What is the patriarchy?

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

I am aware that we use words here like the patriarchy as if everyone understands what this means. I know when I first came on FWR I didnt. So I thought it mght be helpful if women who do understand it, explained what they understand the term patriarchy to mean.

Ok FU, I was quoting the MNHQ comments from memory, might have been a bit wrong.

I am rather confused. What is 'an old fashioned view of breasts'? What exactly needs to change? Do I need to look out for Xenia doing a bare breasted march down the Mall, when she has a free day? Is the up to date view that we should all be free to go topless where ever we wish? I think that the people of the Solomon Islands might be a bit insulted if honoured guests are not appropriately dressed. Or is it just that a man dares to have an opinion? I'm not to keen on men with vast beer bellies taking off their tops.

The idea that marching topless down the Mall under patriarchy, is a hopelessly naive one. It would be great in theory if going topless was a blow for women's rights. In practice you would be leered at, probably have at least one man trying to cop a feel, have your photo taken and circulated on the net and in newspapers and be called lots of woman hating terms like slut or described in porno terms.

And what message exactly would this send out to other woman? That the world is not a safe place for women and that women have to conform. Although that is true, as an action it would achieve nothing.

*onemorechap" yes that phrase is rather "antique" and it suggests antique attitudes to women, ie that they need to snare a poor unsuspecting man into marriage. 1) Women are quite capable of survivng outside marriage 2) Men who get married are making an equal decision to enter the contract - to suggest otherwise is to suggest that for men to be married to women involves them being "conned" and therefore devalued and/or degraded in some way. The phrase suggests that a monogamous relationship for a man is somehow unappealing and not natural whereas for a woman it is the normal state of affairs either because she is not entitled to the same freedoms as a man or not capable of existing in any other state. It's very offensive, I think.

The modern equivalent of "pursued an interest" is exactly the same. Possibly it's worse as the word "pursue" suggests something predatory whereas "set her cap" sounds rather girl-like and naive. Either way, both definitely imply a sense that marriage/monogamous relationships are required for women whereas they are to be avoided for men.

It is like the misguided slut walks. The message they send is it is okay to leer at and objectify women and that the word slut is fine to use and free from patriarchial structures, so just a word that can be reclaimed.

That is why all slutwalks have had men there, leering at young woman who are dressing in a "sexy" way.

The intentions of these women are good, but they are naive.

Thanks rosa good post.

Yeah that's the problem isn't it Eats? How do you take a stand against patriarchy without giving it more ammunition?

Rosa, I liked your post and I see that trope of a woman trying to snare a commit phobe man into marriage a lot in the media. It's so irritating because it implies that there is nothing else women want, and portrays marriage as something that benefits women not men, when the statistical reality of who asks for divorce and whose well being increases after divorce tells a completely different story.

Thanks,rosabud that makes the use of the terms clearer, I think.

How would you decribe the woman's actions?

OMC do you mean a woman attracted to a man or do you mean the slutwalk organisers?

With the Kate issue, I'm sure it's been said but look at the difference in both reporting and general opinions about those photos compared with the Prince Harry nude photos.

I didn't read the thread but can see just from the thread titles - the "Why did she do it?" and "AIBU to think that she shouldn't", both immediately condemning and judging, whereas the Prince Harry threads, can't remember the actual titles, but there was a lot more of a lighthearted feel about them. Sure some people felt he shouldn't have done it, but it was still seen as more acceptable generally.

Hadn't thought of that Bertie and it's strange because Harry's situation was much more of a "decision" - he did go to his suite in full awareness he waswith some people he'd recently met and play strip billiards with them, whereas Kate was alone with her husband when someone she hadn't met intruded with a camera, unbeknownst to her.

I don't want to sound victim blaming and I think neither set of photos should have been published but I think if both scenarios had been men or both women, how some people thought about "blame" would be different.

Please note I am saying "some people" as there are plenty of people on both threads defending the Royals' right to privacy etc and the posters on each subject may be entirely different.

But.. judgements regarding "women's purity" are certainly patriarchical.

Yes that's what I thought too - that he chose to be naked in a semi-public place whereas Kate evidently thought (with good reason) that where she was was private.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch I blame you, you know .

Duchess of Cambridge.

I think you said "She fell in love with her university flatmate." and I said shared the belief of DW that it was a bit more than than that, and rosabud pointed out some offensive phrasing.

I'm quite genuinely interested in how you would describe an initially asymmetric attraction.

I'm interested in messyisthenewtidy 's contention that press representations i[imply] that there is nothing else women want, and portrays marriage as something that benefits women not men, when the statistical reality of who asks for divorce and whose well being increases after divorce tells a completely different story and indeed would point to some of the posting in Relationships where there are wide range of folk who want commitment from "their" partner. and seem distraught that desire for children seems asymmetirc inmany of these cases.

I recognise that issues that end up in relationships are usually problematic, but I did believe that some women desired marriage specifically for the legal protection it offers them while they decide if they want to TTC, and the life after that.

I'd also note, in passing, that the well-being after divorce might be interesting to map against the asset distribution after divorce.

For anyone who didn't see Steve Bell's cartoon about the Royals....

here

Thanks,rosabud that makes the use of the terms clearer, I think.

How would you decribe the woman's actions?

onemorechap Do you mean how would I describe Kate Middleton's actions? As in her actions on getting married to Prince William? I suppose I would say she met a chap she liked and they got married.

rosabud No, not really.

The meeting wasn't co-incidental, I understand; she specifically chose the university with a view to meeting him.

How do you describe a person - of either gender, for sake of argument - who deliberately makes opportunity to meet someone, get to like each other and get married/form a relationship.

Or is it your contention that no man or woman manufactures opportunity to place themselves in contact with someone so they can "[meet someone] they liked and they got married".

If so, that's fine; I think it's wrong, but that's fine.

Firstly you can have no idea why she chose that universtiy unless you know her. You are going on press reports that want to pander to the aforementioned atttiude that women need to be predators in order to snare a man into marriage whch I have already discussed.

Secondly, of course both men and women see people they like and try to arrange a meeting to see if the attratction will prove well-founded/mutual. It's quite normal and there is nothing predatory about it! Or do you think that, in fact, this is a bit sinister, that it is something to do with one party "trapping" the other? In which case you are still implying the above mentioned prejudices towards both men and women - which I would still maintain are rather "antique" and quite offensive to both sexes.

It certainly can be pretty convenient to have a spouse minding children for a few days a week whilst you get a full night's sleep, nights out, a lover even for men or women so inclined, and a muggins spouse at home doing it all. That tends to occur where there is an imbalance in earnings between the couple. What if you said to him I would like 3 nights a week without the child around you have it - would he arrange things to ensure you had that freedom too?

rosabud Thu 20-Sep-12 10:51:41
Firstly you can have no idea why she chose that universtiy unless you know her.

Of course not; the inevitable response being "Unless you know her, nor do you."

I see nothing sinister about it, but it seems you have issues with attraction being asymmetric and one participant putting significant effort into building a prospective relationship. I see nothing about trapping - but plenty of work being put in on one side. Rather more than "arranging a meeting".

I'd add from my experience long ago, it was more general for men to put the effort into making excuses to meet. I quite admire the woman for doing what I believe she has done.

I wonder if your view would be different if it had been William "arranging the meeting"?

No I don't know her which is why I am not assuming one way or the other and that is probably why my description of it was more neutral that yours which rather suggests you have chosen to pander to the view of the press, re: she set her cap at him, re: already discussed implications of such language.

I don't have any "issues" with attraction being asymmetric, there are plenty of examples where either the man/woman arranges the first meeting and where either the man/woman may put more effort into building the realtionship than the other. However, at the end of the day it is down to each person whether they respond to their (potential)partner's efforts or not and the implication that it would be more natural/better for one gender to achieve a particular outcome and that the other gender will be unable to prevent such an outcome is offensive.

I think it may be difficult for you to follow my argument because all of your language suggests you may have quite an entrenched attitude on this issue. For example, why do "quite admire the woman" for arranging the first meeting? This implies that you think it is somehow more admirable for a woman to do this than a man which suggests that, in your view, it is not the normal way for women to behave and that to overcome this is to overcome something which is unnatural.

rosabud

I think it may be difficult for you to follow my argument because all of your language suggests you may have quite an entrenched attitude on this issue.

Not particularly.

For example, why do "quite admire the woman" for arranging the first meeting?

Largely because of the huge protocol, media and class issues which impact on trying to get contact with members of the aristocracy in general and royalty in particular.

This implies that you think it is somehow more admirable for a woman to do this than a man which suggests that, in your view, it is not the normal way for women to behave and that to overcome this is to overcome something which is unnatural.

No, you infer that. I quite admired Mark Philips for handling his relationship with the Princess Royal.

Do I think it's unnatural? No, the opposite. I think it is a positive step from when it was expected that men should do the chasing... and even in the 70s there were elements of that.

OneMoreChap
"I'd also note, in passing, that the well-being after divorce might be interesting to map against the asset distribution after divorce."

I don't have the source, but I specifically remember that the post-divorce-wellbeing factor was evident even where the women were poorer after the divorce.

I remember this because it fit in with my own personal experience, and the feeling that no amount of money is worth being in the prison of a bad relationship. Although I recognise I say that with the luxury of living in a country with a good welfare state. I'm sure if I'd been born in a different time or country where single mothers were not given the support they are I'd still be married and desperately unhappy.

WRT the "set her cap at" line of the thread (which I am re-adopting back into my vocab for it's quaint retro-ness) I think that a lot of couples are attracted to each other for external reasons, but then hopefully stay together because they have a deeper connection.

If we're being cynical, I should imagine William was attracted to Kate for her stunning good looks. I mean he's hardly a looker himself is he? But, considering his inherited wealth and status he was certainly able to punch above his weight on that front.

OMC what did you think of my other postulation that some substantial proportion of the women going to St Andrews that year, along with half the women in town of approx the right age, some of the women in his gap year group, who went to see him at etc etc probably made a "ooh, I'm going to try and pull a Prince!" type comment. I.e. that whoever the prince ended up marrying might have made such a comment to a random person in their past (who of course had a financial/fame incentive to pass on to a paper)?

"This implies that you think it is somehow more admirable for a woman to do this than a man which suggests that, in your view, it is not the normal way for women to behave and that to overcome this is to overcome something which is unnatural."
No, you infer that. I quite admired Mark Philips for handling his relationship with the Princess Royal.

Did you really, onemorechap , how very interesting.

By the way, an inference is, of course, the direct result of and point of an implication. If you don't want people to infer iformation from your statements then it's best not to imply it. Another example of being careful about the language you use and the language you read in the first place.