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

" Oh there may be a few pockets of patriarchy lurking in the shadows?
...

Seriously? You reckon patriarchy's in its final moment? Blimey! Can I come and live where you live?

ha, I assumed mrsrantsalot was on a wind up there. Surely?!?

There is no 'patriarchy theory'. Patriarchy isn't a 'theory'. Indeed it is very odd to talk about a concrete reality as a theory. Almost dissociative.

Discussions about the origins of patriarchal society are theoretical (and therefore a bit academic).

This quote and link (thanks Ethel!) is from the other thread - the one talking about sexuality. I think the entire essay is relevant to this thread but in particular this bit;

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence by Adrienne Rich.

Characteristics of male power include the power of men:

1. to deny women [our own] sexuality

[by means of clitoridectomy and infibulation; chastity belts; punishment, including death, for female adultery; punishment, including death, for lesbian sexuality; psychoanalytic denial of the clitoris; strictures against masturbation; denial of material and postmenopausal sensuality; unnecessary hysterectomy; pseudolesbian images in media and literature; closing of archives and destruction of documents relating to lesbian existence];

1. or to force it [male sexuality] upon them

by means of rape (including marital rape) and wife beating; father-daughter, brother-sister incest; the socialization of women to feel that male sexual "drive" amounts to a right,(15) idealization of heterosexual romance in art, literature, media, advertising, and so forth; child marriage; arranged marriage; prostitution; the harem; psychoanalytic doctrines of frigidity and vaginal orgasm; pornographic depictions of women responding pleasurably to sexual violence and humiliation (a subliminal message being that sadistic heterosexuality is more "normal" than sensuality between women)];

1. to command or exploit their labor to control their produce

[by means of the institutions of marriage and motherhood as unpaid production; the horizontal segregation of women in paid employment; the decoy of the upwardly mobile token woman; male control of abortion, contraception, and childbirth; enforced sterilization; pimping, female infanticide, which robs mothers of daughters and contributes to generalized devaluation of women];

1. to control or rob them of their children

[by means of father-right and "legal kidnapping";(16) enforced sterilization; systematized infanticide; seizure of children from lesbian mothers by the courts, the malpractice of male obstetrics; use of the mother as "token torturer"(17) in genital mutilation or in binding the daughter's feet (or mind) to fit her for marriage];

1. to confine them physically and prevent their movement

[by means of rape as terrorism, keeping women off the streets; purdah, foot-binding; atrophying of women's athletic capabilities; haute couture, "feminine" dress codes; the veil; sexual harassment on the streets, horizontal segregation of women in employment; prescriptions for "full-time" mothering; enforced economic dependence of wives];

1. to use them as objects in male transactions

[use of women as "gifts," bride-price; pimping; arranged marriage; use of women as entertainers to facilitate male deals, for example, wife-hostess, cocktail waitress required to dress for male sexual titillation, call girls, "bunnies," geisha, kisaeng prostitutes, secretaries];

1. to cramp their creativeness

[witch persecutions as campaigns against midwives and female healers and as pogrom against independent, "unassimilated" women;(18) definition of male pursuits as more valuable than female within any culture, so that cultural values become embodiment of male subjectivity, restriction of female self-fulfillment to marriage and motherhood, sexual exploitation of women by male artists and teachers; the social and economic disruption of women's creative aspirations;(19) erasure of female tradition];(20) and

1. to withhold from them large areas of the society's knowledge and cultural attainments

[by means of noneducation of females (60 percent of the world's illiterates are women~; the "Great Silence" regarding women and particularly lesbian existence in history and culture;(21) sex-role stereotyping that deflects women from science, technology, and other "masculine" pursuits; male social/professional bonding that excludes women; discrimination against women in the professions]

These are some of the methods by which male power is manifested and maintained. Looking at the schema, what surely impresses itself is the fact that we are confronting not a simple maintenance of inequality and property possession, but a pervasive cluster of forces, ranging from physical brutality to control of consciousness, that suggests that an enormous potential counterforce is having to be restrained.

"am guessing that my understanding of the facts of the matter are much the same as yours - marriage was a way of controlling women's fertility, a wife was seen as part of a husband's property (and her father's before that) therefore rape was seem as a property crime against the man rather than a crime against the woman. Therefore there was no concept of rape within marriage. ...is that right?"

I think marriage came about due to the unnaturally long infancy of homo sapiens. There needed to be a system where people paired up where one provided food and safety and the other could focus on the children. Before modern technology (which is incredibly recent both genetically and societally) it made sense for the physically stronger member to protect and provide and the physically weaker to nurture. Hence you get a "patriarchal" structure.

Of course, there are other possible ways of arranging the above. But pair bonding is (or certainly was) the most effective at providing safety and food for children. Of course, were there no other men in the world, maybe an element of that safety would not have been required, but men did have other uses and any sophisticated animal needs two sexes.

The above is what a lot of people would deride as an "evo psych fairytale" but unless you deny evolution completely, why would the brain not be susceptible to the same evolutionary forces as any other part of the body. Of course, people can invent other societal organisations where you do not get pair bonding and division of labour but there are not many which can be observed either amongst animals or people.

Larry -

I think broadly the gist of what you're saying is right (i.e. the link to long human infancy), but I think you are falling trap of mixing up evolutionary rationale and design thinking, (at least in the way you are expressing it...)

e.g. 'unaturally long infancy' ...unusual, not unatural.

'there needed to be a system' ....no - the arrangement that tended to result in the most surviving offspring was one in which.....

'men did have other uses'...things don't evolve because they have uses to the species or the community etc...

'sophisticated animals need two sexes'....ditto.

So you still end up with a kind of folk evolution, and an argument that still starts with 'men were stronger and women weaker' as the starting point, rather than looking at the evolutionary pressures which might have led both women and men who had stronger sons to leave more descendents, as part of the overall pathway.

I do think that evolutionary psychology makes sense - as you say, brains evolved.

But i do think there is a danger of falling into or being accused of telling fairy tails whenever we say something that says 'this major evolutionary adaptation happened (long infancy) and then this social arrangement evolved to cope with it (pair bonding).'.....it is a sort of mental short hand, but it isn't an accurate representation how changes in physiology, behavior and social phenomena happen through teeny-tiny steps over millions of years - because they led to those individuals having more surviving descendents rather than because they were needed or useful.

Himalaya,

My post was quickly constructed with two small children by my feet.

I think your corrections are broadly more accurate, although I don't think they change the gist of my argument. Clearly, one thing did not evolve and then the other, they evolved in tandem. And, yes, maybe needed and useful have a moral weight which I did not intend. More surviving descendents is indeed more accurate.

Still, I am not sure that it changes the thrust of my argument.

Thanks for the corrections, though. :)

Larry, there is no evidence whatsoever for that "women nurture, men provide" model of early Man. It was an assumption made by Victorian anthropologists/archaeologists, to whom it seemed obvious.

Re: evo psych - what is the point of it? And how is it not pure speculation? That's an honest question - I really can't see what value there is in it. Does it in any way help to fight injustice?

Proles, I am interested in what I think you term evolutionary psychology. We are all everything we ever have been, in our physical and mental structures, so understanding 'what we have been' helps us understand what we are: both individually and as societies.

Them Victorians did a lot of damage by applying their constructed values to their foundational discoveries! It's not their fault, though. The problem is the strength of contemporary desire to hold onto their values.

Larry, the problem with that argument (among others) is:

1. It's a very limited view of traditional societies -- women are not just taking care of children, they are also involved in food production, they would have important roles as healers, etc.

1. Even if a certain division of labour is inevitable, why is it that the male roles came to be seen as more important? Such that they should rule society?

This to me is the limitation of evo psych stuff, sure go on and theorise about gender differences but I don't think there is anything in human neurological development that makes the higher valuation of male contributions to society inevitable.

Dreaming -

I think one key reason why activities that are not associated with reproduction/raising children became more influential and are seen as more important is that they are amenable to efficiency gains, so if one sex has has more time and freedom to concentrate on that other stuff they will tend to get accumulate more resources and that then translates into power.

Try this thought experiment to see what I mean:

A man and a woman with low technology work together to farm a field (or hunt, or gather or fish or whatever you like, it doesn't matter). They are equal in every respect.

They both produce 10 tonnes/year from their labour. Then she gets pregnant. So she has to take a bit of time off, carries the baby around while working, breast feeds etc....so the next year he produces 10 tonnes again and she produces 8 plus a baby.

But they are very fair and equal and he says I'll give you one tonne to make it fair because the baby is 1/2 my responsibility.

Then the next year someone invents a better hoe, so they can produce 20/tonnes each in the same time.

Next time she gets pregnant he produces 20 tonnes and she produces 16 plus a baby. The baby isn't any more or less work than the last one, but this time he would have to give her 2 tonnes to make things fair. The hoe has given him more advantage than it gave her (and perhaps he is therefore willing to pay more for it, and starts saying 'its my hoe', why do you need more of my grain this time etc...)

One of the main things that characterises humans is continually inventing stuff. On the other hand modern parenthood is no more efficient than ancient parenthood - it still takes 9 months etc...plus 16 + years of care, so if members of one sex do more of the parenting it gives members of the other more time and incentive to benefit from efficiency gains elsewhere.

By the way, before anyone jumps on me I'm not saying it happened like that -
I'm just answering dreaming's question about why 'male' (or productive vs reproductive) contributions to society might be valued differently, with a thought experiment.

YY, Himalaya, and that is one of the most intractable problems of feminism. When I were a lass, it was thought (in a not-very-well-thought-out way) that free childcare for all would resolve the inequalities imposed by child birthing and rearing. Clearly things are both more complicated and more interesting than that. The proposal still laid the responsibility for childcare at women's feet - and, arguably, led to the impossible ambition for women to "have it all".

Since getting older, more experienced, and gaining a good functional understanding of wider issues like economics & social structures, I've become an advocate of altered working practices and radical restructuring. I even believe it will happen. "My" generation's feminism probably contributed to this possibility as, back then, few men would have considered themselves desirous of more involvement with childcare. People do become aware of the potentials of change; it just takes ... a ... long ... time.

I'm with proles -its all very interesting, but how we ended up in this state is really neither here nor there- it doesn't change what it is now

My understanding of marriage is it's always tied to inheritance, passing wealth from one generation to the next legally. Property and titles are passed via the male blood line, hence they continue to control the wealth.

Monotheolistic religions, based on male founders in my belief also reinforce patriarchal societies. It controls the behaviour of females, puts males at the head of households and is given as the word of God. (The Catholic church banned priests from marrying a few hundred years ago to ensure all wealth went back to the church).

Property and titles are passed via the male blood line - isn't that strict definition of patriarchy? There are cultures in which possessions pass through the female line - at least, there have been until very recent history; not sure about now - and some that do more complicated things like spreading assets between various defined family members. The female inheritance line (I think; haven't checked) strictly defines matriarchy. There, too, a woman would need to make sure she had children in order to pass down her property.

In our society now, though, this is no longer true, hurrah! Unless you count the landed classes ... who are hardly insignificant in the scheme of things.

Thanks GB, re-reading through what I've typed I haven't expressed myself correctly, mind wandering as I looked through various links.
I was meaning in the past, inhertance generally passed via males, and what a women had became her husbands. Thus you end up with males being seen as more important.

I think Saudi women have amassed great wealth and believe once they marry it does not become part of her husbands wealth.

Garlic,

"Larry, there is no evidence whatsoever for that "women nurture, men provide" model of early Man. It was an assumption made by Victorian anthropologists/archaeologists, to whom it seemed obvious."

Really? I thought there was plenty of evidence. Certainly, men defended their families throughout time. They are physically on average about 1.5x larger and stronger. It would make no sense to have any other model. Of course, women did other things not reliant on a stronger body. I am not saying all they did was nurture.

Proles,

"Re: evo psych - what is the point of it? And how is it not pure speculation? That's an honest question - I really can't see what value there is in it. Does it in any way help to fight injustice?"

Why is it pure speculation? As I said, how can you believe in evolution and not evo psych? Otherwise, what you would be saying is that every other part of the genome followed an evolutionary pattern, but not the brain. Of course, if you are a creationist, I can see why you would believe it were just a fairy tale.

It does not help to fight injustice. However, like any other form of history, it helps to understand where we have come from to know where we are going or would like to go.

Quite clearly, the huge strides in technology over the comparatively recent past (say 200 years, not much more really) have made physical strength almost irrelevant. Hence why society is changing so quickly and so many questions are being asked now about division of labour etc.

Men are not 1.5x bigger and stronger than women. If you look at Elite athletes performances, men are on average about 10% stronger than their female counterparts. That varies from sport to sport slightly but it isn't ever 50% stronger which is what you are saying larry.

And men defending their families. What a load of bollocks. They are the ones being violent, creating wars etc. That isn't defending families that is putting them in danger.

As you were.

Abigail,

I am prepared to stand my ground that, on average, men are about 1.5x bigger and stronger. Where do you get your 10% from. The best comparison event is probably weightlifting (in terms of pure strength). In that the mens and womens for snatch and clean and jerk are, respectively: 212 vs 140 and 263 vs 186. that is pretty close to 1.5X.

Additionally, a lot of female elite athletes (and males too) are on some form of doping. And that will make a far bigger difference to a female than to a male, as men are already quite heavy in testosterone.

Men always defended their families and then their tribes. It might have been against other men but that does not mean it is not the case. For an individual woman, being under the protection of strong men made sense. In totality, maybe had there been no men, they would not have needed the protection. However, that is a hypothetical. You are assigning moral weight to a fact.

"Why is it pure speculation? As I said, how can you believe in evolution and not evo psych? Otherwise, what you would be saying is that every other part of the genome followed an evolutionary pattern, but not the brain. Of course, if you are a creationist, I can see why you would believe it were just a fairy tale.

It does not help to fight injustice. However, like any other form of history, it helps to understand where we have come from to know where we are going or would like to go."

I'm not saying that the human brain hasn't evolved. But no-one knows exactly how that process has worked. Evo psych is pure speculation, usually enlisted to support the status quo from what I've seen. Scientists do not yet understand much about the brain, so how evo psych can be considered anything other than speculation I don't know. There's no way of proving its claims, is there?

And yes, understanding where we have come from is helpful. But I don't think evo psych does that.

The great thing about feminism is that it starts with the reality of women's lives. Not speculation and unfounded assumptions. Male supremacy is not a speculation: it's a description of real, observable injustice. That's something solid to work from. Evo psych isn't.