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.

@QuentinWinters

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

There are many reasons why there are sex imbalances in top positions. One is that people in top positions have been known to work 80 hour weeks non stop! Many women have families and simply wouldn't WANT the constraints that that brings.

Why are you just concerned about top jobs with the most power. Why not that there is an imbalance of bricklayers for example?

I don't know why you'd assume id think women in general women aren't as competent as men by what i said. We weren't talking about in general we were talking about occupying top positions, and the standard is competence NOT SEX. Your position in a top company should never be chosen on the basis of what genital organs you possess.

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.

I don't think that's really true. There were almost always forms of work that earned a wage of some sort, even if this was just supplemental to basic agricultural work. And young unmarried people often went away from the family to work, so were not involved in family childcare. Also, there were always towns and cities, where this was even more the case. The more prestigious the work, the greater the restrictions. In addition, there is plenty of evidence that males in nearly all cultures maintain a mental/cultural division between "women's work" and "real work", awarding much greater value to the latter.

Men have always operated a closed shop for almost all occupations that might allow a woman to gain independence. As a result, women's earnings were kept artificially low, because of labour over-supply in the areas where they were allowed to earn money. In addition, any money earned by a married woman automatically belonged to her husband.

There are many reasons why there are sex imbalances in top positions. One is that people in top positions have been known to work 80 hour weeks non stop! Many women have families and simply wouldn't WANT the constraints that that brings.

They aren’t all really working 80 hour weeks though.

For years men have ‘worked’ at the golf club or bar.

Some technical professions - medicine, law - have a long hours culture for no other reason than that that is the way things have always been done. However increasingly the people with the best qualifications in these areas are women. The argument that men are just ‘better’ at doing these jobs doesn’t hold.

Men also have families. Most women don’t have a passionate desire to make sure that school lunches are made or that everyone has clean pants.

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.

Having your own money, in your control, grants a degree of independence, as Quentin pointed out. It means that, in the worst case, you can walk away and start again somewhere else. It also gives power over your dependents. Just because waged males were/are exploited by capitalists doesn't mean they weren't able in turn to wield power over their dependents.

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.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't think it matters what it was "set up" for. Communist society was "set up" for the good of "the people" but women still ended up getting the short end of the stick. The point is that, no matter what the system actually is, there is a strong tendency for it to end up rigged so that males at all social levels have significantly greater access to (relative) money, power and status than females do. This is true across cultures and also historically.

I find the OED useful
Patriarchy
A form of social organization in which the father or oldest male is the head of the family, and descent and relationship are reckoned through the male line; government or rule by a man or men

The predominance of men in positions of power and influence in society, with cultural values and norms favouring men. Frequently with pejorative connotation

I think it really is that simple.

It doesn't really matter that there are homeless men, disadvantaged men, more men in prison etc.
We still live in a patriarchy, today, in our country, because men hold virtually all the power.

Why are you just concerned about top jobs with the most power. Why not that there is an imbalance of bricklayers for example?

Ok fine. You said carers are less well paid because any person off the street can do it. And that I only want to talk about the powerful positions.

So, in your view, how come birmingham council paid their bin men more than their care staff (predominantly women)? (Proven in court as they had to make huge payments)
What is an argument for that happening that doesn't feature structural sexism?

And
Many women have families and simply wouldn't WANT the constraints that that brings.

Many men have families. Why are you assuming they WANT the constraints it brings?

Examples have been given -

For example, when a couple have a baby, after 6 weeks of maternity leave a woman who is only entitled to statutory maternity pay loses a large amount of her pay. This will not be the case for a man. While recent changes mean that men can access shared paternity leave, this is accessed infrequently. This may be for various reasons (including choice) but also because if a mother is breastfeeding it is much more difficult for her to return to work at such an early stage, and because men (in general) earn more than women (in general), and so the drop in family income is likely to be greater of the man takes shared parental leave. Therefore the fact of reproduction usually reduces a woman's access to money/power compared to men.

The point above about women choosing not to work 80 hour jobs etc doesn't address the structural point. Which is that in our society women - because of pregnancy and maternity - will (as a class) have fewer opportunities to access these jobs. They therefore have less access to the power and money which flow from these jobs.

In our society, the power to act, to be free, to move house, to start again, is very very closely linked to access to money. Without access to money, a person cannot leave their situation. If a person has no job, no decent employment history, and/ore has caring responsibilities, it is very difficult for them to have the power to change their circumstances. A woman is more likely to be in this disempowered situation than a man, because a man will never have had to leave their job or lose their pay because of pregnancy.

A less patriarchal society would not financially disadvantage women because of the fact of reproduction, the physical burden of which is necessarily and invariably born by women.

You are seriously deluded if you believe value in areas like care is anything remotely whatsoever to do with any influence of men
It frequently happens that when women enter a previously male-dominated sector of the workforce in sufficient numbers the value (both economic and social) of that work decreases.

Another example of structural inequality: why is it still so easy for men to walk away from their children and not provide for them? It should be relatively easy to hold them to account but we don't. We prefer to demonize single mothers instead.

Some technical professions - medicine, law - have a long hours culture for no other reason than that that is the way things have always been done. However increasingly the people with the best qualifications in these areas are women. The argument that men are just ‘better’ at doing these jobs doesn’t hold.

Yes women do hold some of the highest qualifications, but the reason why women hold most of the junior roles in the legal profession isn't because men hold them back, its because most women leave in their early to mid thirties to concentrate on family and so dont progress up the career ladder. That is a choice they make, you don't seriously think you should just be able to have your cake and eat it. Biology is what holds us back not men.

Another example of structural inequality: why is it still so easy for men to walk away from their children and not provide for them? It should be relatively easy to hold them to account but we don't. We prefer to demonize single mothers instead.

Actually thats not true. The STRUCTURE that is in place is one where men have to provide for their kids if they dont live with them, thats what child maintenance does. Thats a structure that benefits women and children and is a cost to men, as it should be.

Many men have families. Why are you assuming they WANT the constraints it brings?

Well because theyve chosen to do it, and taken the responsibility that it entails. You know, I really dont think you realise how grateful many women are that their husbands go out to work to afford them the opportunity to stay at home and spend the time raising their children during the youngest most precious time of their lives.

@QuentinWinters

Why are you just concerned about top jobs with the most power. Why not that there is an imbalance of bricklayers for example?

Ok fine. You said carers are less well paid because any person off the street can do it. And that I only want to talk about the powerful positions.

So, in your view, how come birmingham council paid their bin men more than their care staff (predominantly women)? (Proven in court as they had to make huge payments)
What is an argument for that happening that doesn't feature structural sexism?

Presumably they had to make huge payments because the STRUCTURE that we have in place doesn't allow for instances of sexism or unequal pay? The example you've given is a perfect example of how ANTI-SEXIST our culture and structure is not the opposite!

Alisonjabub
You are deluded if you think this proves your point. The Equal Pay act is decades old and these women have been discriminated against despite that Act. If you have to go to the courts to get treated fairly that is by definition an example of structural inequality. If we had a structurally equal society we would not need to legislate.

,its because most women leave in their early to mid thirties to concentrate on family and so dont progress up the career ladder.
Why don't they go back? Often it's not a free choice - they don't have affordable, reliable childcare, they aren't allowed flexible or part time hours. All of these are structural problems.
The STRUCTURE that is in place is one where men have to provide for their kids if they dont live with them, thats what child maintenance does.
Except it doesn't work for thousands of women. Why? Take a look at the Relationship threads to see how many men get away with paying nothing. It's a structural problem again.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2019/02/women-s-work-how-britain-discarded-its-female-computer-programmers
This is a case in point how women are at the forefront of new technologies. As soon as the value of this is recognised men move in and women are squeezed out. The IT industry is the clearest modern example.
If you look at any female job e.g. nursing as men move in they start to take over the higher echelons.

In the West, Patriarchy is a hierarchical system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Women are loaned limited amounts of power, on condition they behave in specific ways and hold certain values that are not threatening to the structure.
Women's rights are on loan and may be removed or withheld.
Women who do not comply are at risk.
Women who do comply may find they have not purchased safety for themselves or their children.
Womens rights can be safely ignored or overridden, the laws designed to protect us and punish our abusers are not often enforced.

There are several active threads that show these statements are true. (Even in the West, where we have equal rights on paper.)

@Imnobody4

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2019/02/women-s-work-how-britain-discarded-its-female-computer-programmers This is a case in point how women are at the forefront of new technologies. As soon as the value of this is recognised men move in and women are squeezed out. The IT industry is the clearest modern example. If you look at any female job e.g. nursing as men move in they start to take over the higher echelons.

This article is so interesting, thanks for sharing it.

If I have an issue with the way the concept of "the patriarchy" is used in feminism, it's that often there seems to be an underlying assumption that society is a blank slate onto which a ruling class such as the patriarchy imposes its will. So if society is a certain way that's because the patriarchy has deliberately designed it to be like that.

This seems to ignore the fact that there are limits on the extent to which any ruling class really can control society, and the extent to which social structures often emerge spontaneously as the result of a complex web of interactions amongst social, economic and material factors.

For instance by far the biggest factor that has contributed to women's liberation has been improvements in childhood medicine. Why? Because improved childhood medicine meant lower child mortality, which meant women could have fewer children, which meant women spent a shorter period of their life on children rearing, which meant women had increased opportunity to engage in public life and advocate for their rights.

None of this was something willed by the patriarchy or any other ruling class, or even by women themselves. It was simply a spontaneous development resulting from improvements in medicine.

There is a limit on how far the patriarchy (to the extent such a thing exists) is able to impose its will on society, and equally there is a limit on the extent that feminism can impose a countervailing will on society.

There is a limit on how far the patriarchy (to the extent such a thing exists) is able to impose its will on society, and equally there is a limit on the extent that feminism can impose a countervailing will on society.

It is obviously true that circumstances have a huge effect on changes in women's power and status. For example the effects of the 1st world war and Spanish flu led to greater women's freedom and rights, but was followed by the Depression and rise of fascism where women lost their rights and jobs in Europe.

Ww2 led to greater opportunities including state nurseries only to see women being pushed back into the home and nurseries closed.
There are very few societies where women's rights haven't followed these patterns of gains followed by back lash.

Medical progress is now leading to surrogacy.

It isn't necessarily consistent but a return to a balance in favour of men's primacy in decision making. Patriarchy is not a group of individuals plotting in darkened rooms, it's more an ingrained habit which has a narrow self interested perspective.

@kesstrel

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.

I don't think that's really true. There were almost always forms of work that earned a wage of some sort, even if this was just supplemental to basic agricultural work. And young unmarried people often went away from the family to work, so were not involved in family childcare. Also, there were always towns and cities, where this was even more the case. The more prestigious the work, the greater the restrictions. In addition, there is plenty of evidence that males in nearly all cultures maintain a mental/cultural division between "women's work" and "real work", awarding much greater value to the latter.

Men have always operated a closed shop for almost all occupations that might allow a woman to gain independence. As a result, women's earnings were kept artificially low, because of labour over-supply in the areas where they were allowed to earn money. In addition, any money earned by a married woman automatically belonged to her husband.

Wage work was a tiny part of the economy up until the modern period and capitalism began to develop.

But TBH I feel like this whole discussion is a bit weedy, we could bring up examples all day of the fact that men and women have had different working lives, and that reproductive role is important in that. And equally how that affects or disadvantages women or what approach would make sense to make sure they aren't disadvantaged.

My question is whether it is in any way helpful, or is harmful, to talk about a vague and moveable concept called patriarchy as the cause of that.

@Imnobody4

Alisonjabub You are deluded if you think this proves your point. The Equal Pay act is decades old and these women have been discriminated against despite that Act. If you have to go to the courts to get treated fairly that is by definition an example of structural inequality. If we had a structurally equal society we would not need to legislate.

You're confusing definitions. If you have to go to the courts that is a definition of possible structural inequality or sexism. The court IS the structure! The structure and systems are put in place to regulate sexism and equality. Just stating that there are occurances that happen isnt the same as saying our society is structurally this or structurally that.

Biology is what holds us back not men.

The problem is you are thinking in a very narrow way. Why do you think that society is structured in such a way that female biology holds us back?

Why do you think that it's the case that caring for young children, one of the most important jobs in our society and the job which has the most significant long term economic impacts, is financially unrewarded?

Isn't it possible to picture a different world where care is seen as economically valuable? After all, an excess of lawyers doesn't make the world a better place, and there's a limit to the demand for engineers. But there is an almost unlimited and constantly increasing demand for care and despite your belief that it's an unskilled job I can tell you that's not true - there is a very big difference between a good care worker (or mother) and a bad one, it's just that the difference doesn't show up on any economic balance sheets. Do you see how the financial devaluation of care work is linked to the devaluation of women and the expectation that women should perform care work for no financial reward?

Do you see how the expectation that women should perform care work for no financial reward makes women financially dependent on men to survive?

Is it possible for you to imagine that the economy could be structured differently? Yes, it would require a massive re-imagining of almost every social structure - that's the point. Patriarchy isn't something you can banish by tweaking a few laws.

The court IS the structure.
Courts are only the tip of the iceberg. They are an attempt to regulate to some extent culture, human behaviour. A law is useless unless it is enforced, see tax evasion, rape. It is also useless if it cannot be accessed by everyone regardless of funds.
There is a difference between passing a law and eradicating a practice.
There are laws against FGM but it's failed to make much impact. Cultural practices are often a far more powerful structure.
The idea that women are responsible for male violence is one of them.
This is why patriarchy is so endemic and powerful and it exists within the courts and legal profession.

there seems to be an underlying assumption that society is a blank slate onto which a ruling class such as the patriarchy imposes its will.

but there is no such assumption, that's just something anti-feminists project onto the concept. (Apologies if you are not an anti-feminist; I am only saying you are using an anti-feminist trope.) No one thinks patriarchy is a conspiracy.

Very interesting discussion indeed.

I personally hear the word patriarchy and respond to it as the shorthand for the fact that overall men have had more power than women for eons, they have a physical advantage over women and have sought their power by violent means militarily and domestically. There seems to be an automatic deference to men in society that comes, perhaps, from the instinctive feeling that if one does not capitulate, one may end up physically co-erced or dead. Of course that is a very broad definition, but it's what goes through my head.

I will qualify all that by saying the dreaded NAMALT and also I know things are improved now compared to other times in the West - in other countries and cultures the concept of patriarchy is sadly alive and kicking.

Then again, the use of the word is becoming tainted with a hint of tin foil hat - the leap is often made that it is a descriptor for conspiracy theories implying that all men are conspiring against all women to keep them in their place. Of course it is way more complicated than that.

The concept of matriarchy is associated with a domestic scenario - the concept of patriarchy with government.

Whether either word is helpful or relevant while trying to address clear inequalities and injustices done to women is interesting to ponder.