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.

Erm - women of child bearing age are regarded with suspicion in the job market regardless of whether they reproduce or not - because at any time they may choose to change their mind and it may negatively impact their employers. That, right there, is structural inequality - caused by the mere fact of biology. men can father children at pretty much any age but it's not a concern. Laws to prevent this exist but can be circumvented with little recourse for the woman involved. Unless it is explicitly stated you cannot prove that an employer passes you over due to your sex or whether you have / intend to have children. That doesn't strike me as much of a choice.

That was their decision It was the fathers' decision too - but somehow they are not penalised, why is that?

Of course the CSA doesnt wor perfectly, thats not an argument its a patriarchy though I disagree. What about other government policies that disproportionately affect women? Still just chance?
www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/09/women-bearing-86-of-austerity-burden-labour-research-reveals

Thats not a bad thing.
Really? So you believe that society is better if we raise children in stable relationships (ok) but if these relationships fail women should bear the brunt of the fall out. Basically you're happy to throw women under the bus as long as it means the tax payer doesn't have to fork out.

@Alisonjabub

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

Aren't you ignoring the question of why the structure rewards male biology and not female biology?

Men become parents too. Men are not expected to lose their ability to fully participate in the workplace because of becoming parents. They do not lose their access to money/power because of parenthood in the way that women routinely do.

So it is the structure, not biology, which is holding women back because the structure supports men, not women.

The patriarchy is a social and economic system designed by men that prioritises their priorities and desires.

Where the patriarchy is incredibly efficient is in how it has made so many of these things seem totally normal or common sense, so that when people point it out, they are derided. Hence posters who think that of course women are going to find it harder to cope in the workplace because they have had babies. It's this idea that biology automatically means certain things. But that concept was created by the patriarchy.

But why is our society set up to reward professions that require additional qualifications? Obviously, it's because as a society, men were in a place to get those qualifications so over time those became the ones that were rewarded the most. But what if a society placed a high monetary value on roles that were unpleasant and/or unfulfilling on the basis that the people doing those roles had to make sacrifices? Carers, garbage collectors, cleaners etc? There's no reason such a society couldn't exist.

Even supermarkets - was it Tesco that had many of its (mostly female) cashier staff complaining because the (mostly male) staff working in the warehouse were paid better than them? As I recall, the argument was that the warehouse staff needed to be stronger and do more physical jobs, which justified increased pay. But in a non patriarchal society, perhaps we'd value more than ability to engage with individuals. Or perhaps, strength would not be seen as necessary because warehouses would be designed differently (eg, at some point, a decision was taken that when transporting pasta in bulk, the appropriate box size and weight was X. But in a society that didn't see strength as an issue, that box and weight would have been lower to make it easier for all members of society to engage in this job. Instead, we are expected to see this box size and weight as a god given fact and to accept the limitations it therefore puts on women).

'The institution of marriage was primarily set up to benefit children'

^^ Oh god this is hilarious.

Really interesting discussion and I've tabs of interesting articles to read. Personally think that its ingrained in our society even with equality laws etc in place. I'll be back after I've done my reading!

Of course the CSA doesnt wor perfectly, thats not an argument its a patriarchy though I disagree. What about other government policies that disproportionately affect women? Still just chance?
Thats a terrible example of course its going to affect women more because they get paid most of the benefits. The argument that we get less free money isn't really an argument.

Erm - women of child bearing age are regarded with suspicion in the job market regardless of whether they reproduce or not - because at any time they may choose to change their mind and it may negatively impact their employers.

The devils in the detail there. Isn't it just obvious that if someone was going to impact you negatively you may regard them with suspicion slightly??

I dont know how on earth you can claim thats structural. What makes it in any way structural?

Aren't you ignoring the question of why the structure rewards male biology and not female biology?

Just because things arn't designed to take into consideration the weaker physical strength of women doesn't mean its designed against them, it just means that additional measures arn't in place. Who's going to pay for all these extra measures as we would complain straight away if we were. Monetary value isn;t placed by people, its a manifestation over time of the market of both men and women through alianation of labour for one thing or another. Its not simply set!

This straight away shows these are things you've repeated instead of actually going and considering them carefully to form your own views.

That was their decision It was the fathers' decision too - but somehow they are not penalised, why is that?

Presumably someones going to have to work to care for this child. If you were to cast the child straight into the arms of the father then im guessing he would be equally as penalised. Although he may be penalised more as if we're continuing the same narrative then he's also penalised by the childcare structure for his inability to be able to breastfeed.

Blimey.I 'm convinced. There are no structural biases against women due to the disadvantages imposed by biology and used to ringfence power, money and bodily autonomy in favour of males. We've all bee imagining it because well, you know, hysterical women and all that.

Thank you for re-educating me and reminding me of my place......

This is why we need to stop yammering about patriarchy and why it will damage the progression of women in modern life.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0966735006059510?journalCode=ftha#articleShareContainer

"Yammering" ???

I thought a bunch of women were chatting about what patriarchy actually means and trying to establish the usefulness of the term.....

Ok here are 2 examples which fit the criteria of structural as built into our legal systems.

1. Women have to get permission for a termination (in the UK) or it's illegal inmany parts of the world. Pregnancy in all cases puts a woman's life and health at risk. There are no circumstances where men need to get permission from someone else for a medical procedure to safeguard their own health.

2. "Reasonable belief in consent" is a legally defined defence in rape. It means the offenders perception of a crime (who is always a man) is given precedence over the victim (who is usually a woman). The onus moves to the victim proving they didn't consent, rather than the offender proving they did. There are no other crimes where a defence is "I believed it was ok".

Good points @QuentinWinters.

I'm a bit flummoxed by the implication of the PP that whatever is wrong with society women are doing it to themselves - or imagining it.

This straight away shows these are things you've repeated instead of actually going and considering them carefully to form your own views.

This thread is utterly hilarious in the contrasts it offers.

@QuentinWinters

Ok here are 2 examples which fit the criteria of structural as built into our legal systems. 1) Women have to get permission for a termination (in the UK) or it's illegal inmany parts of the world. Pregnancy in all cases puts a woman's life and health at risk. There are no circumstances where men need to get permission from someone else for a medical procedure to safeguard their own health.

2. "Reasonable belief in consent" is a legally defined defence in rape. It means the offenders perception of a crime (who is always a man) is given precedence over the victim (who is usually a woman). The onus moves to the victim proving they didn't consent, rather than the offender proving they did. There are no other crimes where a defence is "I believed it was ok".

Abortion is only a medical procedure if death of the woman will result if continued. Other than that it would be the only medical prodedure in which killing was the intended result as opposed to the opposite. Permission in the case of a minor is a good thing but can be over riden by a doctor.

The presumption of innocence until proven otherwise applies to all crimes and is a miracle that we live in a society where this is applied.

Neither of these are examples of a patriarchy. It would be plain evil to remove the presumption of innocence just because the accuser has a vagina. This is supported by a majority of women in this country.

And if these are the only 2 examples you found of an aparent patriarchy then they hardly put forward that the whole of society is just an oppressive patriarchy. What if it was mainly women who decided on something? Would it be a Matriarchy?

Are you deliberately missing the point? Of course presumption of innocence should not be removed. But there have been many rape cases where men have been treated leniently or found innocent even in the face of incontrovertible evidence, even video footage. There have been many cases where men have been considered more important than the victim due to their status and because it might negatively impact their future. Do you not concede that the scales are tipped fairly heavily in favour of the accused in rape cases? While the victims have to prove they didn't "ask for it"?

1. all pregnancy risks death or life changing injury to the mother, as well as the more common ongoing issues that many women experience. Women should be able to choose not to take that risk without permission. It infantilises women and there is nothing comparable for men

2. Innocent until proven guilty is absolutely fundamental. I was talking about "reasonable belief in consent". A man had sex with a sleeping woman in a hotel room, thinking she was his partner. He was found innocent because he "reasonable believed" it was his partner. The victim was incontrovertibly penetrated against her will, but it's not a rape because he didn't mean to do it. There are no other crimes where that happens.

I can do examples of patriarchy all day, those two were because you said our legal structures weren't biased

Also the belief that men are so vital in the role of parent that even if they are abusive they will be given access to their children and the please of the mother ignored - which occasionally leads to family annihilation? This is definitely a structural inequality.

This straight away shows these are things you've repeated instead of actually going and considering them carefully to form your own views.

I have considered my own views, and I am enjoying this thread which is also broadening my views. I don't think there is a need to be dismissive because we don't agree. I don''t pretend to know everything, but this doesn't mean I can't contribute based on my current opinions.

Regarding your question as to how it can be 'structural' if a woman is not chosen for a role because she is of an age where she may be likely to have children? It's structural because society has developed in a way whereby a person's ability to be active economically is at the heart of their ability to have meaningful power in society - i.e. the power to feed or house themselves, or find a new home, or move away, or to be free as an individual to make their own choices. Compared to men women have less freedom in this regard if they, between the ages of 25-35 (for example) are more likely to be turned down for a role because they might have a child.
It's structural because we have allowed workplaces to evolve in a way where pregnancy may be seen as an unacceptable inconvenience rather than an unavoidable fact of life which needs to be wholly incorporated into working life in order not to disadvantage women. Obviously huge strides have been made in respect of maternity provision and sex discrimination laws to protect women against such discrimination, and many employers are a lot more progressive than they used to be. But is has been a long road, and many women still get dismissed when pregnant, or are not employed because of the risk of pregnancy, and are financially disadvantaged because of low stat maternity pay.

Your answer to @QuentinWinters about rape cases doesn't address her point. She isn't saying that the presumption of innocence shouldn't apply. She is saying that there is a defence available to the accused which is that the accused thought the complainant consented to the act.

There are no other crimes where a defence is "I believed it was ok".

Erm, any crime which is not strict liability has a defence that "I believed it was ok".

For instance, if you took something from me and I accused you of theft, a legal defence would be that you had a genuine belief that I had gifted the item to you.

Surely the onus would be on me to prove why I thought you gifted it to me though, rather than on you to prove you didn't!

At the moment alleged rapists can say they never even spoke to the victim and still successfully use the "reasonable belief" defence.

@BlueRaincoat1

This straight away shows these are things you've repeated instead of actually going and considering them carefully to form your own views.

I have considered my own views, and I am enjoying this thread which is also broadening my views. I don't think there is a need to be dismissive because we don't agree. I don''t pretend to know everything, but this doesn't mean I can't contribute based on my current opinions.

Regarding your question as to how it can be 'structural' if a woman is not chosen for a role because she is of an age where she may be likely to have children? It's structural because society has developed in a way whereby a person's ability to be active economically is at the heart of their ability to have meaningful power in society - i.e. the power to feed or house themselves, or find a new home, or move away, or to be free as an individual to make their own choices. Compared to men women have less freedom in this regard if they, between the ages of 25-35 (for example) are more likely to be turned down for a role because they might have a child.
It's structural because we have allowed workplaces to evolve in a way where pregnancy may be seen as an unacceptable inconvenience rather than an unavoidable fact of life which needs to be wholly incorporated into working life in order not to disadvantage women. Obviously huge strides have been made in respect of maternity provision and sex discrimination laws to protect women against such discrimination, and many employers are a lot more progressive than they used to be. But is has been a long road, and many women still get dismissed when pregnant, or are not employed because of the risk of pregnancy, and are financially disadvantaged because of low stat maternity pay.

Your answer to @QuentinWinters about rape cases doesn't address her point. She isn't saying that the presumption of innocence shouldn't apply. She is saying that there is a defence available to the accused which is that the accused thought the complainant consented to the act.

The defence should be able to use whatever defence he pleases, especially if thats what happened!! If he thought that was the case should he not be allowed to say? Many cases now are frought with unclear intentions due to both being drunk or whatever, you cant exclude specific defences.

t's structural because we have allowed workplaces to evolve in a way where pregnancy may be seen as an unacceptable inconvenience rather than an unavoidable fact of life which needs to be wholly incorporated into working life in order not to disadvantage women.

Its not something we've allowed thats just the way it is! its biology. Guess what, kids are inconvenient. if you want to have them thats what theyre likely to cause. We're so used to getting everything we want we actually think we can circumvent biology so things arent inconvenient or that differences in our biology and sexual characvteristics aren't going to make a bit of difference. But they do it turns out, despite our efforts.

Many cases now are frought with unclear intentions due to both being drunk or whatever, you cant exclude specific defences.
So the removal of the rough sex defence, which has been fought for by women's group is against your idea of justice? What do you think is the origin of men treating women in a way that would contravene the Geneva Convention if sex wasn't involved and calling it pleasure?