Feminism 101- the creation of patriarchy

[sakura184]

The patriarchal takeover began as a means of controlling female reproduction.

It became important for men to know who the father was and thus began a strictly and violently enforced set of social rules-- which is the origin of marriage. Punishments for women who dared to procreate outside marriage were harsh. Their children were cruelly branded bastards and had to deal with the social stigma and poverty that went along with that. ( See the Magdalene laundries in Ireland for general information about how this worked)

But knowing who the father was was no longer enough. Children had become, by law, the father's property. This was the introduction of children as being property whereas before it was generally understood that children belonged to themselves and their mothers had responsibility over them.

I argue that patriarchy is an affront to natural law, and to nature itself. I argue that this is feminism 101

But again, you aren't making the connections.

Capitalism is not only rewarding men for women's unpaid labour. It exploits everybody except the capitalists. Some of whom are women and you might notice that capitalism is absolutely happy to allow women or any other group of people into the ranks of the capitalists so long as capitalism itself is not challenged.

In fact I would argue that capitalism doesn't really want women or anyone else in unpaid labour, they want very much to put women in the same place as the male members of the workforce, producing an income which can be transferred to the owners. Because you can't transfer the effective good of your time spent with your kids or caring for elders for free or working in the garden that will feed your family. Every hour a women or anyone else spends adding value to their lives, and the lives of their families, through that kind of activity, is a loss to the capitalists.

There is a reason the 20th century mainstream culture was so happy to embrace many elements of feminism, and the fact that it allowed them to bring women more directly into the exploitative workplace relations of capitalism is probably the biggest one. They'd rather not have people realising the possibility meaningful work that isn't paid by an employer, it's a threat to the whole system.

You have very much missed the point Marilyn Frye was making. I strongly suggest you read her book so that you can make better sense of feminism. It must be highly confusing for someone with no working understanding of what patriarchy is.

to give men jobs and something to do and to justify them receiving tax payers money ( women's taxes are used to subsidize men's jobs- the military, the police and so on). Women literally hand over money to fund male employment.

This is not how taxes work. Governments with a sovereign currency do not need tax to fund their projects. Public spending actually funds private wealth. Spending always comes before taxation. Nobody's taxes pay for anything - on a national scale.
Tax is mainly used to remove excess money from circulation to control inflation.

I'm happy to be taught about taxes.

I was aware that One of the justifications of high taxes in the UK is the money that needs to be spent on the NHS for example, so that we can access a free health service. So I don't understand why 'Nobody's taxes pay for anything - on a national scale"

I assumed this was also how other government jobs were funded but I'm happy to be corrected. So where exactly does the money come from to pay the wages of the male dominated industries such as the police, military and so on? The military gets a hefty amount of funding from somewhere.

It's a bit patronising to assume that because someone doesn't think patriarchy is a useful concept they are talking out of their ass, or that because they have a different view of women's unpaid labour. You know there are differences in thinking on these subjects even within academia.

I think "woman" and "patriarchy" are both very useful words to describe reality although I do understand why certain people might want to get rid of them or make out that they're not important

I mean really, this is an odd thread to try and educate us about patriarchy. If we question your pronouncements about patriarchy, we should read a book because clearly we don't understand, but you can't explain it. Nor the rather romantic history you have proposed.

Oh, FFS, are you seriously claiming some sort of ill intent here? Secretly I want to keep women down by asking people to be clear about the material basis of their language?

You can't even explain what you think patriarchy is. You are obscuring things. Not good for improving anything.

NonnyMouse1337

I've just done a quick google and found loads of evidence that taxpayers fund the military.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/02/01/ministry-defence-must-do-give-taxpayers-value-money/amp/

If taxes are taken from women's minimum wage pink ghetto work to fund a male dominated military and police force this would be a perfect example of how women are exploited economically to uphold a system that oppresses them with violence, a system that does not serve their interests in law ( West Yorkshire police arresting feminists for Tweets, letting rapists go free, bare minimum sentence for killing your wife etc, dodgy family court system, judges believing she "consented" to murder in BDSM session etc etc)

The Neanderthal DNA in all Europeans is a question

Yes, it is in all non-African humans. Not just Europeans. Denisovans have left their genetic legacy in Southeast Asian populations and (I think) Homo Erectus admixture in Aboriginals.

Interestingly, the Neanderthal DNA source was the female offspring between a male Neanderthal and female human, clearly raised among humans. Male offspring were apparently sterile.

sakura184 - nations that have their own sovereign currency like the US, UK, Japan, Canada etc (not countries that use a shared currency like the Euro) are able to issue money at the touch of a computer keystroke. Ever since the 'gold standard' has been dropped, government money isn't tied to any finite resource. So essentially the supply of money is infinite because it is a fictional concept. The only constraints are real world ones - resources are finite, labour is finite etc. Money is not finite. We can 'afford' anything we want if we have the material resources to make them or the people to provide them.

Governments can issue money at any time and circulate them into the economy. Public and private sectors make use of this money - most of it is digital these days. However, if governments kept pumping money into the economy, eventually it will cause inflation (once full employment is achieved), so the main purpose of taxes is a way of removing money from circulation to maintain a relative balance in the economy.
Taxes can also have other uses like helping curb economic power - so you tax the rich more because it reduces their spending power over less rich members of society.
Taxes are also very useful to nudge citizens into behaving differently - the small charge on plastic bags is evidence of this.
But ultimately, the biggest role of tax is to 'destroy' money by removing it from circulation in the economy.

The military, police, NHS etc are all government bodies, and can always be funded if the government wishes to do so. It is political ideology, not economics, that determines what a sovereign government funds in a society. No government has ever backed out of a war because 'it didn't have the money for it'. It might run out of material resources or humans, but not money.

The myth of governments needing taxes to fund things is a useful lie because it enables them to not take responsibility for important issues.

I'd recommend you read about Modern Monetary Theory.

I have to get ready for work and don't have links to hand but can post them later if you are interested. :)

judges believing she "consented" to murder in BDSM session

This is a myth. There is no such defence. Don't be fooled.

I've no doubt that we live in something of a man's world. However, it's easy to see how men became the dominant sex.

Three monkeys and only one banana. Which monkey gets the banana? Is it the aggressive one or the timid one?

And I think both sexes have certain advantages. Of course, many women see it as imperative to have all the opportunities that a man has (and rightly so) but many are happy to marry a well off man and enjoy the privilege of working part time.

How many men do you see working part time/low paid jobs whilst driving a Range Rover and living in a huge house? Not many I'd wager.

I'd have a hard time agreeing that society consists of taking taxes from women to pay for men.
First of all, men pay taxes. Because of the gender pay gap they pay more taxes. Because earnings below £12k (I think) aren't taxed, low paid women pay less taxes in general.
Secondly, you pulled out military and police as examples of "mens things". Even though the police can be hugely incompetent at protecting women, I believe that women benefit from having a police force. I'm not a military fan myself, but if you ascribe to the belief that the military protects us, surely women count as "us" and receive protection just as much as men.
Because you cherry picked, you didn't list anything that taxes are used of to benefit women. Child benefit, maternity pay, NHS, old age pensions. With women living longer than men, surely women benefit more from old age pensions.
Note that I'm not, and would never say, that women have it better than men. But I cannot agree that women's taxes pay for men.
Both men's and women's taxes (but on average more men's) pay for both men and women.

Men all over the world have banned abortion

And I don't agree with this either.
To look at it one way, if you agree that men are in charge, then men all over the world have legalised abortion over the last 50 or so years.
OK, some places haven't yet, and some (notably the US) are going the other way, but in general men have legalised abortion.
Why would they do this do you think?

In Poland, before Solidarnosk took control, it was because they had banned contraception, and abortion was the only form of contraception available to women.
In China its because they limit the number of offspring each couple can have.
In many other places its only permitted if the womens life is at risk.

So theres that.

Because abortion lowers the breeding stock.

That Marilyn Frye book looks interesting, it's what I've been arguing for years (although predominantly in my own head).

The food chain stuff is also really interesting. I've often thought that - given all of the obvious caveats about women not owning property etc - one of the more equal places to live in the past would be as the wife of a Yeoman farmer in the late middle ages. Both farmer and wife are running a team of employees, and both are necessary for the farm to survive- the wife preserves the produce, sells excess, and deals with medical needs. A farmer would almost always remarry if widowed; widows less so.

Generally I am intrigued about food production though, it is not very well considered in archaeology.

When you think about it it's very parasitical for male dominated industries like the military to depend on women's paltry incomes and take it money from them in form of taxes to fund their jobs.
It's what hat we call a patriarchal reversal. Women who are doing actual work like raising children are accused of being layabouts and scroungers when the real scroungers are the people doing made up work and depending on female labour and taxes to do it

What about women in the military? Oh I forgot, they're not doing actual work

*onsen
*
Generally I am intrigued about food production though, it is not very well considered in archaeology.

I wrote at length about food production on a blog I had. Unfortunately I had to shut it down because of MRAs

Well that's why we talk about male dominated industries isn't it. You get the odd woman in an industry but it's dominated, Lead, controlled by men. Feminism 101

Like prostitution is a female dominated industry although you do get the odd rent boy

Not that prostitution is lead and controlled by women-- not at all. Men control the industry but use women's bodies

Pretty insulting to all those women who have fought for the right to enter the military and have forged successful careers, to be honest.