarchy is maintained in large part by the structures and institutions it has constructed for the purpose of socialising patriarchy as an acceptable order of human relationships. Patriarchal institutions rely on hegemonic masculinity to enforce the order and both men and women?s participation within it. Patriarchy also reinforces itself through its incorporation into other forms of social organisation, including race, ethnicity, and class (Leatherman 2011: 7). One mode of social organisation particularly relevant to this study is economic organisation. Patriarchy has constructed and contributed to a system wherein men are afforded many advantages from women?s social position and associated roles (MacKinnon 1989: 93). Notions of masculinity and femininity are constitutive of how jobs are valued in society. That economic value is so closely linked to social values of masculinity and femininity makes the intersection of the study of gender relations and international political economy especially important.
Economic relations and competition do not function in isolation from other structures of power and domination. Questioning what functions of power are at work and who is in control of those functions exposes the relationship between patriarchy and economic dominance. Capitalism is a patriarchal institution and, according to some feminists, the economic mode of patriarchy (Vaughan 2002). This is because the same behaviours and characteristics are rewarded in each system ? aggression, competition, and domination. Both capitalism and patriarchy work to construct social stratification, and in both systems women are predominantly at the low end of the hierarchy. Recent feminist literature on masculinities has identified the way in which patriarchy prioritises hegemonic masculinity above not only femininity, but also over all other masculinities. This works through capitalism by financially and economically rewarding those who exhibit traits of hegemonic masculinity, which translates not only into economic power, but also social and cultural power.

That's good, Beach. Thanks for posting it.

Beachcomber, I agree with most of what you say, but I think ideas should be dismissed based on their content, not the identity of the author. Plenty of white men have useful ideas to contribute to our understanding of inequality and women's rights today.

Your paper for example concludes that patriarchy alone does not explain mass rape in the DRC. You also need to look at IPE, which is positively ridden with white male authors.

It would be bonkers to reject information on the basis that it comes from somebody whose life experience is different from yours! If I want to learn Polish, I'll choose a teacher who speaks Polish brilliantly and English well enough to communicate with me ... I wouldn't insist they must be a fellow native English speaker

patriarchy prioritises hegemonic masculinity above not only femininity, but also over all other masculinities

Beach's quote supports my view that patriarchy isn't as simple as sexism. Sexism is its primary weapon but there's more to it than that. Also, it's extremely possible for a woman to be patriarchal - as often noted on Mumsnet and exemplified by some of the more repulsively powerful women throughout history.

Beach,

Your quote (above) is merely someone expressing a perspective, with zero data or logical argument to back it up. It may be true, it may not. It is like me saying with huge authority that crisps are mainly to blame for heart attacks, citing zero (bar maybe the flimsiest anecdotal) evidence. It could well be true but equally it might not be, or it could be a small part of a larger and more interesting truth. Whichever apply, my stating it would just be meaningless hot air and adds nothing to a discussion on heart disease.

Kahneman, on the other hand, whom she dismisses in an airy sentence, is not really writing about economics at all, he is writing about neurological pathways and decision making processes. All his conclusions are backed up by solid experimental evidence and backed up by a large appendix of supporting papers. As it happens, were she to read the book, she would realise that it makes no comment on the patriarchy or men's versus women's roles and, if anything, it would probably favour some of her arguments (as he says that we are instinctively too comfortable with status quos rather than trying to change it). Where I and Himalaya have cited Kahneman is in saying that, once one has a theory one is comfortable with, one is instinctively drawn to supporting evidence and less likely to engage with anything that challenges it.

dreamingbohemian, I'm not dismissing Kahneman's ideas.

I'm saying I'm unclear on what they have to do with feminist observation that we live in male dominated society.

I also noted that as a woman, I'm a bit tired of being told 'here read this' and it be a recommendation to read a book written by a man about male power structures. (Not particularly on this thread, in general.)

I see Kahneman's theories being used here to accuse feminists of cherry picking and clinging to a belief. Surely it is perfectly obvious that people are keener on evidence that bolsters their views than evidence that doesn't? Having said that, surely it is perfectly obvious that we live in male dominated society and that there is no need to selectively pick and choose evidence on the subject - one just has to use one's eyes.

Your quote (above) is merely someone expressing a perspective, with zero data or logical argument to back it up.

Right. Larry.

What was Kahneman's idea again?

Does he expand on it by describing how people often dismiss ideas, by making rather silly comparisons about assertions that the moon is made of cheese or crisps are to blame for heart attacks? I'm sure there is a name for this phenomenon. Seems like it would be right up his street.

And who is 'she', the cat's mother?

neurological pathways are made not born. they're socially conditioned if you like.

Why are you arguing about Kahneman?

Basically larry you keep asserting that people are unlikely to/ uncomfortable with revisiting their opinions.

And?

Gotcha Beach -- I see where you're coming from

Larry, did you even look at the paper Beach linked to? It's a solid academic article, I can't begin to fathom how you can say it's not supported by data or logical argument. The author even did field research in the DRC. There's pages of supporting papers cited.

The problem I have with the 'favouring one's story' argument is that it covers all manner of sins. You can be lazy and not even look at evidence right in front of you and then say, 'hey it's not me, it's my cognitive biases'.

Beachcomber

I do see why feminists might be tempted to snort at research by white men. But I think it is a mistake for the same reason as Dreaming. Why exclude yourself from engaging with the content of a ton of areas of knowledge and inquiry that have been and still are male dominated - science, technology, maths, medicine, economics etc...?

If a teacher at school had told me that all that stuff isn't for girls I would have been . I don't think feminism should tell women and girls the same thing.

As to your question about why it could possibly be relevant to our discussion about The Patriarchy - the Patriarchy is a theory for explaining a whole host of historical, economic, psychological and political phenomena, to me that means all kinds of other stuff we know and think and learn about these fields are obviously potentially relevant as they are both trying to understand and explain the same subject: people.

Of For The Love Of God.

I am not snorting at the research/books/writing. I am not excluding myself from engaging, I am not telling girls stuff is not for them. How rude. Again.

I'm not snorting at all actually.

I am suggesting that feminists might snort at "white male dominated institutions, awarding prizes to white males, who write about white male dominated power structures, from a white male perspective."

Is it so very difficult to understand my posts Himalaya? Is the above sentence in bold (a direct quote of what I said earlier) unclear or obscure in some way?

Quite honestly I'm getting a bit tired of how you seem to put things through a special filter that transforms them just ever so slightly in order to make them look a bit irrational and ever so slightly barmy.

Which is a shame. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about the insidious and pervasive nature of patriarchal culture. I think it could be interesting to discuss why lots of people don't wish to see that we live in a patriarchal society - or certainly prefer not to have it discussed.

But all this strawfeminist crap and veering off into every subject under the sun, apart from how patriarchy manifests, is just as tedious as fuck.

Beachcomber -

I think we are talking past each other because we have such different frames of reference.

I said Beachcomber -I don't think its a good idea to snort at ideas without reading them just because the race and sex of the person who wrote them.

You said - Ok Himalaya, it seems that you don't see why feminists might snort at white male dominated institutions, awarding prizes to white males, who write about white male dominated power structures, from a white male perspective.

No. Feminists just snort because they are sexist and racist. Nothing to do with being a bit sick of constantly being asked to consider white male perspectives of white male dominated power structures.

... Which I took to be an answer to the question I asked.

.....I didn't say anything about feminists being sexist and racist.

Anyway, I brought up the books - way near the beginning of the thread as what I thought was a constructive contribution to a debate in which SAF had said that it is a fact that economies don't evolve, and biology has nothing to say on economics, and I wanted to point out that there are other respected opinions on that question, so it may not be as much of a fact as she thinks it is.

Anyway, I guess I'll think twice about recommending something that I think is interesting and relevant next time after the reaction that got. It certainly didn't feel like an open minded (or frankly even polite) engagement with ideas.

I

I

Himalaya, please don't think twice about sharif your viewpoint, I for one, find your posts interesting.

Himalaya keep posting.

The thing I really don't get about The Patriarchy as an explanatory theory is how it explains difference accross countries.

I mean there is a spectrum in how good/bad it is to be a woman in different countries from the most oppressive to the fairly enlightened (with room to improve everywhere).

When you look at the indexes that are put together on this by The UN and the World Economic Forum which put together data on a whole lot of things that we all agree matter - women's health, political participation, education, employment, wage equality etc... Its not a huge surprise which countries come out on top, the Scandinavians, with the rest of Western Europe trailing, followed by North America and Japan, Eastern Europe, Asia and then Africa with Middle Eastern countries and failed states/conflict states coming last.

The thing is this is pretty much the same order you get when you look at most other international rankings e.g. of human development or economic competitiveness. Their are a few outliers - Lesotho scores highly, the US pretty poorly compared to their economic rating, but mainly countries that generally have their shit together on things that might be considered important to the patriarchy, like economic competitiveness, also do relatively better at women's human rights and economic empowerment. Countries where women's health and human rights are poor are generally not so nice to live in full stop (and its not like loads of men are moving there).

If patriarchy equates to power, I would have thought there would be a relationship between the most powerful and successful countries (who would have the most 'effective' patriarchies) and the ones where the patriarchy is most successful at keeping women down. Instead it is the other way round.

Dittany -

I didn't ask anyone here to 'consider white male perspectives'.

I offered two recommendations of books that I thought were relevant to a particular point in the discussion because of their content.

Nobody said, 'thanks that interesting', or 'I disagree with what he says because of xyz' or 'I haven't seen that book tell me more'.

I guess plenty ignored it, which is absolutely fine.

Those people who did respond to the book recommendations pulled me up because they were written by white men, or dismissed them on a cursory reading of a blurb 'because it looks like a cousin of evo psych' (not direct quote, but I can't be bothered to go find it - so shoot me).

I extrapolated from this that those folks (and others who didn't say 'wait a sec') think that this is a normal and reasonable to respond to a bit of content that someone has brought to a debate.

I don't. I think it is constricting.