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 going to engage anymore. Eats is successfully undermining feminism and isn't interested in anything but her own misformed viewpoint. Some people won't be educated, others just enjoy stirring. They are to be pitied.

To suggest that is a radical position is disturbing to me. What on earth would be the non-radical 'feminist' position?

Don't be silly, non-rads aren't feminists!

No women are not part of the patriarchy, although some support it. In the same way black people were not part of the system that caused slavery, but a few still supported it.

All men are part of the patriarchy and benefit from it. All women are oppressed by the patriarchy.

Eats - that is bollocks.

So what happens next? Let's suppose that you start this thread, and we all go "My God, she's got it!", and agree. What then?

But if no women are actually part of it but still support it, it would therefore be logical to state the case that all men are but not all men support it.

So therefore not all men are the enemy oppressors.

In the same way black people were not part of the system that caused slavery

they were actually , Africans were selling their own people into slavery.

Yes they sold men and women alike, it was a class system, nothing to do with sex. More parallels with class oppression than sex oppression.

All men are part of patriarchy whether they want to be or not.The vast majority are happy with patriarchy, because the vast majority do nothing to challenge it. However there are a few genuine men who are allies who work to challenge patriarchy - but very few

Slavery is a function of an institutionally racist social system. It is not a system in itself.

To be a slave is to be oppressed within a system (you can hardly be oppressed outside of a system).

To be a slave owner is to be an oppressor within a system.

There are as getmore points out, multiple intermediary positions in this system.

The reason I have problems with defining oppressed groups as being 'outside the system' is that, if they were, they would be free.

It's not that simple.

There are a lot of women who do nothing to challenge the patriarchy. What would we call them?

I agree LRD accept for the fact that Blacks sold Blacks into slavery. So in the case of Nigeria where even now some tribes will not mix with others, it is tribal not racist. Some were bought off to do the dirty work of the white man because there was an economic incentive.

except or accept! having a blip. Must go back to work.

Of course women are part of the patriarchy, unless they are women who live in a matriarchal society or on a deserted island in the middle of nowhere.

This is really basic, basic stuff here.

Perhaps we could ask Xenia if we could occupy her island.

mini - yes, agreed. I was getting into that lazy mindset of thinking of slavery in the US, which exists because it was socially sanctioned to oppress people based on their race. But you are right (and I apologize) that it can also be trial.

IMO this links to a wider issue - these categories like 'race' or 'gender' or 'tribe' are not fixed definitions of groups - they're labels that get manipulated in order to oppress people.

I know you can take a lot from these labels, and form your identity around them, but they are labels and they do allow us to separate out people by an arbitrary means and oppress them.

Sorry, not sure why I felt the need to type that, it just seems relevant with all of this guff about women being not part of the patriarchy.

The whole reason oppression can exist is because the same systems that make us feel we belong, that make us feel we have a group identity, are twisted and exploited to oppress us.

I'm going to say this and head out to hunt for bugs with dd.

There are and have been some self identified 'radFems' on MN who do far more damage than good to feminim and struggles for equality.

This thread ( and all the others ) are / is a field day for anti-feminists.

I believe in equality for all.

OPs like this just leave a bad taste in the mouth and fullfil all the negative stereotypes about bonkers man loathing feminists.

This is interesting -

Eats. Are you confusing Patriarchs with the patriarchy?

It how I understand your question.

...

from the above blog:

Not all men are Patriarchs. A Patriarch is a man who has special power and influence over not just his family but also in society, due to privileges gathered through intersections of age, wealth, achievement, lineage, patronage and the exploitation of others as these attributes add to his place in the elite social hierarchy.

Non-elite men do not generally actively conspire with Patriarchs (although they may aspire to become one): the patriarchal pattern however means that subordinate men are ranked above subordinate women in the traditional socioeconomic hierarchy from which Patriarchs skim the cream, meaning that men (as a group) benefit more from the injustices of Patriarchy than women do (as a group). This does not mean that superordinate women (by virtue of lineage/wealth) do not have concrete advantages and social privileges compared to subordinate men ? this is where the intersecting rankings and dominations of the kyriarchy come in.

you could be forgiven for wondering if that is the point of this and similar threads, to attempt to personify a few silly stereotypes

The fact that this thread is largely populated with people who disagree with the OP, and who also self identify as feminists, is a positive thing.

If some twat came onto MN, read this thread and then thought that MN is full of posters who believe that ALL men are the enemy and that ALL men LOVE the patriarchy then they would be not reading the actual responses on the thread IYKWIM?

... I'd add that I think there are some great posters here.

I enjoy reading a lot of stuff here.

"The logic is that if we change the attitudes of men we can change the world ? as though it were men, not capitalism, which is the problem. It is from these ideas that the theory of patriarchy has developed and which now in turn reinforces these ideas."

Interesting article from a Marxist point of view.

That's really interesting, MmeL.

And may I just add that I am quite offended by your claim that it was radfems who changed the rape within marriage law.

I would say that was a massive win for all feminists, who had been fighting for this change for many years. It was not the libfems, the radfems, or any one section.

It was women from every class, every age group, from both sides of the political spectrum.

So right LRD about labels. I think one of the major problems here as with all politics now is that we have moved beyond a simple division along a left right axis into identity politics, even with this discussion. There are radicals who split with the left, who then themselves split into smaller groups and so on. We don't have a mass of support for anything even feminism in it's very basic form because of this. We just have lots of special interests groups who feel their oppression is very specific to them.