Who is part of the patriarchy?

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

When we use the term patriarchy, do you think that the men you know are part of the patriarchy? And if no, then who is part of the patriarchy?

I'm not sure how useful or accurate it is to polarise the idea of patriarchy along gender lines: it is a social system which requires the participation of both men or women. I agree with bell hooks when she says

"...many female-headed households endorse and promote patriarchal thinking with far greater passion than two-parent households. Because they do not have an experiential reality to chal­lenge false fantasies of gender roles, women in such house­holds are far more likely to idealize the patriarchal male role and patriarchal men than are women who live with patriarchal men every day. We need to highlight the role women play in perpetuating and sustaining patriarchal culture so that we will recognize patriarchy as a system women and men support equally, even if men receive more rewards from that system. Dismantling and changing patriarchal culture is work that men and women must do together."

Both men and women, I'm sorry, not or.

If you draw a parallel with race discrimination then if all white people oppress all people of colour and you boil all antagonism down to biology then the conclusion must be that all people of colour withdraw from the world or the society to avoid exploitation and hatred. It sets up a dialectic of constant oppression and antagonism rather than resolving the struggle.

So, we agreed that the economy was based oin patriarchy. That means that a wealthy middle-upper class woman benefits from and contributes to the patriarchy more than an unemployed man, yes?

I'm sorry, I don't follow mini?

I don't think 'race' is a matter of biology. Or 'gender'. They are human constructs adapted to reinforce bigotry.

The patriarchy is a social construct. You can't make someone be a part of a social construct that they don't identify with. It's like saying you're a white middle class female you ARE Conservative. Or working class and you must vote labour.

Well, more to the point, someone can't opt out of a social construct just by saying so.

I could claim I'm not 'middle class'. All I'd achieve would be to look ignorant and knobbish.

The birth of patriarchy coincides with the birth of all/any form of economy in that MEN created a surplus that could be bartered or later sold. The two are one and the same????? but how? Socialist feminists spent decades trying to develop a dual systems approach that fell flat on it's face. Because the marriage wasn't an easy one, they divorced, rather than concentrating their efforts on names of theories they should have simply dispensed with the language and got back to examining the historical and the material for their answers. The whole thing is confusing......it is the one thing I have been thinking about a lot and my brain will probably go bang

Interesting to have the concept patriarchy so well explained. Thanks, LRD.

Mini, there's an interesting article here that looks at the concept of patriarchy from a socialist perspective.

"I don't think 'race' is a matter of biology. Or 'gender'. They are human constructs adapted to reinforce bigotry"

Sorry LRD, maybe I wasn't clear. Do you believe in god? If so why not? Do you believe in evolution?

I do believe in God. I think evolution is the best scientific theory we have. I think they're different orders of logic, so I don't 'believe' in God the same way I 'believe' in evolution.

I trust evolution is a valid scientific theory, researched and taught by the best scientific thinkers.

I trust God exists, but I cannot have any proof of that.

Mme - thanks, and .

"The birth of patriarchy coincides with the birth of all/any form of economy in that MEN created a surplus that could be bartered or later sold."

That's a statement that could be taken as being profoundly anti-feminist, in the way that it says that women aren't capable of recognizing their ability to create things of value, and recognizing their ability to trade those things for someone else's creation.

So for instance if I left the village and went down to the river and managed to catch a few fish, and you went up to the woods and picked a sack of mushrooms, can't I barter some of my fish for some of your mushrooms? That's creating a trade economy, and it seems so simple that I have to believe that everyone's always done it. Why suggest that only MEN could do those things?

I agree with you LRD, I believe in God, I think she's great

If you consider apes, how did they lose their fur? Elaine Morgan proposed that they took to the water and all water born animals are pretty bald compared to their land based cousins. So environment seems to shape biology over time. Indeed so does all materialist aspects of peoples lives. We only develop big muscles if we have to use them, the dexterity we have with our hands changes over time (although I still can't text on the phone!) in relation to what we have to do (materialist) But just focussing on environment it is possible to conclude that Eskimos and Black African people have slight differences shaped by environment, that is not a social construct but a biological fact. What we choose to do with this knowledge is another matter.

Man exploits for profit, nothing else, everything else is just a narrative which is used to confuscate or at best excuse his actions.

I don't deny there are differences between peoples.

But 'race' is not an accurate way to describe differences between the historic, or visible differences between people. We've only to look at the absurd ways South Africa classified different 'race' under apartheid to see that!

I don't see where 'God' comes into it, myself? I'm not being snarky, I just didn't follow your link.

It seems to me we're talking entirely about society/culture and biology.

Of course, environment shapes people's biology. But race is a separate concept, and the two are too often indentified, often in order to perpetuate oppression.

Thing is though, do we have another term? I agree the term is over used but then that might be because we are happy to exploit people of less advanced countries. If we see past race and we see past national borders (I hate national borders) then we might be faced with the reality that those we exploit are just like us. The only difference is a difference that is fashioned by environment, physical or social but in no way confers inferiority.

The working class man is often racist, misdirecting his hatred at those who share his oppression rather than those who profit from it.

I take your point, and I have no problem with 'racism' as a term, only with people who believe 'race' is a true and accurate description of differences between people, rather than a bigoted human constract. In fact - isn't that obvious? It's only racist people who think the differences somehow justify treating people as unequal.

Sorry, I'm still not clear what this has to do with religion - if I answered you wrongly or I offended you, sorry! I do respect people who have faith and I am not at all trying to knock your beliefs. I just didn't get how they related to this debate.

Some people might believe in god and completely disagree with evolutionary science. That is all. I am like you, is there a god, well if it can't be proved..........who am I to say!

Thank's for the link super, will print it and read it later. Has anyone else read it?

Would internalised oppression be a useful concept here? IMO, very few of us have not internalised some negative attitudes towards our own sex because we all live in a patriarchy - we are all part of it.

But evolutionary science doesn't have much to do with it either?

Am I missing something?

Or do you mean, someone who believes in god might also be crazy and not believe in evolution?

Sorry ... I'm honestly not trying to be negative, I just don't follow at all.

plenty - good point!

My DS is definitely part of the patriachy.

The way that he whinged when DD took away his sword and hit him with it, was definitely because he felt that as a man he had more right to the sword than she did and she was challenging his superiority as a male.

Either that or it really fucking hurt when she hit him. One or t'other.

It looks like the discussion at least got as far as acknowledging that "patriarchy" is a social, economic and political system rather than individual people or groups of people. That's why the opening post didn't make sense.

Imho, our society embodies patriarchal principles, but also white supremacist, non-disabled and class privileged and heterosexist principles as well. Patriarchy doesn't really cover all that, so I actually favour the concept of "kyriarchy" (although I'm aware some folks don't like the name, but it doesn't bother me much and it's the concept that's important here.) All the systems are linked and intersecting, and because people's identities and experiences don't fit into neat boxes, I think it's important to understand that complexity.

I think someone above alluded to the fact that some women can hold privileges within a patriarchal and/or kyriarchal system. For example, a white, class privileged woman may may benefit from her proximity to and relationships with white, class privileged men. Her father may have paid for her to have a top class education. Her husband may have the resources to pay for childcare so she can pursue a profession she enjoys without the need to earn a living wage. Neither necessarily seem like privileges until you realise, for example, working class white women or women of colour are unlikely to benefit in the same way through their proximity to or relationships with men in their lives who, like them, have limited resources or don't benefit from white privilege.

I think the OP might have been trying to ask whether even men who don't actively want to have privilege also benefit from patriarchy, and yes they do. As a white person, whether or not I ask for it, I have privileges because I'm white in a society that is institutionally racist. Even when I try not to collude with that privilege, I may not even be aware I'm exercising it (until I discover a person of colour can't take for granted what I can.)

However, I could go on a march against a fascist organisation, or challenge other white people when they make racists remarks. I might be putting myself at some personal risk in doing so, but if I "let things slip," then I am indirectly colluding with the mechanisms of institutional racism. Same goes with a bloke - they can choose to challenge other men on their privilege, could get punched for it, but if they don't make a stand, they're still shoring up the structures of patriarchy with their silence.

I always enjoy your posts, Kritiq. You put that really well.