'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?

Elendon I'd like to know howit was established in 'good ole Engerlund' as that country did not exist before the Romans. The island we now know as Britain was inhabited by a number of celtic-speaking tribes and it is generally believed that their gender balance was very different. The story of Boudicca most famously bears that out. They had other queens that we know of. It is true that the Greeks were very patriarchal before the Romans came along, but there was variety among the different city states.

Finland is a country with a very different balance of gender power than in the UK now. Is evolution acting differently there do you reckon?

or indeed, of course, in the fundamentalist Islamic countries. Which by and large were not so fundamentalist in the recent past and women had more rights. Humans are not a species driven by biology alone. We have choices.

PostTruthBreakdown

Why on earth would you say that the Carthaginians were not a patriarchal society ?

it is generally believed that their gender balance was very different

By whom ? Having the odd queen here or there doesn't really count I don't think.

What we are discussing is the origins of Patriarchy v everyday sexism.

Finland wasn't even a country then nor was Engerland.

Boudicca went on the rampage because her daughters were raped as a show of power. She tried, and failed, to correct the imbalance of power.

I doubt gender was a concept then. Male was power. Female was subservience.

For early humans, would it not have been beneficial to send the strongest, fastest people out hunting, building stuff and fighting off predators? The most successful would surely have been people who could lift and throw the heaviest things the furthest. In most cases they would have been men.

It makes a bit of a difference from the narrative that is currently re-establishing itself that women's rightful place is in the home. There is variety and variability is possible. The belief that it isn't is the first enemy of women.

"Male was power. Female was subservience." Rubbish. Boudicca went on the rampage because Rome refused to accept her ascendancy as queen. They believed the legitimate ruler was then Rome in the absence of a male successor. They savaged the country and raped her daughters as a response.

So what country did they savage Post?

Tiresome at best. You are.

I find the justifiers of patriarchy, the direct consequence of which is male violence, equally tiresome, particularly on a forum supposedly dedicated to women's rights within a women's website. The country savaged was of course the lands of the Iceni. I cannot produce a map sadly as cartography wasn't advanced then, and borders were fairly fluid then anyway.

Marking place for later on

Governments need to take a tougher stance on inequality between the sexes. (But they won't)
Society as a whole will then follow suit.

I've been driving for over 25 years without a point on my license or a claim on my insurance, yet, it is cheaper for my wife to insure the same vehicle, with only 9 years driving and 2 no fault claims.

This practice was actually challenged under equality legislation a year or two ago and rates harmonised to remove gender bias. Basically women drivers all got an insurance cost hike to cover the stupidity and recklessness of (some, statististically proven) male drivers. So cheer the fuck up - equality legislation cuts both ways. You can cross that off your grudge list for your next MRA circle jerk.

I'm not justifying Patriarchy. One cannot deny history! Patriarchy and violence goes hand in hand. It's unfortunate. But true. In a post truth world.

Well, I think that suggesting Finland is less patriarchal than England is questionable, but stating that Carthage whose most celebrated citizens were generals and who are alleged (by their conquerors) to have been heavily into child sacrifice were not a civilisation dominated by men is plain wrong.

Patriarchy, or whatever you want to call it appears to have been somewhat successful in allowing humans to associate and cooperate on a massive scale. Acknowledging this doesn't mean you have to think it must remain or is required to remain as we continue to evolve.

I should add here that I generally take the view that being a human being alive today in western society makes us all very lucky compared to our long line of ancestors. There is certainly no other society I would like to be part of and we're lucky that ours is the most advanced and most powerful. So I would say taking a critical look at our civilisation is one thing, saying it is top to bottom a disaster is bound to be controversial though :)

The allegations of child sacrifice are irrelevant in the question of power balance between the sexes. Not a lot is known about how Carthaginian society functioned, but they are another society that had queens.

You are denying history when you write women out of it as irrelevant.
In those early human societies mentioned, the predominant food would have been gathered, not hunted - by all. There are persistent suggestions that hunting was in fact quite unusual for most of human prehistory, and that when meat was on the menu - itself a rare treat - it may have been scavenged more often than not.

But you go ahead, keep telling us that men are the only people that ever mattered.

How many men spent hours inventing things, whilst their partners took the brunt of child rearing?
My point was in regards to what would happen if people didn't have what to do. People will come up with things whether there is patriarchy or not because of the sense of unfulfillment in our nature. Those with more free time on their hands will have more opportunities to do so.

Re-Scandinavia. They were never invaded by the romans. I also believe that it could be the reason why they are more progressive now in their way of thinking when it comes to taking patriarchy. Not that am saying is the same for the world over that won't invaded by the romans. Am specifically talking about Europe.

Not taking but tackling patriarchy is what I was meant to say. ^

isn't necessity the mother of invention? Will humans ever have enough? It's why capitalism thrives. We want, need and must have.

We seem to be missing the point here. What I am trying to say is, men and women should be treated equally. If sexism against women is wrong (which it is), then, shouldn't sexism against men be wrong?

Racism is wrong. As a white person I do not experience as much racism as some other people do.

I have been on the receiving end of racism, but it didn't affect my life, stop me getting a job, pay me less, make me scared, force me to wear uncomfortable shoes for a 12 hour shift, assume I was less intelligent or comment on my 'being up for' a particular sexual act.

When a black friend complains of racism I don't say, 'yes it happens to me' because I don't invalidate her experience and I know it has much more impact on her life.

So you pay a bit more for car insurance, maybe your wife is the better driver. Maybe she is the reason your insurance isn't higher still.

quencher I think the 'scandinavians' did a bit of invading themselves. Though it's now questionable whether they raped and pillaged. Those from the Nordic countries had to leave their countries because of climate change. They assimilated gently into their communities (and were bloody gorgeous to boot). Hence thralls, slaves they sold on. Which is why we have enthralled. The slaves were happy to leave.

The allegations of child sacrifice are irrelevant in the question of power balance between the sexes.

I would say that they aren't unless you are also claiming that the religious elements motivating this were also devised by women, which is a very interesting claim to make indeed. Whatever your claims may be, even if Carthage was not a patriarchy, it was crushed and completely destroyed by one that was, indicating that societies that organised that way were perhaps more "successful".

Ellen the difference is that they don't have a religious belief that dictates the moral code of what their country should be. Where the romans went, they took their religious belief with them and forcibly instilled it into the doctrine. This does not just apply to romans but all other groups that have religious beliefs which dictate and influence the countries or land they invaded.

I think form conversations I have had, Scandinavia has more new age religious groups. These groups can sometimes be very progressive too, depending on which approach the creator of that religion takes.

The way romans behaved is not very different to the way Islam acted when it comes to implementing its religious views in every place they invaded. One of the comments that I hear a lot is how Muhammad married a wife who was hard working, had her own money and was very forward thinking. I think educated too. Where she grew up women were allowed to thrive.
I have always thought that Muhammad brought his religion into a state where women thrived and he destroyed it. His religion become a means to oppress women and there is no denying that. it's his teaching that made that happen. Whether it happened while he was alive or not.

FFS Quencher

Did I say something wrong

Quencher Will humans ever have enough? It's why capitalism thrives. We want, need and must have.

Is that universal, though? In fact I can answer that - I'm only concerned about having enough. The only reason I might save money or want something like a house is to ensure I have the basics in future. I wonder of some people are more prone to be always unsatisfied? And if other aspects of life - say, a lack of social fulfilment - is simply being replaced by consumerism? I think one of the reasons people are so into nostalgia is this idea that people used to help each other out more, more community. That's just my opinion though.

I do think people go on inventing things out of human curiosity though. And finding easier ways to do things. But doing it for some kind of material gain, or hoarding that material gain seems different...