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

Of course many (if not most men) don't recognise their privilege.

That is the problem with unearned privilege - we are socialized to normalize it to an extent where it is hard to recognise it for what it is.

Same with white privilege - I'm white and there are a lot of things that I take for granted. When I talk to black friends about race issues I come slap bang up against my white privilege, there is just so much I am blind to because it doesn't affect me adversely, it just quietly makes me life easier without me doing anything much.

larry - look at the woman you know of the same class, race, etc. You will quickly see hopefully, that you are more privileged than them

I agree with you about democracy, Larry, though we still technically enjoy it (for now). That's a different thread, though not unrelated.

As Eats says, it's impossible that the women of your own social sphere are properly equal to the men. Take a closer look. Even ask 'em, maybe! Naice women get sexually harassed in numerous little ways, all the time. Naice women worry about safety issues that never worry men. Tradesmen subtly or overtly check whether there's a man of the house before talking down to the woman and overcharging her. What about their domestic division of labour? When you visit, who gets the tea? If they have careers, what's the likelihood they'll make it to the main board? Etc ... it goes on ... and on ...

Beachcomer -

(going back to your questions)

I just don't think it is possible to draw a line and say "up to here is nature and therefore neither right or wrong. It just is."

And then "from here is man made and we can make moral judgements"

I mean it would be nice and it would make life simpler but there are so many examples of how human norms and practices have interacted with physiology - from the discovery and use of fire onwards I really don't think its possible.

I don't think that saying something has a natural basis means we cant judge whether it is right or wrong even, as long as there is a reasonable amount of free choice.

E.g. Anger and violence clearly had big evolutionary advantages (and probably still do today), but we can still say that it's unacceptable to hurt someone else (in all but a few circumstances).

Beachcomber "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?"

I don't think domination and oppression by violence is the primary mechanism though.

I think it's something more like:

Men tend to be relatively more interested in status than women.

Women tend to relatively more willing to make sacrifices to care for young children than men.

You combine that with the human ability for technological innovation, in the absence of contraception and you end up with the makings of an unequal society.

Male domination and violence was and is used more often by men against unrelated men than against women.

'You're wrong about male violence, it is used most against women and children Himalaya. In the last century the largest amounts of casualities of wars were women and children.'

Dittany, do you believe this to be a deliberate policy, i.e. targetting, or as a by-product of some horrendous weaponry and tactics.

Why would particular weaponry or tactics target women instead of men?

Yes it is a deliberate policy

Dittany -

The majority of homicide victims are male.

I have read the factoid that 3 out of 4 fatalities of war are women and children. I think it originally came from the World Food Program. It's an important statistic but I really dont think it is evidence of an "all out male assault on the female half of the human race".

For one thing it's from the WFP so my guess is they are counting all deaths as a consequence of war (disrupted food supplies, water, medical systems, disease etc...) which are bad but wouldn't normally be described in terms of violence between men and women.

Secondly most wars in recent times have taken place in developing countries with a young population structure. So I think close to 3 out of 4 people in those countries are women or children. The statistic may be better interpreted as reflecting that most casualties of recent wars have been civilians.

Well, as an example, the bombing of Dresden killed approximately 25,000 civilians. During a war, most fit and able men are on the battle front, so the bulk of civilians are women and children. Ergo, a bombing like Dresden - or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki - will slaughter proportionally more.

But, do you believe that this was the intent? It reads that way. I would propose that a military leader would far rather wipe out 25,000 male troops than 25,000 women and children from a tactical point of view.

"Men tend to be relatively more interested in status than women.

Women tend to relatively more willing to make sacrifices to care for young children than men."

So why would that be? Is it all in the genes, or are we socialised to be like that. I was surprised, when reading the Equality Illusion, that there is very little physical difference between girls and boys before puberty. The way they are treated though, is for the most part VERY different.

children and women are targeted in a lot of conflicts-
what better way to minimise the next generation of adversaries

'children and women are targeted in a lot of conflicts - what better way to minimise the next generation of adversaries.'

Agreed, but this is normally a secondary objective. The first is usually to neutralise the opponent's armed forces. There is a difference between this and a primary objective of slaughtering women and children, which is what was written.

I would proabbly disagree with the primary objective arguement worldwide...but not sure

However i know that the vast majority of casualties are civilians in conflict, and that most of them are women and children. A google for some figures gave me;

Women and girls are uniquely and disproportionately affected by armed conflict. In modern warfare, an estimated 90% of the casualties are civilians, and 75% of these are women and childre

90% are civilains!!
75% of those are women and children!

sorry..at work...only replying with half a brain

Im not sure the talk of priamry objective [being to neutralise armed forces] and secondary objective [being to kill all the women and children] is in anyway useful in minimising the fact that it is only a secondary objective

Primary objective is really overall aim but the tools/tactics and techniques arent less important. being a secondary objective doesnt make it less prolific than the primary objective

The women and children are still targeted in genocide
and in sexual violence

I don't think we are disagreeing, bejeezus. Genocide is defined as 'the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group'. By definition, this has to include men, women and children.

But I think we may end up splitting hairs over what are fundamentally horrific acts, so I will leave it in broad agreement with you.

"larry - look at the woman you know of the same class, race, etc. You will quickly see hopefully, that you are more privileged than them"

I really don't see that although, of course, it depends how you define privilege. A lot of them are stay at home mothers whose children are now all at school. They have so much free time compared to their husbands (who frequently do most of the cooking and at least 50% of the childcare at weekends). They have equal access to the joint accounts and generally far more of the family budget goes on them (hair, spas, designer clothes) than their husbands who are often stressed and have little or no time to themselves.

Other of my female friends have chosen high powered careers and they employ full time nannies at home. One is on the main board of a large organisation.

Strangely enough, none of them think too much about the patriarchy. And, of course I discuss things with them. This is not just off the top of my head.

Dittany,

Are the facts "there" re men and women and violence? I find them hard to ascertain but, after WW2, the sex ration in those countries who were fighting dropped as low as 0.6 men for every 1 woman, so clearly more men were killed. Similarly in WW1, most of the deaths were on the battlefield and it was men doing the fighting.

Certainly, however, in developing countries in the 21st centuries, more women are selectively aborted and killed as infants.

I think, to have a discussion, it would be good to ascertain the facts (I think they are actually hard to dig out) than to assume something which is ascertainable as if it were axiomatic.

Dittany,

Yes we could just agree to disagree on the question of The Patriarchy, and I suspect we will in the end.

But do not think that it is an anti-feminist act to question a piece of data.

I mean seriously, wtf?

How can it be anti-feminist to look at a piece of data in relation to the base rate?

In my world when you have an analytical tool or theory that you think is supported by a piece of data, if the data turns our to show something else you have to go back and reconsider the theory, otherwise why bother with the data in the first place?

Himalaya, thanks for your replies.

I disagree for reasons already outlined on this thread - particularly stuff I have said about the definition of natural/natural order and the difference presented by social constructions and socialization/politics/power structures to biological evolution as a natural process.

Porto -

"Men tend to be relatively more interested in status than women.

Women tend to relatively more willing to make sacrifices to care for young children than men."

So why would that be?

I think its a bit of genes, and a bit of socialisation, and then a large bit of structure which means that those choices early on in parenthood can have disproportionate impacts.

Recognising that there is a genetic component doesn't mean it can't be challenged or changed - I am not saying we are not genetic automatons or anything!

I see it like the fact that there is an inherited/evolutionary basis to our appetite for fat and sugar which is not good for us, and which another bit of our brain would like to challenge.

I just looked these up. I avoid the topic as a rule; it makes me feel hopeless.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the rape of teenage girls was systematized into a deliberate policy. It has been estimated that more than 20,000 women have been raped since the Balkan war began in 1992.
www.unicef.org/graca/patterns.htm

One [Guatemalan] town official commented that with all the soldiers raping Mayan girls in combat zones in the highlands, 'it would be difficult to find a girl of 11 to 15 who has not been raped. Even seven-year-old girls have been raped.'

In July of 1982, during the massacre of the villagers of Plan de Sanchez, young girls between aged 12-14 were separated off and raped before being executed.
www.twnside.org.sg/title/gender-cn.htm

I know that rape is sanctioned, both tacitly and overtly, by 'our' military in various circumstances. I'm not going to find my sources again as it will ruin my day.

I see it like the fact that there is an inherited/evolutionary basis to our appetite for fat and sugar which is not good for us, and which another bit of our brain would like to challenge.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with seeing it that way. As long as we're agreed on the basics of our current predicament/s, it doesn't matter a whole lot.

In no way does this mean there's no 'patriarchy'.