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

What's also funny is that the government doesn't know what a woman is, can't define it, is intent on changing laws that write us out of existence as a sex class to please a few deluded men who want to commit predominantly male crimes like rape and pedophilia and be housed In women's prisons, ( and we have evidence they then go on to rape the female inmates, has happened a lot)
--- yet it is happy to take women's taxes to fund this whole circus that women have no power to change or stop

Yes, deydododatdodontdeydo I was in the military and I just sat on my thumbs all day, working in the interests of men.

From a historical perspective male militaries have been a mixed bag for women. It's not like your aggressive neighbour nation was going to come in, take your land or crops and just tell the women to get on with living their lives with no interference, was it? They were going to rape and enslave you in all likelihood, or at the least leave you to starve and kill your male children. (Maybe we aren't supposed to care about that, since they are men?) Women had a very direct interest in being protected by their own military.

Women and men are totally interdependent on each other in every human society. In most traditional societies more so than today, even if, maybe especially if, work is strictly divided by sex. Many of these societies also walked a line in terms of survival. Some were very close to extinction of the family or tribe at all times. Others were better off but extinction was still a real possibility if there was a drought or very bad winter or disease took hold.

It's crazy to see this in terms of somehow the benefits of the work of one sex should all be going to themselves. People worked because if they didn't, they were all going to suffer. For most of history men and women both have worked without pay much of the time, so they and their children would live through the year without starving, or with a little more security, and everyones labour was necessary for that to happen. It's not like men were kicking back eating bon bons, ploughing a field is hardly getting away without working, and fighting in a war isn't either for that matter.

Women and men are totally interdependent on each other in every human society.*

But that's what Marilyn Frye shows. That economies depend on women's paid and unpaid labour. So without modern economies women would be just fine, we'd be better off.

Men wouldn't be. Men's existence as "workers" depends on women's subordinate exploited position. If women were free to organize amongst themselves I'm not sure what men would do to be honest. They would probably be a lot of excess men, outliers and so on, living on the fringes. Killing each other probably.

I literally can't get over that so many of men's jobs depend on the female taxpayer. It's quite something to wake up and spot the reversals

Last time I looked prostitutes paid taxes and if this is still true then the state is basically a pimp and women's health and safety is sacrificed so that men can go about acting important in their "jobs" funded by prostitutes. It's all so gross

As Churchill (not the dog) said:

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

You may not be representing her view correctly, but what you are saying doesn't make sense. So much so that I suspect you aren't representing it.

An economy is the sum total of all labour, it always includes all the labour of everyone in it, by definition. Of course the economy depends upon the labour of women, it depends on the labour of everyone. Of course the military depends on the labour of women, it depends on the labour of men, too. You can't have a military without also having people who care for children, produce food, make boots, and so on.

It would be ver helpful if perhaps you could answer in some way the points that people have questioned about your assertions. I don't mean simply saying it is feminism 101 or that they should read something, but specifically answer them. Or perhaps explain what you think a non-patriarchal economy would look like. Or something.

I mean, interdependent goes in both directions, that's what it means.

*BjornAgain81
*
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

I'm talking about male violence against women, which usually happens inside women's homes in the form of domestic violence , or wife battery as it used to be called. 2 women a week in the UK murdered by their spouse. It wasn't even seen as a crime by the police until quite recently. Even now the police are notoriously inadequate at responding to domestic violence issues.

There was a spate of prostitutes being murdered in America a while back, I remember. I was discussing it with a group of feminists at the time and one of them said "I bet it's a cop".
Turned out it was.

In Kansas they've only just passed a law saying cops aren't allowed to rape the women they arrest. Had to have a law passed.

Police are just a joke when it comes to protecting women

Don't American boys have to sign up for the military draft to get state funded college education, whilst girls get it no questions asked? That's not great for men who could theoretically end up getting shot at in some middle eastern hellhole against their will.

BjornAgain81

You're forgetting that men make the rules and as we discussed below masculinity requires pecking orders for men. Boys and young men are lower in the male pecking order and older males will often sacrifice them

This has nothing to do with women and we can't stop male hierarchies. What feminists want is freedom from men.

War mongering is a male trait. They need to constantly compete with each other for resources and they happily put younger men forward as sacrificial lambs.

2 women a week in the UK murdered by their spouse. It wasn't even seen as a crime by the police until quite recently

Don't want to break your concentration whilst you're in full swing and all - but are you quite sure of this last revelation ?

sawdustformypony

I'm not here to do research for you. If you're interested in anything I've written, knock yourself out

Spouse murder was seen as a crime, but domestic violence wasn't. It used to be regarded as a private affair between husband and wife and something that the police shouldn't get involved in. And when the wife ended up dead it was a case of "well it couldn't be foreseen".
Now domestic violence is a crime, but it's still very difficult to get the police to take it seriously

Oh I see what you did, misquoted me out of context so it looked like I was saying wife murder wasn't a crime. Annoying.

I think you get an average of 4 years in jail for murdering your wife

Don't American boys have to sign up for the military draft to get state funded college education, whilst girls get it no questions asked? That's not great for men who could theoretically end up getting shot at in some middle eastern hellhole against their will.

No, I don't think this is true. The military is one way to access free higher ed in the US, for boys and girls. State schools arrangements seem to vary a lot according to which state you are in but most aren't free for boys or girls.

Oh I see what you did, misquoted me out of context so it looked like I was saying wife murder wasn't a crime. Annoying.

She quoted your whole post, you said wife murder wasn't considered a crime until recently.

Goosefoot

Domestic violence wasn't a crime until recently. Wife murder was thankfully -- if you read the whole quote not just the snippet that was taken you can see what I really meant .

But now that you mention it, when you think that domestic violence is the precursor for wife murder and that has always been routinely ignored by law enforcement, the police have essentially been giving men the go ahead to murder their wives.

You can make a lot of good arguments about problems with treatment of domestic violence. But its no reason to be snippy if you mistakenly say something and someone points out its non-factual. You've been making a lot of definitive statements.

I think you get an average of 4 years in jail for murdering your wife

That sounds more like the sentence for manslaughter. In the UK the only sentence for murder is life. Although I think that such prisoner must serve a 'tariff' and then many are released on licence - but any subsequent re-offending (for any offence) and they're liable to be returned to custody.

No I wasn't even saying wife murder wasn't a crime. I was referring to the subject of the sentence, which was domestic violence. It was a grammatical error, as when I mentioned the stats about wife murder I should have put them in brackets but lazily I didn't. I can see how this connoted that the subject in question was wife murder but in fact it was domestic violence. I shall be more careful with my grammar.

sawdustformypony

It was the stats quoted at a conference I went to. Just now I did a bit of research on wife murder and found that in the 1800s you could be executed for it, which would be quite a deterrent I should think.

You could be hanged up until the 1950s for murder. After the abolition of capital punishment, the law was changed to make a life sentence mandatory. At the same time, so called 'partial defences' such as provocation and diminished responsibility were introduced to reduce the offence of murder to that of manslaughter. Although manslaughter can carry a life sentence, the Judge has the discretion to impose a lighter sentence.

Basically if you kill some one, then the crime you commit is either murder or manslaughter depending on your intention

sawdustformypony

It's galling to see the manslaughter defense used a lot by men who kill women calling it a "sex game gone wrong" or as we feminists like to call it the "she asked for it" defense of murder.
Well the victim is dead so we'll never hear her side of the story, but hey let's believe the man who killed her because at least he's still alive to tell the tale of what happened. And murderers would never lie.