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

Garlicbum - yes as a shorthand for "society on balance etc..." and yes in many times and places as a recognisable political system yes I see that. (and I'm aginst it).

But as an overarching concept that the shape of society has been driven by male hatred of women, through a series of choices taken by men to opress women since the year dot, with women as perpetual victims, that I don't believe in. I think it overestimates group action and intentionality and underestimates the survival and reproductive drivers acting at an individual level for both men and women - and unless we understand those I don't think we can unpick them.

But thanks for trying to get everyone to agree! On a practical action level I don't think there is so much to disagree on.

But as an overarching concept that the shape of society has been driven by male hatred of women, through a series of choices taken by men to opress women since the year dot, with women as perpetual victims, that I don't believe in.

I don't think that definition is being used by anyone on the thread though Himalaya.

I read a very good definition of patriarchy the other day;

Patriarchy is the power of the fathers: a familial-social, ideological, political system in which men - by force, direct pressure, or through ritual, tradition, law and language, customs, etiquette, education and the division of labour, determine what part women shall or shall not play, and in which the female is everywhere subsumed under the male.

I think it is important to keep in mind that the origins of patriarchy are considered to be founded on a desire to control women's reproductive role/abilities. Women carry and bear children and men don't. Patriarchy is primarily driven by male desire for control and authority over children IMO. I think there is an element of hatred too - hatred that women, and only women have the power and ability to bear children.

Beachcomber -

"Patriarchy is primarily driven by male desire for control and authority over children IMO. I think there is an element of hatred too - hatred that women, and only women have the power and ability to bear children."

That is where I think we differ.

I think the shape of society (which includes patriarchy) has been driven by the desires of men and women and the things that have enabled them to survive and leave offspring in the past. I think a view of the world that says that only the actions of men have shaped it is only half the story.

'I think there is an element of hatred too - hatred that women, and only women have the power and ability to bear children.'

This point is where I always look at my screen and think 'WTF!?' I can understand that at an individual level, for some mentally unbalanced men, this could be true. But as a gender, how could men come together and feel this? Or how could society construct an environment where men were coerced, even unwittingly, to feel this way? On a practical level, carrying a baby is 9 months of increasing physical effort, discomfort, coupled with hormonal and body changes. The bit at the end is, as a minimum, exhausting both physically and mentally. In the past, and even now, giving birth can actually be life threatening. I am NOT trying to teach anyone to suck eggs here - I just want to know, how could you be jealous of that?

Dittanny

"If you're going around claiming there is no patriarchy, and denying worldwide male violence against women and girls and its political implications"

I have not denied male violence against women and girls. I said that men are more often the victim of male violence (as in % of homicide victims worldwide) which to me doesn't indicate and 'all out male assault on the female half of the human race'.

"Where's your evidence that women and girls make up the majority of the population? It might be true in the west, but I'm not sure it is elsewhere."

...you didn't say women and girls in your original statement, you said women and children -

It's not jealousy and it isn't about envying women the experiences of pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or mothering.

I think it was about power. Children were a resource to be controlled and they were the future of a family (and therefore the patriarch's) line, and the future of society. They were also the inheritors of property.

Hence actions to control women's fertility and sexuality, a culture of women and children as chattel, hence the hierarchy which places women under men. Hence heteronormativity, hence marriage and all the rest of it.

If you want to have authority over children, you need to have authority over mothers.

Everything I have read about patriarchal society leads me to be convinced by this explanation. Otherwise why the oppression, why the hierarchy? If gender roles were a natural biological evolution that came about in an organic fashion as a logical consequence of biology and a non political partnership, there would be no need for the strict hierarchy and power structures (nor the violence).

The need for power and control within society is true - always has been, always will be. Establishing a male family line seems deeply buried in the psyche, even as far as trivial matters like perpetuating the surname down the years. It was the use of 'hatred' that threw me -it seems like such a leap. The rest of it I have no problem with.

namechangeguy I did hesitate over the use of 'hatred' but I couldn't really think of another word.

Notice I didn't say hatred of women (although I do think that exists in patriarchy).

I said; I think there is an element of hatred too - hatred that women, and only women have the power and ability to bear children.

I think some of the hatred that exists nowadays is based in contempt. When you historically control, subjugate and oppress a group of people, you don't respect them. You hold them in contempt and that contempt breeds hatred and resentment.

Patriarchy is the power of the fathers: a familial-social, ideological, political system in which men - by force, direct pressure, or through ritual, tradition, law and language, customs, etiquette, education and the division of labour, determine what part women shall or shall not play, and in which the female is everywhere subsumed under the male.

I don't agree that patriarchy is the first or original reason for oppression but this statement is correct, however where, in what time did patriarchy take root as the dominant social order. It happened when we settled the land and started to trade in the excess of commodities first created through farming. That is the birth of patriarchy. Before that point women too shared in all forms of productive labour and nomadic people curtailed sexual excess because pregnant women made poor hunters. It was necessary to keep the population down and women could not be burdened by repeated pregnancy.
When we started to use coinage and create commodities and a need to create a means of common exchange, women became little more than breeding machines, breeding the patriarchs workforce to farm the land.

And how fecking generous am I being to the menfolk here eh?

The alternative is that, men as a group, are dominating, violent and consider themselves superior, as a part of their make up.

In a way it doesn't really matter - both are wrong. Women deserve full human status - it is not for men to decide whether we do or not.

i also find 'hatred' a strong word unless used for an individual who actually does hate women, there are plenty of them.

patriachy in europe is less than half what it was only 30 years ago, worldwide however it's very much enbedded in many cultures.

when we were in india, my OH would, for example, ask for something in a shop and the shop assistant would adress me! as though i had asked the question, women are just seen as a burden on families.
allthough they did have had a female president, something america hasnt managed yet

A lot of the attitude seems to be almost condescending, in terms of attitudes to women and their capabilities. Given that men are on average physically stronger, perhaps they were able to till a field at a faster rate while the woman stayed at home and cooked. But really, how much stronger, and how much faster was a man - a few percentage points? And once machinery, even horse-drawn, was introduced, the gap would become less important anyway. But the hierarchy was established by then, and we don't seem to have moved on. People are always reluctant to give up a position of power.

mini
"I am more interested in how we got to this point"

my theory on this is very simple, sexual selection.

women chose bigger men who would be able to protect them and their children which produced a speices where one sex was bigger than the other.

given that sort of power the temptation to use it would be overwhelming.
in other words, men became the oppressors because they could.

Gosh thechairmanmeow! DH and I were at our financial advisor the other day and he kept addressing DH even though I am the one who does all the figures, handed over the papers, and answered the questions! And we are in France!

And I don't know what other word to use for the killing, mutilating, maiming, beating, raping, exploiting, abusing, subjugating and global domination that men inflict on women.

Hatred seems to fit the bill quite well IMO.

'The alternative is that, men as a group, are dominating, violent and consider themselves superior, as a part of their make up.'

This rings true. However, it is not just directed at women, which is another sticking point I have with some of the theory. (Some) men have been, are, and will be violent and domineering over men and women - anyone who gets in their way. You see domineering bullies in all walks of life, and most of fairly indiscriminate as to who they shit on, on their way up the ladder.

"Men are not the enemy they are too conditioned and shaped by our history."

nice to hear you dont see men as the enemy, there is far too much vitriol against men on these threads. and i agree with you, we are all conditioned by our history and culture, women too. when i was living in france 25 years ago the women told me it was 'womens work' ( 'traville femme ca' was the exact phase used ) when i offerd to help with the washing up.

MiniTheMinx your post contains personal attacks on dittany. I have reported.

sorry to hear that BC was he at least an old fossil from another time all set in his ways?

the problem i have with hatred is that i find it an attack on me , because i'm a man and i rather like the women in my life.

that was a x post btw, i diddnt see you were in france before i told my french experience.
would you say france is behined england in terms of sexism?

Nope, he was younger than me and I'm under 40.

the problem i have with hatred is that i find it an attack on me.

Well, I'm afraid that is kind of too bad - you are taking political analysis of wider society as a personal attack, when it isn't. There isn't much I can do about that. And I'm not about to not make my political analysis on the oppression of women, because it might hurt a man's feelings. There are rather bigger things at stake, like women's freedom from male violence and dominance.

If you are a man who is mindful of his privilege and socialization, who is respectful and non-dominating in his relations with women as a group and who contests the status quo then comments about hatred aren't about you.

would you say france is behined england in terms of sexism?

Perhaps. In some ways yes. In others it is about the same. Although I can't talk really for England as I lived in Scotland before coming here.

a child is more likely to receive abuse ( not sexual abuse) from his/her mother than father, now if i said
'women should stop beating children' !!!
do you see how it sounds now?

Feel free to report, I am fed up reading that men are the enemy.

namechangeguy, very good point. Historically men have sought power and influence over other men, this is what led to the accumulation of property as a source of power over others. Men are and always have been in competition with each other to acquire power, patriarchy was born out of the means and desire to do this. Evolutionary process has relied on men acquiring property and power, influence and position. Patriarchy was born out of the human evolutionary process.