R4 Key Words for Our Time: 'The Patriarchy' with Natalie Haynes

[R0wantrees]

Worth listening to:

"Michael Rosen and guests explore well-known phrases from the national conversation such as #metoo, post-fact and resilience. By looking at their usage, origins, rhetorical power and linguistic construction, we can see how they frame public argument and shape our thinking (sometimes in ways we do not notice)"

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000sw8

Rosen references a previous program when a guest discussed their preferred pronoun 'they'. this was C N Lester:
'Language and Gender Identity'
"Michael Rosen is joined by CN Lester, author of Trans Like Me, to talk about language and gender identity. What does it mean to be transgender and how is language being used (by and about) people who identify as transgender, non-binary or genderqueer?"
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09r4k4l

Just listened, it was very good, but I did hear the word gender used a lot. Pretty sure in Ancient Rome the patriarchy recognised women by their sex.

I really like Natalie Haynes' work. Did she sound like she thinks critically in this area too?

I’d be astonished if she didn’t, naut, but she gets a lot of work on R4 so, you know.

The distinction between patriarchy and andrachy was useful in explaining (to all the NAMALTers out there) how patriarchy harms men.

I'm fairly new to this and have only found myself on this board because of the self ID issue. But that has completely opened my eyes and now I cannot unsee the patriarchy.

I'm sure this programme is page 1 stuff for many here but for a feminist newbie but I found it really interesting. Patriarchy in Ancient Greece, Rome, monotheistic religion.

I found the comments on language particularly interesting and how patriarchy has degraded the feminine counterparts of what were equivalent roles or positions into sexual slurs - master and mistress, courtier and courtesan, husband and housewife (hussy).

And she mentioned the 'guys' thing which I know is the subject of another thread. How this 'ungendered' term isn't ungendered at all. How it omits women and swallows them up. How it makes the male the norm and the female the deviation from the norm.

I thought that Natalie Haynes came over as subtly GC and I was heartened. I thought the minute or two when she and Rosen talked about the way that the terms used to describe women become debased (a courtier is a man with status/ a courtesan is a prostitute) and the alumni/alumnae mention (when it's a mixed group it's always the male spelling that it used) were telling. The message was that whatever women do, the patriarchy (ie men) undermine and debase them.

I heard Rosen interview the non-binary person who wanted to be called 'they' and despite his meticulous politeness I sensed his irritation at her (it was a woman) narcissism and insistence that the world bend to accommodate her. I wonder whether this is his subtle way of responding?

Just came on to link this. I loved it. Particularly the discussion around patriarchy vs. Andrarchy and why patriarchy doesn't mean all men are advantaged and all men are disadvantaged. That will help inform my arguments with NAMALTers

I heard Rosen interview the non-binary person who wanted to be called 'they' and despite his meticulous politeness I sensed his irritation at her

Argh, it was so frustrating - I so wanted him to take the nonsense to pieces in a kind, intelligent, Michael Rosen-ish way.

Thanks for posting this, yesterday's was also interesting.

Key word for our time: safe spaces R4 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3402841-key-word-for-our-time-safe-spaces-r4