Let's Talk about what Patriarchy Is

[Goosefoot]

So, we had a brief exchange about this on another thread, and it was suggested we move it to its own discussion. I'll copy and past the relevant posts to show what the idea for the discussion is - no expectation that anyone must lay claim to them and of course people can expand or clarify if they want. I'm alternating the font appearance between different quotes.

Can people not see the correlation in the application of identity politics across different groups. This is no different from women claiming theres some kind of oppressive patriarchy. It uses group identity to form a narrative that is both destructive and destabilising to society as a whole.

Patriarchy is still in literal existence in places on this globe.

It's within some women's living memories, being given the vote for the first time. Some women are imprisoned for not confirming to patriarchal religious law. Etc.

Patriarchy in those pure forms is much diminished in the West, it's true. But in some ways the attitudes towards women under patriarchy have just migrated to things like porn.

It very literally still exists in the House of Lords.

However, patriarchy can just be a system where men, for whatever reason, hold most positions of power. You don’t have to believe that all men are involved in a plot against women to observe that a society is patriarchal.

I think patriarchy gets tosses around too liberally.

If you want to apply it to ancient Roman law or more modern versions of the same, yes, it's functioning as a clear and technically useful word that denotes something specific and definable.

But the ways it's used most of the time by western feminists it just means some undefined and often mysterious set of somethings that result is the disadvantaging of women in some way. It reminds me a lot of what Adolph Reed says about the term systemic racism or even just racism - it's just a name you apply to an effect, but it doesn't tell you anything useful about the cause or mechanisms surrounding it. Because it's abstract and unfalsifiable it lends itself to fuzzy thinking. And it doesn't at all lend itself to suggesting solutions or alternatives.

Can you start another thread on this please?

I'm quite interested in teasing out what is patriarchy, what is prejudice against women, what is an inability to socially and economically value caring, what is woman-hatred etc.

I'm a bit conflicted on the whole patriarchy thing. No doubt most of the people at the top are men, but they're small proportion of men, and many of the people at the bottom are also men (the homeless/suicide victims, etc). I think the tables are turning when we look at the tlunher generations, in terms of young women earning more and being better educated, etc, and the number of high earning women rising whilst the number of high earning men falling.

I guess we need definitions to start, yeah?

And I wonder if there is any value in conceptualising pure (or strong) patriarchy and dilute (or weak) patriarchy?

I'd be very interested to read a survey of what women would like to see in a utopian society. I think it's likely that most would be in favour of equal opportunities/pay etc but that many would still happy with the traditional setup where the woman takes on childcare responsibilities - I certainly know many women who have been happy to work part time and step back from their career when in a stable relationship with a man whose salary can support a good quality of life, which it could be argued supports the patriarchy.

Ok, we haven't defined terms yet, so I'm not getting into discussion. Also not interested in any MRA reruns, just fyi.

Interested in refining language to it's most precise for the benefit of women.

Bloody freaking autocorrect! No apostrophe in its, sigh...

Ok, we haven't defined terms yet, so I'm not getting into discussion.

I understood it as the whole point of the thread being to define the meaning of the term 'patriarchy', so surely a discussion to this end is necessary?

You start with established definitions, of which there are at least three, literal, dictionary defs. Helps to get clear on those, at least, and any others useful to the conversation.

I guess it makes sense to ensure we're all reading from the same hymn sheet. That said, I must admit I do sometimes find that discussion on here get a bit impenetrable and obfuscating when it descends into the minutia of definitions rather than focusing on the broader discussion.

I'm.sure you'll keep up.

To me, modern patriarchy describes a political, social and economic system that is primarily designed around the male life experience. So it assumes male conventions are the fundamental parameters.

It could be better described as the andrarchy, I suppose, as we no longer subscribe to Victorian (and Roman) notions of male household headship.

But you can see andrarchy everywhere: from the design of cars to pharmaceutical testing, to assumed life working patterns to the design of houses. Andrarchy is the reason why the typical office working day is 9 to 5. Andrarchy is the reason why the motherhood penalty in our society is so steep. Andrarchy is the reason why I had to get my dad to help me put together my daughter's cot when I was pregnant (you would think that ensuring a pregnant female would be able to construct a baby's sleeping platform without needing male upper body strength would be fairly high on the design spec, but apparently not).

Of course, the system doesn't ensure success for all men, just like the Roman patriarchy didn't deliver all Roman male citizens into the Senate, but the consistent disadvantage women face is still there. Often it is so normalised that you don't realise how rife it is until you experience something different.

One area that is problematic is domestic design conventions: rules and conventions surrounding normal kitchen installations, for example, are particularly troublesome. I never realised how bad they were until I used my grandmother's kitchen, which is a modified disability design, and it hit me how much easier it was for me to use (and I am not disabled).

One example of patriarchal societal structure is the way the legal system approaches child welfare.
www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6703.html
Women are expected to be near-perfect mothers and even when traumatised by abuse they are held to a high standard.
Being an abuser is a parenting decision but fathers are seen as 'good enough' when taking drugs, abusing family members, leaving children unsupervised etc because it is seen as so beneficial to have a father.

Definition of Patriarchy that I tend to use:

a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.

a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

To me, patriarchy is a very specific thing. Most nations have developed out of historical patriarchal cultures and some still thrive today. I would say patriarchy is alive and well in Middle Eastern countries, especially those that implement some form of Sharia law, South Asian countries, a number of African countries etc. Many of these nations have laws that do not allow / restrict women to inherit property, or to have their own wealth and independence; or have mechanisms to ensure that a woman must always have a male guardian or sorts, either father, brothers or husband. Through political, religious and social coercion and rules, women in these countries are kept dependent on men with little means to successfully thrive on their own. Even women who are from very wealthy families are still under the good graces of the family / father and can easily lose any status, protection and financial support if disowned. There is little protection from government for women who are unmarried, divorced, a single mother or widowed. They are viewed as pitiful outcasts from the structure that places a father at the head of the family unit. Lots of religious groups and sects are also organised around patriarchal structures (such as the father being the head of the family) and believers are expected to adhere to them.

I personally don't think the term patriarchy is a useful concept as part of modern parlance in Western democracies these days and I feel there is a growing use of 'patriarchy' by feminists in such countries as a very vague, ever widening term that has an intangible substance and can be used to explain away any and every issue without probing for alternative explanations or using a multifaceted approach. It is an invisible, malignant evil lurking everywhere and nowhere at the same time. It turns into this (religious) meta narrative. I think discourses around racism these days employ a similar approach.

On the whole, women are allowed to live their lives as they choose, the government provides forms of social security for all, including single mothers. They can vote, run their own business, own property and accumulate wealth, and so on with or without any involvement of men if they choose. Yes, there are still anachronistic issues and it takes a very long time to slowly move away from the patriarchal heritage that formed modern, Western societies.

For example, I would not say the modern UK is a Christian nation or theocracy. However, I acknowledge that it has evolved under Christianity and therefore many of the laws, customs and social mores still reflect a number of these concepts and frameworks - some are useful and some are not. The legal, political and social framework are moving away from these origins. The vast majority of the population live their lives without much thought for Christianity or god, even if they still hold weddings and funerals in churches. Iran and Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, are definitely Islamic theocracies.

It's the same with the term 'patriarchy' - we can still see the lingering effects and legacy of it in Western democracies and we should do our best to address problems where we find them, but I wouldn't say the UK is a patriarchal nation or society. The vast majority of women and men live their lives without much thought of 'the patriarchy'.

We should definitely keep highlighting problems, unfair treatment and address violence and reluctance of government to address exploitation of women from marginalised and deprived backgrounds.

Instead of railing against an ethereal bogeyman that we can never defeat and therefore will have to wage an eternal battle against - I feel it's more productive to engage with and focus on tangible issues and find ways to relate to the vast majority of women and get them involved in taking control of their lives and making the best use of the opportunities that are available to them.

I think it's weird that we only got voting rights just over 100 years ago, and we're still fighting for equality in so many areas because of an ingrained "Male as default" mentality but when you use the word "Patriarchy" people suddenly get confused.

Men have been in charge for hundreds of years and that, and the social attitudes around it, didn't disappear the day we got the right to vote.

o me, modern patriarchy describes a political, social and economic system that is primarily designed around the male life experience. So it assumes male conventions are the fundamental parameters.

Thats just it though its not actually 'designed' around those features at all. Its designed around the things that work.
It also strives to maintain positions in which competance is the most important factor. Thats why many top women occupy positions of the most powerful in our society. It would be wrong and a catastrophic assumption to make it 50% women and %50% men as that would be giving people positions based on sex and not how competant they are at doing that job.

To me, modern patriarchy describes a political, social and economic system that is primarily designed around the male life experience. So it assumes male conventions are the fundamental parameters.

It could be better described as the andrarchy, I suppose, as we no longer subscribe to Victorian (and Roman) notions of male household headship.

I entirely agree with this. The term patriarchy seems to belong to a structure that has now gone in the West. Although I have been asked to get a male signature for an HP agreement, so not that long gone.
It is really the shadow that still falls on society due to this history.

Thats just it though its not actually 'designed' around those features at all. Its designed around the things that work.
Actually you need to add works for men to that. Our economic system ignores women's unpaid work for instance, just like it ignores natural resources like wetlands, ecosystems. The value placed on jobs like care work, etc is a due to using the patriarchy's value system. I quite honestly find the competence argument ridiculous, I see little competence in evidence in the leaders of business, politics, universities at the moment.

For me it comes down to whether the male model is seen as default or whether society is co-created by men and women to the benefit of everyone, rather than the current system where women have been permitted to play a part in a man made world.

Thats just it though its not actually 'designed' around those features at all. Its designed around the things that work.
It's designed around things that work for men. Not consciously but subconsciously as women often don't have a seat at the table and their needs are either not even thought about or are assumed.

It's exactly the same mechanism that causes structural racism. White people creating social structures that work for them without considering if those structures could be a barrier to other ethnicities.

I strongly suggest people read the book "invisible women" for a very compelling illustration of what "the patriarchy" is in practice. She has collected evidence based, practical examples from around the world.

Really I struggle to see how anyone on a feminist board can dismiss the patriarchy but there you go.

It would be wrong and a catastrophic assumption to make it 50% women and %50% men as that would be giving people positions based on sex and not how competant they are at doing that job.
Are you suggesting the sex imbalance in top positions is because women on average are less competent than men? Interesting position for a feminist

For me, that we still live in what is in many ways what I consider a patriarchal society became much more evident when I became pregnant and then had children.

I agree with @QuentinWinters that our society isn't structured around what works, rather what works for men. It can be very hard to really step back from how things are to re imagine them in a radically different way that doesn't centre male biology, and instead is much for fair to women.

I think that patriarchy is essentially about power, and in our society an enormous amount of that power comes from controlling and having money. When a woman becomes pregnant, unless she works somewhere with a very generous maternity leave policy there is very high percentage chance that after 6 weeks she will suffer a significant reduction to her access to money.

While hopefully the woman will have saved up or be otherwise financially stable enough for this not to be problematic, the reality is that for many women, after those 6 weeks she will then be reliant on a man to continue to support her in her absence from work. She loses her money (her power) with the expectation that he will support her. And hopefully he will. But she is now in a much more vulnerable position.

I appreciate there have been recent changes re the introduction of shared parental leave t try an balance this out, but in a system where men (in general) earn more than women (in general), you will still more likely than not end up with the woman taking the extended leave, as the family can m ore readily absorb her lost earnings rather than the mans.

A non- patriarchal system would recognise the value of child bearing and maternity leave, the biological necessity of large elements being undertaken by a woman (espec if breastfeeding), and would consider it unfair to financially penalise and disempower women, compared to men, because of it. I don't know exactly what that would look like, but it involves a radical shift away from viewing things through the normal lens to consider a more egalitarian and less patriarchal system.

Not sure why anyone would think we shouldn't use patriarchy because we aren't livingin ancient Rome or something.

As others have said upthread it is about women living in a world that is run by and for men, and that women are expected to fit in with it.

If you want to picky about is "patriarchy" linguisticaly correct you could say that the start of the entitlement that men feel irrespective of race or class is the status boys are given in their homes by their fathers.

Rather than spend time on mumsnet niggling about are we using the word correctly wouldn't it be more productive to look at ways we as women can challenge the male world, and get more people to recognise that on every layer of life, from male violence, to design or space suits, to really mediocre white men getting into positions of power, men are the beneficiaries and women the victims.

And when it is recognised what pro active steps are going to be taken to take away that male presumption of being the yardstick by which things are measured.

For me it does come back to the arbitrary application of sex based stereotype, and subsequent differences in expectations (both positively and negatively)

A society set up this way is inefficient and unfair. People will be unhappy if they are placed in a gendered box they don’t fit well in, and will tend to do worse work because of lack of motivation and skill.

So whats in the way? Sex role stereotypes are very sticky, and are policed by everyone. But progress in the west for women has shown that they can change. The biggest sticking point seems to be broadening men’s Attitudes. Men seem entirely uninterested in giving one another The space to live outside the man box. There’s not a lot feminists can do about this though - such men are unlikely to listen to women at all.

Meanwhile There’s no recognition at all in some societies that women are even human. there’s a lot further to go when female infants are being murdered, and women are forced to keep their adult sons around to protect them and any daughters from roving bands of young males. We can help to some extent with this via political action, and possibly via organizing things like boycotts, and by encouraging immigration of Persecuted women from places where women’s rights don’t exist. Once in the west, Immigrants historically have been among the strongest advocates for reforming their nation of origin.

I agree with NonnyMouse - I think it's important to use and keep in mind that the word patriarchy describes a very specific type of social and political organisation.

It doesn't simply mean that there are different social roles and outcomes for men and women in society.

We could certainly look at a modern society and say, ok, certain elements may be holdovers from, or even a direct example of, this kind of politics, but you actually have to show that to be the case.

I think for any political or social analysis to be effective or have any chance to get at the truth, it needs to be rooted in empirical facts. And you have to approach them without imposing lens as much as you possibly can, because if you do it will distort your interpretation of the facts. It requires a real mental self discipline and standing apart from your theory when looking at evidence. This also guards against the related problem of having a hammer and seeing a nail.

One of the questions that often comes up with this is how do we tease apart whether differences between male and female populations in a society are about something like sexism, or patriarchy, or when they are expressions of the differences between male and female bodies. There is a tendency among many feminists to assume the latter, or even to interpret differences caused by bodies as moral inequalities of a sort, that need to be made equal in some way.

An example of this might be what someone upthread said, many women would be quite happy to live in a society where women were given space to step back from career when childrearing, and even resent what is often a necessity to maintain a career. But we also see people who would like to make sure that men and women maintain similar levels and types of employment, and that differences in employment histories don't create pay gaps, and to achieve this would insist of equally split parental leaves.

So what is "patriarch" in this case? The effect of men and women having different bodies? If so, that means patriarchy is just the natural human form of governance!

Anyway - that's really to say that I would never consider that disparate outcomes are always or even usually rooted in something called "patriarchy." There are always reasons that certain things happen a certain way, and to understand them we need to look at them, understand what happened, the historical origins, and why they persist.

"Patriarchy" is just a sort of vague general term then, with no explanatory power, like the "invisible hand". It implies a kind of intent located outside of us, and unless it's being seen as rooted in nature, it represents a sort of idealism.

An example of this might be what someone upthread said, many women would be quite happy to live in a society where women were given space to step back from career when childrearing, and even resent what is often a necessity to maintain a career. But we also see people who would like to make sure that men and women maintain similar levels and types of employment, and that differences in employment histories don't create pay gaps, and to achieve this would insist of equally split parental leaves

Living in the patriarchy is why you start with a base assumption that childcare and work are two separate things.

In a society that truly recognised childrearing as work and valued it accordingly, there would be probably be a very different approach to "work" overall. Childrearing is seen as incompatible with job because we live in a patriarchy so the workplace structures and norms have grown over the years to suit the majority of people in that workplace i.e. men.

If we started again now with workplaces that were inclusive and with childrearing recognised as work it would look very different. We wont though because it's much more comfortable to say women are natural child carers so childcare isn't work, it's a woman's birthright.

This is also covered in Caroline Criado Perez's book in depth and will give you the empirical evidence you want.

Living in the patriarchy is why you start with a base assumption that childcare and work are two separate things.
Exactly. Perhaps we should try a thought experiment where everyone gives birth (there was a Dr Who episode where men gave birth to boys and women girls). How would we organise society then. This is the most fundamental issue.