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

Rulers - I am not wriggling.

Everything is natural. Yes male dominance in the form it currently takes is natural. Wanting it to change is natural. Working out ways to change it is natural. trying to develop beter sysytems for managing our affairs and out world is natural. Struggling with our monkey selves is natural.

I really don't think the "is it natural" question makes sense. Nature and nurture are both natural.

yes it does bluegrass. Perfectly.

There are semi nomadic tribes still in existance, where you can observe the men not defending their families.

They ate miles.from he with livestock for months on end

(in response to earlier convoy Larry and Prolrs were.having)

They are miles from home

Everything is natural. Yes male dominance in the form it currently takes is natural. Wanting it to change is natural. Working out ways to change it is natural. trying to develop beter sysytems for managing our affairs and out world is natural. Struggling with our monkey selves is natural.

By your definition, male supremacy is natural. Yes?

(And, no I don't think natural = good. I have already said plenty of times on this thread that natural/natural order is a state of being that is neither right or wrong. It just is.)

Personally my understanding of natural, is as follows;
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

And of natural order;
natural order - the physical universe considered as an orderly system subject to natural (not human or supernatural) laws.

I think it is a helpful distinction because human beings do have a moral code, laws, right and wrong, ethics, rules, society, social constructions, power, power structures, politics, violence, abuse, hatred, psychology, socialization, etc.

So I have two issues with the 'it's natural' argument.

1. I disagree with the use of the word natural for human codes and constructions. (In a similar way to how I disagree with applying the concept of biological evolution to economies).

2. Using the term natural, places male supremacy outside of moral judgement or political analysis. You cannot moralise or politicise nature/a natural order - for the reasons I have already outlined on this thread.

Himalaya, your argument appears to want to have its cake and eat it. You argue that male supremacy is natural and unfair on the same thread. Contradictio in terminis.

You are redefining words and concepts in a way to suit the argument (this is one of the issues I have with evopsych, along with it being pure speculation.)

Why are so invested in arguing that a political system is natural?

Also if we are arguing that it is men's nature to dominate and oppress women through violence and powers structures, isn't that rather, em, sexist?

If I went and said that on another thread I would get slated and it would be proof of what manhating meanies radical feminists are.

I am no good at academic argument, but was thinking that back in the dim and distant past, it probably made logical sense to organise ourselves in certain ways that no-longer apply today. It's a bit like religious practices - it made perfect sense in hot countries to kill animals in a certain way, avoid certain foodstuffs, bury your dead immediately etc for reason of hygiene. These things are no longer applicable (at least in the West) but the "faith" is to carry on because that is how it is MEANT to be.

The "natural" argument seems to follow the same lines...the "rules" remain the same even though the reason for having them has disappeared....

yes me too hotdamlifeisgood! It's all around us and always has been if not why do men earn more, run the present government, stop woman becoming bishops in the church, run the bbc and media and expect woman to wear low cut tops and short skirts even when they are serious reporters. Also fashion designers mainly men prodcue clothes for size 6 models and encourage annorexia. In Hollywood men dominate as directors and many of the plum acting roles. Annd even if woman dop get parts usually as wives or lovers they are discaded when they get any wrinkles or put on any weight. Men don't.

Men keep the patriarchy alive for their own benefit! Not all of course but thise in positions of power. eg David Cameron, employing male mc or upper class men as ministers and ridiculing femal ministers by calling them dear and they frustrated!!

Beachcomber, Dittany -

I am camping. Not ignoring your Q's, but don't want to write a scrappy quick answer.

Thanks Dittany

Dittany - i think the term Patriarchy when applied broadly does have a specific meaning from feminist theory that I don't believe in, although I do consider myself a feminist (= a single intentional system imposed by men as a group because of a common belief in male supremacy with women's role in the system as victims or 'handmaidens').

Also implicit in the concept, I think is a view about the relationship between social and biological systems that sees them as much more separate than I view them.

So I don't see any point me saying "yes I believe in the patriarchy, as a "vanilla concept" (without these add-ons) because then I would immediately have to say 'but I don't mean x y and z...and I do mean abc'

I don't think it helps for clarity or respect for the integrity of the theory for me to do that. (you could rightly say I was misusing the term, imposing my own meaning etc...)

So, to answer your question I think we live in a world ruled by very few people, who are predominantly men. But the vast majority of men are not rulers. So I think it is not true to say men rule the world if 99% of them do no such thing - and an individual's nationality, class, education etc... is a much stronger predictor of how much influence they have than their sex.

I don't see it as a system, but lots of systems, biological, social and political meshed together. They are tightly linked to other factors - in particular technology and the changes in society it enabled, energy, demographics, the growth of cities, organisations, trade, work and the massive growth in economic output over the past few hundred years. So when you talk of "the Patriarchy" I see all of this as tied in. I don't think we can overthrow it but we have to change it.

Male/female inequality is one amongst other major problems with this society that human nature has not equipped us for - how to deal with the global problem of climate change, how to live well for 80+ years, how to reduce inequality but retain freedom.

It would be great if they all had one word explanations - 'greed', 'ageism', and 'oppression' for example and a clear moral cast of goodies and baddies. But I don't think they do.

Where would one find information on how a post-patriarchal society might be run? Is there a single feminist vision, or more than one possible alternative?

Hey Himalaya, hope camping was good.

It was, apart from the weather - I know I owe you an answer too!

Dittany,

"It's a very odd claim to make because most men individually don't rule the world that men aren't the ones with power. It's like saying we don't live in a democracy because not ever person is prime minister. Every type of political system has a word that describes it: monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny, democracy etc. but we're not supposed to use the term patriarchy? It's just illogical."

The thing is that all the above terms with the exception of patriarchy (and, in a slightly different way, democracy) describe systems where it is absolutely clear who, on an individual level, has power. Respectively we have a Monarch, a few individuals who are working together and know one another, a tyrant and the demos or people who exercise their power via a vote (whether they really get to vote on the important issues is another matter). In the "Patriarchy" men are not actively discussing decisions and we don't get to vote on what we want to happen. In that way it is clearly different from the other structures. Men may, statistically, have more power than women but it is in no sense organised power. So, when people say it is good for "the Patriarchy" that X happens, then who is the patriarchy actually describing?

You don't owe me anything Himalaya! If there's stuff you want to say, great, but you don't owe a reply .

Focusing this discussion on the individuals who hold great power misses three-quarters of the reality. Yes, the vast majority of great power is held by men. Yes, the holders of great power (men and women) exert influence on everyone else (women and men).

But the patriarchal assumption of male power over women pervades all levels of society. When a bloke makes a lewd remark to a passing woman, or grabs her bum, he's reminding her of her role and place - as he sees it. The fact that no-one is outraged by his view demonstrates that we live under a patriarchal regime. When a bartender serves the men before the woman who was there first, he also demonstrates her inferior place. If she's pretty and is served first, someone will say it's because she's pretty and nobody will consider that unfair. When a woman is refused a promotion because she has young children and might not be able to 'commit', nobody thinks to mention that the man who got the promotion also has young children. Patriarchal values are in play all the time, everywhere.

It isn't just about power. It is about privilege and status too.

In a male supremacy not all men rule or have power at a political level, but all men have male privilege, and the status of being the higher status gender in a binary hierarchy.

Larry, I had a bit of a problem with naming "The Patriarchy" as I, too, felt it doesn't work unless it is an overtly organised system. I was wrong - it's not necessary for there to be a Patriarchy Committee! We accept that we live in a democracy, though it bears little relation to the original version and no committee mandated its evolution. We accept that people like gathering together, though no rule-book told us we must.

I called it an 'accidental patriarchy' for a while, as that got me away from my ridiculous idea that any system with a name must be deliberate.

Garlic,

I used to think we lived in a democracy but now, less and less. We don't get a choice on most of the things that matter.

I guess the Patriarchy may be some kind of hive mind. However, I think that most men would struggle to recognise their "privilege" in the UK today. Of course, maybe we are blind to it. I do see it in what sociologists would call CDE social strata but not amongst those I know.