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.

Do you think men have designed it so that many more of them commit suicide? How about so they drop out of school more & get lower grades?

Why would they design it so that more women got university spaces? They would surely make it so much more women are in prison than men but thats the complete opposite.

You would think it would be of benefit to them also to make sure it was mainly women who risked lives doing the dangerous jobs, yet thats nearly all men. A definite winner would be to ensure than tens of thousands of women were wiped out during wars...Nope, again almost entirely men dead there

There you go again, no one ever said men were competent, capable of fore seeing unintended consequences, treated each other well.
There is a long tradition of warrior culture and the honours that go with it. Actually women and civilians now suffer more than combatants. Have you really not heard of rape as a weapon of war?
As for education the old 11 plus was designed by men who expected a 50/50 split between boys and girls (quite revolutionary cosidering the history of girls education.) Well the real results - girls outperformed boys so they changed the pass rate for boys to keep the balance.

@Alisonjabub There are plenty of studies which actually show that working fewer hours results in greater productivity. You seem very tied to the idea of the status quo as being the best for everyone and women just have to suck it up - why is that?

@totallyyesno

No ones said female biology is 'wrong' it simply is what it is and you have a choice with how you go about things. Not everythings fair or just, nor should it be. You seem pretty determined that women should be disadvantaged! It's not really true that you have a choice though - if everyone made the choice not to have children that would be the end. What you are actually saying is that you recognize that society will always need children to survive but you also think it is acceptable that women lose out by providing them. If we wanted to create a society which was fair we could do - physically giving birth and babyfeeding are tied to biology but they are also work. We could choose to reward this work but we often don't. That choice is not because of biology, after all we spend money on all sorts of things as a society - why not this?

What im saying doesnt have to mean i think its fair. Good Lord, if only everything in life was fair....Its not....Thats why we work hard to move up in life. The whole point in trying to get good exam grades is to ensure that others will be discriminated against for not being as clever and for you to move above them. Life isnt fair.

Yes we spend all sorts of money so who is preventing you from spending this money to get ahead, or do you want others to pick up the tab for you.

I dont WANT women to be disadvantaged. The fact is that biology determines whast happens not me. And also ALL women do not lose out. I don't consider that i lost out. I'd of been DEVASTATED if i had to go back to work the week after giving birth. To me, being able to spend the earliest years of my childrens life watching them grow was something i'm so grateful for the privelege of. If thats the patriarchy then a big thanks to whatever the hell that system is.

So your viewpoint is "It's worked for me and tough if it hasn't worked for you - life's just not fair (and you probably didn't work hard enough)".

Hmmm.

If women hadn't worked so hard over the last few hundred years to achieve what we now have would you be so keen to dismiss the remaining inequalities as biological hiccups to be graciously tolerated? Because without the understanding that society was unfairly weighted in male favour at a structural level, you probably wouldn't have had the choice either way.

[quote totallyyesno]@Alisonjabub There are plenty of studies which actually show that working fewer hours results in greater productivity. You seem very tied to the idea of the status quo as being the best for everyone and women just have to suck it up - why is that?[/quote]
If that was the case, then the very nature of capitalism means that those companies could increase productivity and uin turn profitability and we'd see hours change to match the best most profitable hours.

It would be self evident if what you're saying were the case.

Its not.

You really don't understand how economy and capitalism work do you?
You really don't understand the actual position the world is in do you?
Climate change, AI, robots, whole swathes of jobs disappearing and unlikely to be replaced. Sex and women's bodies increasingly commoditized.

Now is the time we are shaping a new world order and it won't be good for women unless we are active in the design.

But the question is, how would they work?

If we have a society and we know that, say, 80% are going to have something like a 10 year hiatus or partial hiatus in their career due to child related work, how could we set up a society so they were not disadvantaged? And what do we mean by that word? Maybe we expect that households with children will usually have something more like one or 1.5 paid "careers" rather than two, and try and make that stable for families, and also find ways to make it stable in care of marriage breakdown or a death.

The point is that we don't know because these societies haven't developed. You're still assuming these societies have marriage, two-person relationships (usually one male, one female) etc. But the point is that this society would be completely different.

For the record, I think it's pretty clear that the patriarchy doesn't always benefit men either. Suicide being a good example - this idea that men must be tough, not show emotion, seek help etc. These are things that have become part of the fabric of our understanding of me (albeit, it's changing) and that has significant opportunity for harm.

The thing is that the patriarchy wasn't developed on a set day and time, "In 2000 BC the patriarchy was created..." But ultimately, it does centre men and "traditional" requirements for them. And that isn't always a good thing for men either.

But if you go back to the question of work places etc - you can bleat about men performing less well at school and dropping out of university all you like, but while we still only have fewer than 10% of top jobs held by women across pretty much all industries, I'm afraid I'm struggling to feel too much sorrow. I can feel for individual boys who are likely slipping through the cracks, but I'm not going to change my view that the world is ultimately set up to make sure men maintain power and control and, often, autonomy.

It would be self evident if what you're saying were the case.
Just because it would be beneficial does not mean it will get done. What a simplistic view of the world you have.

You really don't understand how economy and capitalism work do you?

In this non-patriachal society, just exactly how do you intend to monetise the 16-18 year dependency of offspring as thats what would need to happen.
No need for rudeness.
Maybe we wouldn't have capitalism without patriarchy.

There is lots we can do within capitalism to benefit women. E.g. use it or lose it paternity leave for men - 6months at least. Evidence from Scandinavia is that helps men to be more involved in parenting for the rest of the child's life, benefiting both parents.

It suits the status quo (patriarchy) to define child rearing as the mothers job. But after breastfeeding finishes, there is no reason for that to be true.

It would be self evident if what you're saying were the case

just have to point out that this argument was used to "prove" that discrimination didn't actually happen during Jim Crow because if any firms discriminated irrationally against black customers they'd lose out in the marketplace against firms that didn't.

This is old hat now but at the time it was quite exciting scholarship - turned out that huge new realms of hitherto unheard of stupidity could be invented by treating the various simplifying assumptions of economics as if they're immutable laws of physics.

I think the patriarchy is real (I guess the sort of stuff described in Caroline Criado-Perez’s book sums up the sort of structural inequality I’m talking about) but...

I’ve been watching Douglas Murray on YouTube (it autoplayed after some GC stuff). Whatever you think of him, he said some things that I found thought-provoking, one of which was something about how our society is aiming downwards. Everybody wants to claim oppression, act offended, insulted, outraged. I suppose that’s what’s meant by the oppression olympics. Anyway I started wondering whether it’s possible that all this talk of the patriarchy is holding women back in some way and whether it would help us to be more optimistic about womanhood. I don’t know. I’m still forming my opinions about this.

Well I kinda agree. I don't like the whole "privilege" angle because I can see a working class unemployed man would laugh at any implication he had a privilege over someone like me, a middle class woman with a good job.
But class analysis and talking about the structural reasons why certain categories of people do worse is useful to change things imo. Class analysis can help that working class man understand why his opportunities are limited - because he doesn't have access to the education or network of other men. Or women - because they are penalised for having children.
Patriarchy is useful shorthand for class analysis of men v women

And also a lot of other impressions are rooted in patriarchy
E.g. homophobia has a root in suspicion by straight men that gay men might be a threat to straight men in the same way straight men threaten women.

@Kantastic

It would be self evident if what you're saying were the case

just have to point out that this argument was used to "prove" that discrimination didn't actually happen during Jim Crow because if any firms discriminated irrationally against black customers they'd lose out in the marketplace against firms that didn't.

This is old hat now but at the time it was quite exciting scholarship - turned out that huge new realms of hitherto unheard of stupidity could be invented by treating the various simplifying assumptions of economics as if they're immutable laws of physics.

Ok then, well if it increases production so much i'd keep it to yourself because you're onto a winner in that case. You can start a company of all women working the more efficient hours and you'll rise to the top in no time. Its not like companies don't spend millions on efficiency plans.

Companies like the motor industry go as far as attempting to illiminate even single steps of distance to their work stations so good luck.

*No need for rudeness.
Maybe we wouldn't have capitalism without patriarchy.

There is lots we can do within capitalism to benefit women. E.g. use it or lose it paternity leave for men - 6months at least. Evidence from Scandinavia is that helps men to be more involved in parenting for the rest of the child's life, benefiting both parents.

It suits the status quo (patriarchy) to define child rearing as the mothers job. But after breastfeeding finishes, there is no reason for that to be true.*

Sorry I don't mean to be rude.

There is lots we can do to benefit women under capitalism including much that has already been done. But, I only see men as contributing rather than trying to do things that only benefit them. Most of them have families you know who they also want to see benefit.

I dont think anyone should be wishing away capitalism. Its the worst system we have, but its not as bad as all the others out there.

I’ve been watching Douglas Murray on YouTube (it autoplayed after some GC stuff). Whatever you think of him, he said some things that I found thought-provoking,

Yes indeed, theres a whole host of fascinating speakers out there. DH has got DS into watching Douglas Murrey, Jordan Peterman, sam Harris and similar ones. They truly are some of the most sensible voices out there and an absolutely vital source to young guys growing up around so many faux activists who haven't even got the first idea what they're even fighting for half the time.

I've been thinking about 'examples' of patriarchy. Itnisndifficult to fit things into a conceptual box, and I do take the point about the benefit of going on about 'patriarchy' vs actually campaigning on or addressing specific problems. However I think there is still a benefit in identifying and commenting on the overarching structural problems contributing to the distinct issues.

1. The ONS reported lasted year that women on average earn £263000 less than men in their life time.

1. Sexual assault stats from 2017 reported that 20% of women and 4% of men have reported some form of sexual assault since the age of 16.

1. 90% of single parent families are single mother families. Single parent families earn 27% less than other families.

1. Rape conviction statistics are insanely low, only 1.7% of reported rapes are prosecuted .

1. 34% of UK MPs are women, and only 27% of senior cabinet members are women.

1. Women account for just over 25% of higher rate tax payers.

1. Only 17 per cent of the top 1 per cent of earners across the UK are women.

I appreciate progress takes time and steps being taken now may correct these imbalances in time, but if one accepts that access to money and power are desirable, it would seem clear that women are less advantaged in accessing these things than men are.

@QuentinWinters

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.

Wrong again QuentinWinters.

For that particular defense - the onus of proof is reversed on to the defendant.

The defendant needs to explain and persuade the jury why he thought he had the victim's consent to put his penis where he did. The members of the jury then have to ask themselves the question - was his explanation, given all the evidence they have heard from the defense and from the prosecution, a reasonable mistake to have made in the circumstances.

The important word on which to focus on is 'reasonable' - if the defendant can not show that his belief was reasonable, then he is guilty.

In the example you gave, I can just about imagine a set circumstances that might had to come together on the night that led to such a mistake being made. Its unlikely but not impossible - but the jury heard the case and (if you are right about the case) they reached a decision and acquitted.

A helpful guide to legal matters on FWR - if it sounds incredible it probably is not credible.

The defendant needs to explain and persuade the jury why he thought he had the victim's consent to put his penis where he did.
She was asleep and he thought she was his girlfriend?
He fell and penetration was accidental?
He got into bed with his friends partner in a pitch dark room while his friend was out of the room getting viagra and thought her kissing him must have been consent not mistaken identity?
He didn't speak to her but his friend said he could "have a go"?
They left her injured, bleeding and crying after a group session but she must have consented to that because they were celebrities?

Please don't insult us by saying the defendant has to persuade the jury. The persuasion is literally "I thought she wanted it because I wanted it" and the jury go with that.

When a man can say he did literally nothing to establish consent with the woman he was having sex with and still be found not guilty there is something seriously flawed in the system. And guess what? Men benefit. Patriarchy.

When we then have to discuss how "false accusations ruin men's lives" while simultaneously seeing higher profile cases where the man goes back to work as if nothing has happened- women being blamed for something that's demonstrably false and this dissuaded women from reporting and allows men to use frankly unbelievable defences. Because women lie. Men get away with at best being irresponsible and at worst being rapists. Benefit to men. Patriarchy.

When a man can say he did literally nothing to establish consent with the woman he was having sex with and still be found not guilty there is something seriously flawed in the system. And guess what? Men benefit. Patriarchy.

When we then have to discuss how "false accusations ruin men's lives" while simultaneously seeing higher profile cases where the man goes back to work as if nothing has happened-

Or my personal favourite, when he's found guilty but is given a very light sentence because, "he's otherwise an upstanding member of the community and his career/reputation will be negatively affected by this."

But, I only see men as contributing rather than trying to do things that only benefit them. Most of them have families you know who they also want to see benefit.

You seem to think that we think that the patriarchy is some evil conspiracy theory that all men are actively engaged in. Of course it's not. Many many men, good men, nonetheless benefit even though they want to be fair, equal etc. They don't realise what's happening or, like you, they think that certain things are just immutable and undeniable ("of course a woman must be penalised for taking time off to have a baby. It's no one's fault, it just is.").

And like the privilege thing briefly referenced, a common mistake is to think that if yo are in the group who has privilege, that means you can't have a shit life. Of course you can. It just means your life isn't shit because you are in that group.

Please don't insult us by saying the defendant has to persuade the jury. The persuasion is literally "I thought she wanted it because I wanted it" and the jury go with that.

Yeah right.

I honestly don't expect you to believe it - you have been on FWR for many years and I have often read your posts. You are way too far down some rabbit hole to know the truth even if it ran up to you in bright coloured clothes and bit you on the arse. I am directing my words to those a lot less gullible than you.

Judges, Barristers, Solicitors and members of Juries are people that walk among us - they are people just like everyone else. They have the same sense of justice and sense as to what is proper as everyone else. Your account of what happens in trials in the Crown Courts is just not credible.

Hahaha
Attack the ball, not the player.
It is not in any way reasonable that only 6% of reported rapes result in conviction. Only 15% of rapes are even reported in the first place.

rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sexual-violence/

The Victims Commissioner (Dame Vera Baird QC) has said "Women’s groups have rightly warned rape is being decriminalised and thousands of victims present and future will pay the price."
www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/12/prosecutions-in-england-and-wales-at-lowest-level-in-a-decade

Who benefits from this? Rapists. As rape in the UK is defined as unwanted penetration with a penis, those rapists are all men.

This is patriarchy.

I'm happy to talk facts and statistics to back up my opinions. Many of you on "the other side" of the debate don't want to provide those. Similar to what you say, I'm sure to many lurkers the fact I can back up what I say, and you are resorting to personal attacks, will speak volumes.

@QuentinWinters

I'm happy to talk facts and statistics to back up my opinions. Many of you on "the other side" of the debate don't want to provide those. Similar to what you say, I'm sure to many lurkers the fact I can back up what I say, and you are resorting to personal attacks, will speak volumes.

I am just as happy to talk facts and statistics with you. You were the one that suggested I was being insulting (your post at 10.21 a.m.)

Anyway, if that little exchange is indeed over - and I hope it is, then I copy in this link from the CPS guidance to its staff as to 'reasonable belief in consent' in sexual assaults.

legal guidance on reasonable belief in consent

See about half way down the page to this subject and then the second of the numbered points - the jury is to ask itself whether the defendant's belief in consent was a reasonable one.

Judges, Barristers, Solicitors and members of Juries are people that walk among us - they are people just like everyone else. They have the same sense of justice and sense as to what is proper as everyone else. Your account of what happens in trials in the Crown Courts is just not credible.

Have you ever read any of these actual accounts?! This is funny. I'm terrible at remembering names so might struggle to find these via google but:

There was the man who beat up his wife. He got no or a reduced sentence because it would apparently derail his future career as a cricketer Also, apparently his wife was educated enough not to be a likely victim:

[[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/05/cricketer-mustafa-bashir-spared-jail-after-beating-wife-with-bat-faces-sentence-review here].

Then there's the Tolson case - where a woman's accusation of rape against her partner were categorically dismissed because "she didn't fight back." In court, Judge Tolson refused to let the woman testify behind a screen, suggested the woman was of "neurotic disposition" and discounted sexually threatening texts as "sexting" ("if you don't shut up I will shove my cock up your ass").

Unfortunately, although there's anecdotal evidence that this sort of thing happens in family court all the time, it's very difficult to assess unless the person involved takes it to appeal because family court is sealed.

Then of course, there are the rape cases that have been derailed because a woman's phone and her txt messages are used against her. If she, for example, sends a text to a friend the night before a date to say how excited she is and how hot the man who subsequently raped her is, this can be used to prove he thought he had consent.

These are just examples I can pull off the top of my head. It actually amazes me how naive people are. You do know it's not like in the movies right?

Not sure why a link to the guidance is evidence there is no patriarchy, when it says "The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions: Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test). If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).*

The whole point is something is going very wrong, as evidenced by low conviction rates and the fact alleged rapists use all kinds of weird "reasonable" defences.

If we assume those defences are reasonable:

• if a mans friend says he can "have a go" on a drunk woman, that's reasonable
• if a man is drunk and confused, it's reasonable to have sex with a sleeping stranger if he mistakes the room hes in
• its reasonable to assume its physically possible for a man to fall and penetrate an unconsenting woman with his penis

In two of those cases there is no debate that the woman didn't consent. So from her perspective she was raped. But the mans "reasonable" action is more important.

You can't get away with saying you didn't mean to if you accidentally kill someone, or injure them in a car accident. Only in rape. Its patriarchy.

Anyway, this thread is not in good faith so I'm out now