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.

@Thelnebriati

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.)

No, we have equal rights in law, thats not just on paper. This post is funny, its like one of those parody accounts like titania mcgrath.

More women than men are in university now. How is that in any way of a benefit to men?

If you feel that women are so inferior you should go out and see the advances we've made which mean we're no longer stuck in a place we don't want to be and really do have freedom of choice that we've never had before. Much of this was down to men and i'm very grateful to them for their contribution. FFS, a man invented the pill, which has been responsibile for more women than ever being able to work as never before.

Great post @Kantastic especially this:

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

This is at the heart of an essentially patriarchal society - that women are less able to survive economically without men than vice versa. Because women's work is devalued and the facts surrounding reproduction and the positioning of women as caregivers disadvantages women economically compared to men.

It does take a great amount of imagination to imagine a radically different world because the changes would be radical, tweaking won't do it.

Great post @Kantastic**
Agreed! Men have biology too! We just tend to see men as the default and thus don't notice that we have built society around their needs. It is always women who have to adapt to this model - yes, legislation can help but only to a certain extent as the underlying structures are built for and by men. This is patriarchy.

Great post @Kantastic especially this:

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

Its almost embarrassing that there are other women out there that think its someone elses responsibility to pay THEM for taking care of THEIR OWN children. There is no desciptive words for how the notion of responsibility has escaped them. Not only that but it would be relying on men to provide for them presumably as the money doesnt grow on trees.

Agreed! Men have biology too! We just tend to see men as the default and thus don't notice that we have built society around their needs. It is always women who have to adapt to this model - yes, legislation can help but only to a certain extent as the underlying structures are built for and by men. This is patriarchy.

Yes but what model specifically? This seems to be where people are having difficulty just because they've heard a catchword like 'patriarchy'. What are these so called structures that are only built to serve men? Where are they? What do they look like? It shouldn't be this hard to list what they are.

Thinking further, the male default has been hammered in since the beginning of "civilisation". Monotheistic religions generally have a male God. Women are cast as virtuous if they submit to their menfolk because "God" commands it. Even though we like to think of ourselves as more enlightened and progressive, thousands of years of this sort of imprinting remains.

Perhaps as well there is a manipulation of the masses by the hierarchy - if one half of a population is controlling and policing the other by official sanction be it economically / reproductively, that allows the hierarchy to keep the controllers somewhat sweet, even if they are also at a disadvantage.

Sorry if I'm rambling - but analysing the whys and wherefores of the situation has fired my brain up somewhat.

I also think it would be a very bad idea to incentivise women to parent alone. It takes two people to make a child and we should be doing everything possible to encourage both parents to be depending on each other for support not trying to make women independent deliberately. Thats not good.

Hold on a minute - what does "incentivise women to parent alone" mean?

Creating a society where women can leave an abusive relationship because she has the financial power to do so is hardly that surely?

And why shouldn't a woman "choose" to parent alone anyhow? It may take two people to make a child, but you can't force either to do so but men get a freer pass when they duck out than women do.

Part of structural inequality is the fact that men are regarded as unusual if they actively engage in parenting and praised but women are vilified if they don't and punished by society.

Women's independence is still seen as a threat to patriarchal structures.

so women couldn’t vote because men didn’t allow it. Men eventually allowed it.
That looks like one sex in control to me.
What we have now is the result of millennia of a delegated male power structure that was put in place when being a war leader was required to hold power. Male leader, gives next level down privilege and delegates dominion over the next level down. And repeat. Each man owned his wife and children regardless of his personal position in the hierarchy.

This structure of inheriting land, title, position and ownership of women and children is embedded into our laws. It’s why universal suffrage didn’t exist. It’s why laws had to be passed about women owning property. It’s why married women were not seen as a separate legal entity to their husbands. It’s why the Children’s Act exists.

If you don’t understand the fact that current laws are in addition to and amend preceding laws and why the historical laws were unequal you really need to start there.

Speaking of reimagining patriarchal economic structures, has anyone come across a discussion of Universal Basic Income that really takes into account the realities of caregiving? I would love to see a radical feminist take on UBI.

Also I would like to drop a link to Heather Marsh here - this woman has done some REALLY radical thinking about economic structures and patriarchy and I haven't absorbed much of it yet, but everything I've read of hers strikes me as both correct and razor-sharp.
georgiebc.wordpress.com/ She also has some very strong insights into "the manipulation of the masses by the hierarchy."

The fact that "parenting outside of the context of a nuclear family" equates to "parenting alone" in some people's minds, and unfortunately often in practice, is 100% the result of patriarchy and it's incredibly destructive. Parenting shouldn't be done alone, there should be communal support structures available.

Alisonjabub
I also think it would be a very bad idea to incentivise women to parent alone. It takes two people to make a child and we should be doing everything possible to encourage both parents to be depending on each other for support not trying to make women independent deliberately. Thats not good.

Funny how you're not asking how we can incentivize men to be better fathers and husbands as a way to encourage women not to choose single parenthood.

Part of structural inequality is the fact that men are regarded as unusual if they actively engage in parenting and praised but women are vilified if they don't and punished by society.

Well we cant say we want primary custody without taking on the responsibility of doing that well.

f you don’t understand the fact that current laws are in addition to and amend preceding laws and why the historical laws were unequal you really need to start there.

WERE is the word of the day

The fact that "parenting outside of the context of a nuclear family" equates to "parenting alone" in some people's minds, and unfortunately often in practice, is 100% the result of patriarchy and it's incredibly destructive. Parenting shouldn't be done alone, there should be communal support structures available.

The data on the comparison of children from 1 or two parent families is crystal clear and was conducted by men and women.

The previous structures that left mothers with no fiscal support or access to housing except through the father of their child were clearly a blinding success for child welfare. Especially when women were unmarried and dna tests didn’t exist.

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

Well, yes, because when you examine it, what people tend to mean by patriarchy is a society in which women give birth and raise children, and in which men 'go out' to work; and all of the various societal structures that tend to follow on from that fact or practice.

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

Both good posts which do highlight the crux of the issue: that gendered roles tend to arise from biological facts and from basic differences between the sexes.That is not to say that the disparities cannot be flattened out considerably, with equality laws and legislation, and with reproductive control.

Hold on a minute - what does "incentivise women to parent alone" mean?

It means providing increasing benefits to single parent households which incentivises people to parent alone instead of relying on one another for support. It also places a higher burden on resourses

I’m going to follow some of the best advice ever given. ”Never argue with an idiot. They will pull you down to their idiot level and win due to their years of idiot experience.”

the comparison of children from 1 or two parent families

This discussion is going over your head a bit, sorry to say.

@HH160bpm

I’m going to follow some of the best advice ever given. ”Never argue with an idiot. They will pull you down to their idiot level and win due to their years of idiot experience.”

When you have to call names then you've already lost the argument unfortunately

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

Going back in time, that is probably down to the fact that a family was an self regulating economic unit - dependent on hunting, gathering growing crops, animal husbandry & exchange of produce - and not on wage labour.

Women with small children are more tied to home and hearth, and it is the men that go further afield in search of food, resources, opportunities etc. And so a duality arose. women in the private sphere, men in the public sphere. This then became codified and enforced in most societies, and still is in many today.

@Kantastic

the comparison of children from 1 or two parent families

This discussion is going over your head a bit, sorry to say.

I don't think it is. I think when I say parenting alone, its not patriarchy that assumes you literally spend your whole life isolated, it means living in a single parent household as opposed to a 2 parent household. The definitions aren't defined by men and arent difficult to get to grasps with.

If you want to earn money from something that thing has to be hold value in which an exchange can be negotiated. You cant monetise raising children. How would you do that? Thats just a responsibility you have. But, you have a choice of whether or not to do that.

What are these so called structures that are only built to serve men? Where are they? What do they look like? It shouldn't be this hard to list what they are.
Well...just about everything! I gave you the example of men not providing for their children and you dismissed because the CSA exists. The fact that the CSA fails so frequently to oblige men to adequately support their children is an example which supports what I am saying.
Why are there few women in parliament? Partly due to the way parliament is structured again. There is no real reason why parliament has to sit so late into the night which again makes it difficult for mothers to attend. There is no real reason why only a few months ago a heavily pregnant MP had to be wheeled in to cast her vote or lose it because she wasn't allowed to vote from hospital. What about in academia? Again, the system favours those without children (and in particular men who have wives to help them out as unpaid secretaries). It is far harder for female professors to get ahead but most of these barriers are not actually necessary, they are created to favour men. My SIL gave up her job as a lawyer because her firm refused to allow her to work part time or to job share - despite there not actually being a clear reason why this wouldn't work. A male colleague took her place.

I don't think it is
No, it is, honest.

Going back in time, that is probably down to the fact that a family was an self regulating economic unit - dependent on hunting, gathering growing crops, animal husbandry & exchange of produce - and not on wage labour.

I think that's too broad an analysis and raises all kinds of questions like "how are you defiining family?" I don't know why male dominance arose alongside the invention of agriculture, that's a very big question - I just mean that as a result of male dominance (patriarchy) our society is structured in ways that enforce female economic dependence on men.

Well...just about everything! I gave you the example of men not providing for their children and you dismissed because the CSA exists. The fact that the CSA fails so frequently to oblige men to adequately support their children is an example which supports what I am saying.
Why are there few women in parliament? Partly due to the way parliament is structured again. There is no real reason why parliament has to sit so late into the night which again makes it difficult for mothers to attend

totally worong about everything there. Thats biology thats holding them back, not the structure. Its not the structures fault that those women made the life choice to have children. That was their decision and they had the option not to do that and they could have just as easily had the same opportunities as the men. Its the choices that are made that have affected choice nothing else. No structure is perfect. Of course the CSA doesnt wor perfectly, thats not an argument its a patriarchy though

I just mean that as a result of male dominance (patriarchy) our society is structured in ways that enforce female economic dependence on men.

Thats not a bad thing. The institution of marriage was primarily set up to benefit children and it still does that today. It may be worth considering how children and siociety may suffer in the long term were we to discourage marriage as an institution in which to raise children. We need to see that gowing up and engaging in a relationship where EACH person depends on the other will go much further to providing a positive outcome for everyone.