'Everyday sexism' vs origins of patriarchy and big ideas for the future

[thepennyshop]

I'm just getting into learning more about feminism and talking more about feminism, and I've found there is a lot of talk about the everyday sexism and obvious barriers women face. But there isn't much talk about big ideas for the future.

I suppose I'm frustrated because with the barrage of talk about everyday sexism (which is undoubtedly great to be highlighted) it makes it feel like great progress is being made every day, and people can't get away with being sexist anymore, or for much longer at least. But actually, people being sexist is just one small part of the problems women face. Do we just want people not to be sexist anymore? or do we want an end to patriarchy? And if so, what would go in its place? And why are we even living in a patriarchy in the first place?

I think it would be good to discuss those questions, so we knew what we were aiming for, and whether it was even realistically achievable.

Is anyone with me?

My reply to dancingbear was relevant to her post. Ophelias wasn't to mine.

Well, one theory is that because homo sapiens have large brains and consequently big heads, they are born more dependant on their parents (historically this would be the mother for breast feeding I suppose, but definitely the mother) than other mammals who can generally walk within a few days/weeks of being born, e.g. a calf can stand after 30 minutes whereas it takes us about a year.

The upshot of this is that a mother with baby would be unable to forage enough food to support herself and her infant, and she would also presumably be unable to defend herself and her infant(s) against other groups and other animals. So the men as protector role I think, has an evolutionary aspect to it. This basic biological fact then appears to have been baked into all of the subsequent fictions that we made up in order to cooperate in larger numbers, i.e. religion, ideas about morality and what have you. But i do reckon there is some evolutionary basis to it, not that any of it is particularly relevant these days though.

Patriarchy has nothing to do with evolution. Women are able to live on their own with children. Forage? I bet the woman with a hungry belly and hungry children killed and ate. She was probably brilliant at it as well (lionesses). These skills and a need for social interaction probably brought about an equal society, until invaders came along.

Lionesses do not face the same handicap with dependant children Elendon, as I explained. Most mothers will not leave their babies outside a shop for a few minutes so the idea that they would leave them somewhere for several hours to go hunting wild animals is somewhat far fetched if you ask me. Anyway - I didn't just make this up - I think it is a commonly held view. When you state that it has nothing to do with evolution - do you have any evidence for that claim ?

Also - if someone just made it up - how do you explain that every homo sapien culture appears to have developed into a patriarchy ? Not being "goady" - i'm genuinely interested in what people think.

What about cooperative childcare? As in, other (older? Childless?) female relatives take care of children in a group nursery environment whilst women go out foraging/hunting?

Also - aren't our closest cousins in the animal world the very epitome of a patriarchy (silverbacks and stuff) ?

Elendon No woman with a tiny baby can live totally alone. They need community/family/a partner to survive.

A tiny baby needs to be carried everywhere, the baby will scream blue murder and basically suffer from neglect (leading to brain damage) if left alone for hours at a time while their mother goes off...

Sure, women collectively can live together in groups with no males at all apart from when they need sperm, and men probably realise this which maybe has lead to a paranoid psychosis in men which makes them determined to control women....

Elendon I fail to see how you could think bringing up lionesses as an example in a counter argument to a post that has specifically highlighted the difference between humans and other mammals, is sensible.

"These skills and a need for social interaction probably brought about an equal society, until invaders came along" - what does that even mean? Do you believe that a) there was no patriarchy before "invaders" and b) that there were no "invaders" prior to a certain time? I find both of those highly questionable.

speaknowords
Your post about communal childcare reminds me of kibbutz communities in Isreal, (now sharply declined).

Based on a principle of no personal wealth. No property. Everything shared including childcare responsibilities and agricultural productivity.
Children would be raised by the education authority comprised of men and women in fairly equal numbers, in the children's house, and parents would be involved loosely but the main focus was a collective goal between all adults and children of the community.

A utopian dream! (Kindof stamped out now thanks to the rise of right wing politics across Isreal)

But community-based ideologies are fundamental in dismantling patriarchy, because humans come with children. Some humans have different needs to others. But we all need each other, and are sentient beings (unlike tigers or whatever that do not grieve/cry etc).

The most powerful humans should not abuse their power by hoarding wealth and acting violently. A higher level of community based social conscience would benefit us all.

A higher level of community based social conscience would benefit us all. - Indeed, but how to achieve that?

I have my faith in robots. Once vast majority of jobs have been taken over by robots, I hope people can live in a utopian like world, where they can do what they want, don't need to work.

Humans are mammals and the difference is slight, such is genetics and the evolutionary path, which took hundreds of thousands of years to get us to this point. Other mammals have been around for longer. Human brains have grown, but skulls at birth are pliable, like every other mammal.

It was just a theory, chill. The earth isn't flat and humans were not around at the time of dinosaurs.

That response was to Hilbert.

Robots. Utopian world. Humans doing what they want equals anarchy.

You can safely trap an animal for eating whilst looking after a small baby. No woman would have done this alone of course, nor would no man.

A man alone! Without Mrs Miggins looking after him? A man alone is the very symbol of pity. Even within the Patriarchy.

Humans doing what they want equals anarchy. - how so? doing what you want necessitates a lack of authority and a lack of rule of law?

I'm not sure how women and new borns requiring extra support leads to a natural evolution of men oppressing women. Women don't need to be protected by men (or necessarily would have been). If men were off hunting (as we are had to believe) then they weren't doing protecting. It was likely to be other women doing the protecting.

Surely a more beneficial natural evolution would have been one of collaboration (certainly from a reproductive/fecundity/successful species perspective). Obviously from a male perspective, dominating women has its advantages. But it doesn't make much sense that it was driven by evolution.

In fact I'm not even sure we are using the term evolution correctly!

Well, humans are individuals are they not? So each individual wants to do what they want. I want to rob, murder, rape, molest without a lack of authority and rule of law. How is that going to work? Plus you take my gun from my cold dead hands.

Plus how did humans evolve without putting the babies into nappies? How did they cope with this? (I know the answer and it isn't pretty)

Hilbert I have my faith in robots. Once vast majority of jobs have been taken over by robots, I hope people can live in a utopian like world, where they can do what they want, don't need to work.

Oh yes, because that's worked so well so far...
You do realise people were saying this in the 60s? They thought that by now, with all the technology we do indeed have, we'd all have loads of leisure time. Technology alone doesn't help - it's just made certain jobs obsolete. The rich are the ones who own the robots, I guess...

(Sorry for derail but so many people suggest robots are the answer without realising there's more to it!)

Spot on, BBCN
I mean, the robots will all be owned by the wealthy (the top 1% or whatever) who will reap the rewards of productivity and economic gain while the rest of us can get to shit. This is the pattern evident since automation has developed, why would it suddenly change to benefit everyone...

Robots. Utopian world. Humans doing what they want equals anarchy.
Yup! I agree. Humans need to exercise their brains and body. Idle hands and mind is the devils workshop. The result is anarchy. A lot of people are helpless when not told what to do. You also, have those who thrive on telling others. Our world is this way because we thrive on pushing our selves forward for a need and want for things we actually don't know (probably happiness).
To me utopia is a form of content and that is a world which stagnant. Most forward thinking thoughts and inventions have been out of deviating from social norms and that in essence is anarchy. In a small dosage can be productive for society. Disturbing the peace and pushing boundaries. This is human evolution. But when every one is disturbing the peace, I would then worry. I see extinction.

Evolution is not driving the particular gender (im)balance of power, or it would not be so culturally variable. girlwiththeflaxenhair is wrong to say that every homo sapiens culture is patriarchal. Go look up several of the early iron age cultures of the ancient near east, Phoenicia/ Carthage among them, and the Minoans for a start.

The gender balance in our own culture keeps changing: we gain a little, then there's a backlash. We're in one now.

Vestal's summary of the likely origins of patriarchy is more likely to be accurate, and in the west I can even give the people she describes a name - the Romans.

Quencher isn't necessity the mother of invention?

How many men spent hours inventing things, whilst their partners took the brunt of child rearing?

Posttruth, it wasn't the Romans. Patriarchy was well established before then. Even in good ole Engerland.