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.

Packingsoapandwater
Some very good stuff in here.
It’s the structuring of society where men are people and women and children are possessions. In the uk it trickled down from the men who had rights like the vote, to men who did not, but both those groups had rights women did not. In fact primogeniture still exists giving some men rights that are not available to women.

When 50% of people are 100% of the people making laws and products it creates a systemic imbalance favouring the 50% in myriad ways from obvious to difficult to quantify.

If you look at the last 100 years you can see where women were pushed back out the workplace post war by government initiatives, women’s jobs being created as a subclass of employment in the NHS early days. The civil service marriage bar. The changes to child residence arrangements on divorce, equal pay, maternity rights and pay, women being seen as separate to their husbands for taxation and on and on.

There’s an example hitting the news today about women who could have been claiming higher pensions but the information was only sent to their husbands.

All of that - patriarchy.

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

I also agree. And central to the detriment that this does to women is the consequent reduction in power (i.e. money) available to them.

It took me ages to really understand what feminists and women's rights campaigners were saying when they talked about the 'unpaid work' undertaken by women, and the unfairness of that. On one hand it sounds bizarre to suggest that women should get paid for looking after their own children.

But it is less bizarre when you look at it from the perspective that patriarchal structures (where maternity and caring are wholly devalued in economic terms), leave women without significant financial means powerless.

How things are structured now, to an extent denies the fact and reality of parenthood/maternity. Women will get pregnant. People will reproduce. This will happen. But current structures mean that 9 times out of 10 women are much more at work of a financial/power deficit compared to men as a consequence of reproducing.

While I’m ranting

It supports and feeds the idea that men are innately superior in all ways that count and they are entitled to have dominion over women. Men decide what counts.

It’s embedded in language, in gender roles, in EVERYTHING.

As well as looking at definitions, I find it useful to go behind them and ask "but why patriarchy"? And to my mind it's very simple - female biology. We have hidden fertility, and our bodies are required to produce offspring - man need to control that. And they are able to because we have smaller weaker bodies (on the whole). Nothing new there but I find it helpful to remember that it all springs from that.
(I went back through that and removed some of the qualifications I always feel the need to add whenever I'm asserting anything. Damn female socialisation! I'm 41 and I've got 3 degrees for fuck's sake!)

Women will get pregnant. People will reproduce. This will happen. But current structures mean that 9 times out of 10 women are much more at work of a financial/power deficit compared to men as a consequence of reproducing.
Amen to that

@QuentinWinters

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.

I don't think that's a particularly accurate history.

Childcare and "work" didn't used to be considered separate, all things that went toward maintaining the family were work, much of it carried out in and around the home for both sexes, as agriculture was the bulk of the economy. However, work was very often divided by sex for much of the population.

Once you get into the modern period however and wage work, men were more often the ones who had a steady employer from outside and increasingly over time that capitalist model came to dominate, this created a sense of a gap between home and work. The important point though was that this was not some real advantage to men, it was to the advantage of the people who employed them, the capitalist. It was an exploitative relationship.

To say that entering the workforce for women was not a great fit because it was set up for the good of men - well, that's saying the position of the worker in a capitalist system is to be envied if you aren't caught up in it yourself. It was not set up for the good of men but for the good of the wealthy. Who don't care much about whether their system is good for working families, either the men or women or children in them.

@Theterrible42s

As well as looking at definitions, I find it useful to go behind them and ask "but why patriarchy"? And to my mind it's very simple - female biology. We have hidden fertility, and our bodies are required to produce offspring - man need to control that. And they are able to because we have smaller weaker bodies (on the whole). Nothing new there but I find it helpful to remember that it all springs from that. (I went back through that and removed some of the qualifications I always feel the need to add whenever I'm asserting anything. Damn female socialisation! I'm 41 and I've got 3 degrees for fuck's sake!)

I do think its true that in some societies men have been very interested in controlling female reproduction.

However, sometimes I get the impression that people forget that women also need reproduction to happen for society to work, and so they need men to at the least impregnate them, and for best results contribute to the well-being of children too. In fact, because we are smaller and weaker, and physically burdened by the reproductive task, we do tend historically to depend on the fact that men on the whole do not have these restrictions.

I can't see that as anything other than a fairly tight interdependency, and that is going to assert itself no matter what sort of political organisation you want to use. So what would we think that would realistically (not pie in the sky) look like if we were trying to produce a non-patriarchal society? Pre-contraception?

But I think this is the problem with not defining the idea of patriarchy carefully. You can point to anything and call it patriarchy, if patriarchy is just a society where women carry children.

So what would we think that would realistically (not pie in the sky) look like if we were trying to produce a non-patriarchal society?

I think it's to do with who loses out because of the fact of reproduction.

Your post about capatilist structures vs patriarchal structures is interesting.

'Because of' reproductive roles, in a pariarchal society women are at greater risk of being financially disadvantaged. They are left with vastly reduced wages after only 6 weeks statutory maternity pay. In a society where childcare is largely seen as 'women's work' and where paid for childcare is very expensive, it is women who end up on reduced hours in less well paid jobs to facilitate looking after children.

So it's more likely to be women who end up financially disempowered and reliant on a man than vice versa.

Obviously loads of things have happened in society to try and counter balance this, like women being entitled to a share their husbands property in the event of divorce etc, but i guess that props up the patriarchal structure.

Ok goose I can't be arsed talking about it with you. I was posting for the workers really.
You don't believe in patriarchy. Fine. A debate isn't just labouring your point ad nauseam.

This is why I think you are being blinkered:
"men were more often the ones who had a steady employer from outside and increasingly over time that capitalist model came to dominate, this created a sense of a gap between home and work. The important point though was that this was not some real advantage to men*
Work provides the ability to be financially independent. Women are less likely to have that now and historically. That is an advantage to men, caused by patriarchy.
In a non-patriarchal society child rearing work would be compensated (or work would complement child rearing) so women could be financially independent in the same way as men.

You aren't taking on board the posts laying out the financial and power differentials between men and women. So I dont think this is a debate at all.

men were more often the ones who had a steady employer from outside and increasingly over time that capitalist model came to dominate, this created a sense of a gap between home and work. The important point though was that this was not some real advantage to men

And yet male led trade unions developed closed shops and fought the idea of equal pay, using the argument that men should be paid more to support their families. Women were excluded from the early guilds.
Again child allowance has only recently been paid directly to women.
Patriarchy is indeed pervasive, it's an invisible web which very few women can escape. The fact that some men exploit other men as well doesn't change the specific position of women.

@Imnobody4

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.

What do you mean 'works for men'? Women have moved forth leaps and bounds in so many areas. Can you give an example of what it is that works for men?

You are seriously deluded if you believe value in areas like care is anything remotely whatsoever to do with any influence of men. The 'value' is based on the fact that you can pull anyone off the street to do that job so theres no reason why that persons labour is worth more. Try asking anyone to do the job of a dentist or doctor and you'll have to pay more for the expertise and labour that person has to offer.

Whether you find it ridiculous or not competence is the standard requirement unless theres some other unknown quality you know of. And whether you think they're competant, again, is irrelevant, the person that chooses them for the particular position did. For example our prime minister was voted into office based on competance, theres no other standard.

Competence?
Nothing to do with the fact that Eton educated men are 15% of MPS despite something like 0.01% of the population could be educated at Eton. Clearly an ability based selection.

And pull anyone of the street? Really? The most vulnerable members of our society need carers. If you reduce the job of a carer to the physical tasks it still requires skill but it’s so much more than the basic physical tasks.

@HH160bpm

Competence? Nothing to do with the fact that Eton educated men are 15% of MPS despite something like 0.01% of the population could be educated at Eton. Clearly an ability based selection.

And pull anyone of the street? Really? The most vulnerable members of our society need carers. If you reduce the job of a carer to the physical tasks it still requires skill but it’s so much more than the basic physical tasks.

Why do you think Eton is considered one of the finest schools in the country. People pay large sums to be educated there so their children learn COMPETENCE. You cant be a complete loser and get employed at places just cause you flash an Eton badge.

And if it takes so much skill to be a carer then they would be paid more money. Thats how capitalism works. You are only worth the value someone is willing to trade in return for the alienation of your labour. It is a voluntary trade in which you set the demand. It is the most moral system we have to date.

If Boris Johnson had gone to North Hackney Comprehensive would he be prime minister?

Well it’s apparently a meritocracy so clearly yes. What nonsense. The amount of deck stacking that has already happened to be able to pay the fees for Eton and then reap the many advantages of the network it provides has got nothing to do with competence. In most cases it’s inherited wealth and privilege. Not recognising that demonstrates a lack of comprehension and understanding of structural inequity. Before you mention scholarships and bursaries there are many who do not know these things exist and even if they did they would have many issues to overcome to send a child to Eton, somewhere utterly alien to their lives.

I hope you never need state funded care carried out by people who don’t want to do it who would be sanctioned if they didn’t take the care job. Many are in that position. Guess they should have worked harder.

To me patriarchy is structural sexism. Just like structural racism, structural sexism penetrates all areas of life. It means that even if a man and a woman presented with all the same qualifications, traits and experiences, the man would still be better off in society. Male privilege is like white privilege. It doesn't mean your life is easy, it means your sex hasn't actively made your life harder. It means that you are the default, and women are the other. It means you are celebrated for doing something a woman would be condemned for not doing. The patriarchy changes as society evolves, but it ultimately boils down to structural sexism, until men aren't the default the patriarchy is still intact.

@QuentinWinters

This is why I think you are being blinkered: "men were more often the ones who had a steady employer from outside and increasingly over time that capitalist model came to dominate, this created a sense of a gap between home and work. The important point though was that this was not some real advantage to men* Work provides the ability to be financially independent. Women are less likely to have that now and historically. That is an advantage to men, caused by patriarchy. In a non-patriarchal society child rearing work would be compensated (or work would complement child rearing) so women could be financially independent in the same way as men.

You aren't taking on board the posts laying out the financial and power differentials between men and women. So I dont think this is a debate at all.

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm not "taking things on board". I have four kids, I know how reproduction shapes women's lives.

Did you read the actual introductory post? The point of the thread is not to just assume that some nebulous idea of "patriarchy" is real but to discuss the usefulness of the concept.

I'm taking a materialist perspective - if we thing that is some kind of systemic effect that plays out due to reproductive role - and it would be odd if there wasn't - does it really make sense to call anything to do with that patriarchy? Does using the term at all, outside of the technical socio-political meaning, help us see how these biological roles shape society, or does it tend to obscure careful analysis.

If you aren't interested in challenging the scope of the abstraction, yeah, there probably isn't much point in participating in the discussion.

@NotMyTimes

To me patriarchy is structural sexism. Just like structural racism, structural sexism penetrates all areas of life. It means that even if a man and a woman presented with all the same qualifications, traits and experiences, the man would still be better off in society. Male privilege is like white privilege. It doesn't mean your life is easy, it means your sex hasn't actively made your life harder. It means that you are the default, and women are the other. It means you are celebrated for doing something a woman would be condemned for not doing. The patriarchy changes as society evolves, but it ultimately boils down to structural sexism, until men aren't the default the patriarchy is still intact.

There is no structural sexism today. Instances of it exist of course, that doesn't mean its structural. And if anything the structure we live in is anti-racist, not racist.

@NotMyTimes

To me patriarchy is structural sexism. Just like structural racism, structural sexism penetrates all areas of life. It means that even if a man and a woman presented with all the same qualifications, traits and experiences, the man would still be better off in society. Male privilege is like white privilege. It doesn't mean your life is easy, it means your sex hasn't actively made your life harder. It means that you are the default, and women are the other. It means you are celebrated for doing something a woman would be condemned for not doing. The patriarchy changes as society evolves, but it ultimately boils down to structural sexism, until men aren't the default the patriarchy is still intact.

This comparison is what makes me very nervous about the whole idea of patriarchy as it's used in feminism. Terms like systemic racism and white privilege are the hallmarks of identity politics rather than solid materialist leftist analysis.

Ad an explanation it seems, rather than to help explicate disparities and effects of reproductive role, to give a sort of a priori explanation for any observations of what seem to be disparities or problems.

And more than that, it's a negative lens - it tends to contain the unspoken assumption that the disparity itself is a problem, and needs to be equalised, which may or may not be the case. So you get a revolution of women stuck at home while men are employed, and the solution is to send women to be employed under the same conditions as men. Rather than either looking to make domestic work sustainable and values and stable financially, or actually be really revolutionary and say, there is a serious problem with the way men are employed and that is a significant material factor in the disparities between home work and wage work.

The point about unions not wanting to admit women is interesting, because in a sense they were not wrong. It didn't really benefit workers as such - male and female - or families, it just meant families were now working at two jobs, plus home and domestic works, to bring in a functionally identical wage which was previously earned by one.

This benefits more than anyone the capitalist employer, who would be very glad to avoid any real examination of the inherent exploitation of a wage system. And in fact its tended to push more and more of what was the domestic work that men and women did for their own benefit to be turned over to the market. While its true that this kind of work never paid a wage, the labourer reaps the whole benefit of it. Once it's transferred to be wage work, some of the product or profit of that labour goes to the employer.

I just don't see the lens of patriarchy making any of the system analysis more clear than if you don't use the concept at all. It becomes an easy go-to explanation though - what's the cause of the disparity - well, patriarchy. But that doesn't really say what's happening.

@Alisonjabub

You really have no idea do you. Of course there is structural sexism and of course the society we live in is still racist. If you haven't experienced either of these then you're very lucky but it doesn't mean they're not there

A different topic, but this essay is about inadequacies in a lot of academic analysis of identified racial disparities.

I've been uncomfortable with the use of patriarchy for a while - that invisible web idea is much too much like an invisible hand for my comfort - but this article coalesced my thinking about it to a large degree. It's not short but some might find it interesting:

www.sas.upenn.edu/~merlinc/ReedChowkwanyunSR.pdf

[quote NotMyTimes]@Alisonjabub

You really have no idea do you. Of course there is structural sexism and of course the society we live in is still racist. If you haven't experienced either of these then you're very lucky but it doesn't mean they're not there[/quote]
Thats why ive asked if you could give an example but nobody has yet. Just experiencing these things just means they exist it doesnt provide any evidence of them being structural.

So, what structural examples can you give?