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.

@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!)

Entirely agree with this and unfortunately, this is why we will never be able to „smash“ the patriarchy. Any protection, power or freedom women enjoy is ultimately permitted to them by males and could be revoked at any time. Even the legal protections we have could be rolled back overnight and there would be no redress available to us, since males would ultimately be able to overpower women as a class (I appreciate this is a very extreme scenario and hopefully one that we in the developed world will never experience).

The veneer of „civilisation“ protecting us here in the developed world is very thin.

This is any gains made for women will always be vulnerable.

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

Bye then, but hopefully others will be interested in a response.

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.

Again, your assertions are not correct. If in a collision a death was caused by an accident which was not the driver's fault, then they "get away with it" - (no fault no punishment - see how this is going). If however, the driver was driving dangerously or carelessly and this was a cause of a death then the driver is guilty of the respective offences - causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving - and the two convictions have differing sentencing guidelines reflecting the differing decrees of culpability.

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

You know we are discussing the defense where the defendant claims he had a reasonable belief in consent, yes ? - I realise you say you are 'out', but I wonder if any of those relied on such a defense.

Sound very much like you are pulling the 'straw man' fallacy type argument on us.

Even the legal protections we have could be rolled back overnight and there would be no redress available to us, since males would ultimately be able to overpower women as a class (I appreciate this is a very extreme scenario and hopefully one that we in the developed world will never experience).

In the US, not only are abortion rights being rolled back, but the recent case in Alabama where a woman was prosecuted because her unborn baby was killed in a shooting suggests that in the developed world, this is already happening....

Indeed. Perhaps my female socialisation made me add the disclaimer that I did. Lest I be accused of being too cynical, depressing/upsetting everyone etc etc (the intellectual equivalent of „cheer up, love!“)

@fascinated

Indeed. Perhaps my female socialisation made me add the disclaimer that I did. Lest I be accused of being too cynical, depressing/upsetting everyone etc etc (the intellectual equivalent of „cheer up, love!“)

So true. We have to always be so careful not to offend, "Not all men" etc. Sigh.

sawdustformypony
It is obvious that there is a serious crisis in the prosecution of rape throughout the entire justice system. To function properly a Justice system must deliver justice for the victim as well as safe guarding the defendent from wrongful conviction.
I can think of no other crime that has such damaging and far-reaching effects for the victim with such an abysmal conviction rate. Certainly not one where men are the majority victims or where women are the majority of defendants.
I'm not going to waste my time trawling through all the cases. The system does not deliver justice.

Imnobody4

I entirely agree with you. The problem is in finding a remedy.

@BlingLoving

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.

So, to me you aren't really saying anything here, and that's a problem.

You feel that society isn't really properly accommodating the needs of women, or many men, and that's because of "patriarchy" and if it wasn't for patriarchy it would be different, but we don't know how that would look.

There isn't any sort of clear definition of what patriarchy is even possible here. It's a vague and undefined and malleable as gender identity, whiteness, the invisible hand. It's a kind of placeholder at best, or a concept that can be invoked any time there is a lack of explanation of a social and political mechanism if you are wanting to point to a disadvantaged outcome for women (or sometimes even men.)

There is a ton of discussion around the nature of disadvantage in this thread, but I don't think even one serious justification for the vague version of patriarchy.

I was thinking of starting a thread on this but I’ll test it out here:

I have identified what I think is a major barrier to the advancement of women’s situations. Men currently benefit from a very significant amount of unpaid labour from their female partners. Mothers (and indeed fathers, but thinking of the notion of women’s solidarity) of sons who raised their sons to perform their fair share would be acting against the interests of their own offspring / family — asking them to forego all of that free labour. It wouldn’t be rational behaviour.

@Imnobody4

sawdustformypony It is obvious that there is a serious crisis in the prosecution of rape throughout the entire justice system. To function properly a Justice system must deliver justice for the victim as well as safe guarding the defendent from wrongful conviction. I can think of no other crime that has such damaging and far-reaching effects for the victim with such an abysmal conviction rate. Certainly not one where men are the majority victims or where women are the majority of defendants. I'm not going to waste my time trawling through all the cases. The system does not deliver justice.

I don't know anyone who really disagrees with this.

The question though is why, and I think quite a lot of people don't think the reason is that the justice system doesn't care about rape.

Juries can absolutely return some very crazy decisions about rape and there seems to be a lot to unpick around that.

But the basis of the problem IMO is that the fundamental principles of our justice system make it very difficult to prove rape to the required level. Most often it hinges on the claims of two people, without much evidence or witnesses. The evidence of sex itself, unlike murder, isn't helpful, because sex isn't a crime. It's only the context that creates the crime. This is what leads to all the often attempts to make a lot out of really not very revealing things like character, tiny bits of evidence, etc - both sides are trying to use limited indirect evidence to bolster their version of what happened. And because the system is purposefully oppositional it quickly becomes nasty, too.

The changes that would be required to make it easier would involve undermining those basic principles of the justice system.

I've heard people claim those basic principles are themselves patriarchal, but I've never seen alternates proposed that wouldn't result in a system that was significantly biased toward the prosecution or the state, for every kind of crime.

@Goosefoot No, I was responding to the idea that the patriarchy can't possibly be invented by, or for benefit of, men because they also suffer under it. A non patriarchal society, developed from the start would look different. We can all have ideas on how that would be different but it's impossible to say definitively.

What we can do, is consider what changes we can make to existing patriachicial systems. For a start, we need to stop assuming standards that have been put in place, often without thought, for thousands of years are immutable. As @fascinated says above, the way in which men benefit from unpaid labour by women is undeniable and we need to find ways to stop it. Again, read Invisible Women, it details this in wonderful, fact-based detail.

In the workplace, environments which are not conducive to women working or returning to work following children need to change. In part, by making child care a role that is more equally shared and in part by implementing policies that women (and, for that matter, men who ARE doing their fair share, or want to) can take advantage of so that they're not penalised for caring responsibilities.

We also need to actively seek out and destroy biases, particularly unconscious ones. Blind reviews/interviews/testing etc is one way that has been proven to have some effect. ie names/ identifying characteristics removed at the point of CV review. We've all seen the story about orchestras who have increased their number of women by doing blind auditions. This needs to be far more extensive and routine.

Work allocation is another one. In many firms (and I speak from experience in professional and financial services, but I'm sure it's true across the board), women often aren't given the same kind of work that allows them to demonstrate excellence. Programmes to sort this out are massively impactful. eg I've heard of consulting/law/ accounting firms who no longer allow senior partners to allocate work but have it done via some kind of third party process, often supported by technology whereby skills are directly matched to work requirements.

Similarly, performance review processes are, in some firms, being overhauled to try to manage the way in which women are routinely receiving lower ratings. It's difficult to believe this is because women are routinely poorer performers, so what unconscious bias is being applied? This needs to be done much more widely and systematically than it is currently. [incidentally, similarly, improved processes are designed to support BAME employees who suffer from similar biases.].

I also think we have to start thinking about how we reward people for work. I can accept that there's an argument that a specific skill set after years of study is valued more highly in a capitalist society. But them massive inequalities seem a bit odd. A highly specialised nurse in the ICU, for example, is paid a tiny fraction of a doctor working on same ward. I can accept that disparity is understandable, but am not sure the level of disparity makes sense.

Talking of doctors, more women ultimately become GPs. Again, studies show it's because the process of training to become a consultant is not sustainable for a woman who may also be having children at the same time. So again, the comments above about better processes and policies to make caring responsibilities less of a barrier to progress are essential if we want to increase the number of women consultants.

All of this would mean some deterioration for men. There would be fewer opportunities for them and/or they would have to work harder to get the opportunities. But a system that has routinely been rigged to benefit at best, half the population (again, excluding race issues here), inevitably means the half who have benefited will find things harder. I can't be too bothered by that.

But the basis of the problem IMO is that the fundamental principles of our justice system make it very difficult to prove rape to the required level. Most often it hinges on the claims of two people, without much evidence or witnesses. The evidence of sex itself, unlike murder, isn't helpful, because sex isn't a crime. It's only the context that creates the crime. This is what leads to all the often attempts to make a lot out of really not very revealing things like character, tiny bits of evidence, etc - both sides are trying to use limited indirect evidence to bolster their version of what happened. And because the system is purposefully oppositional it quickly becomes nasty, too.

This is complete bullshit. On this thread alone examples have been given of where it doesn't come down to he said she said. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

And when statistics are as revealing as the ones that have been shown here, the question that has to be asked is what systematic barriers are in place to make rape a crime that is not routinely prosecuted for.

@BlingLoving

But the basis of the problem IMO is that the fundamental principles of our justice system make it very difficult to prove rape to the required level. Most often it hinges on the claims of two people, without much evidence or witnesses. The evidence of sex itself, unlike murder, isn't helpful, because sex isn't a crime. It's only the context that creates the crime. This is what leads to all the often attempts to make a lot out of really not very revealing things like character, tiny bits of evidence, etc - both sides are trying to use limited indirect evidence to bolster their version of what happened. And because the system is purposefully oppositional it quickly becomes nasty, too.

This is complete bullshit. On this thread alone examples have been given of where it doesn't come down to he said she said. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

And when statistics are as revealing as the ones that have been shown here, the question that has to be asked is what systematic barriers are in place to make rape a crime that is not routinely prosecuted for.

Yeah, you haven't really understood what I've said if you think I'm saying it's a she said/he said problem.

I excluded a lot of odd jury decisions from my comment for one thing, although in some ways they may come from the same pattern - but they have a lot of idiosyncrasies at the best of times. But then, jury trials are a principle of the system, and for good reason.

What I have said is that the he said/she said element gives rise to a lot of other strategies being used. Arguably abused, but it's very difficult to say about any defence approach - you can't use that, if it could ever be possibly a reflection of what actually happened. While it seemed like adding more criminal evidence science and tech would have improved this, it's actually made it worse, and I think that is a effect effect and no one really knows how to deal with it yet, and maybe no one really grasps quite why it's happened.

I'm not sure why you think the examples given show something different. They certainly don't show that the answer is "patriarchy".

As for assuming systems are immutable, I don't. I would suggest that you are assuming that modern capitalism in a technologically advanced society is the immutable context. I do think there are immutabilities - I think women having babies is immutable, and that there is a strong tendency that it difficult to change at a macro level for women to care for infants. The same may be true for childcare roles in general (goodness knows many people here don't want men working in these roles.) I also think that while the form of the family has some level of flexibility that has limits

I do think that it is fundamentally true that capitalism involves the exploitation of labour, and the idea that giving women the same situation as labouring men and talking about that being equality or freedom is paradoxical. And that part of the problem feminists have with this is looking at it only in terms of women's position vs men, and that to understand the problems with women and work you have to look at the whole labour system, including that of men, from the outside. Because the particular problems of work for women in that system are in large part a result of the problems for work for men. If you reform the system, some of those problems dissolve.

Most often it hinges on the claims of two people, without much evidence or witnesses.

No - this comment above is basically, he said she said.

What I have said is that the he said/she said element gives rise to a lot of other strategies being used. Arguably abused, but it's very difficult to say about any defence approach - you can't use that, if it could ever be possibly a reflection of what actually happened.

But it's not just about these strategies being abused. It's about them being excluded or discarded when it comes to the accuser. And even if it is just "abuse" this should be fixed.

Whatever, I'm out too. [Go ahead and think it's because I don't like your arguments but I know this is a thread designed to look like reasoned debate but it's really not.]

Looks like the patriarchy deniers are starting to pull into the lead.....

Goosefoot
I'm finding this thread pretty pointless. You've been given many examples and definitions which I consider perfectly reasonable. You are demanding a precision and clarity which is futile for what is a complex dynamic.
Take the term fascism. Fascism is a complex ideology. There are many definitions of fascism; some people describe it as a type or set of political actions, a political philosophy or a mass movement. Most definitions agree that fascism is authoritarian and promotes nationalism at all costs, but its basic characteristics are a matter of debate.

I posted earlier in the thread an article on IT which perfectly links the early history of IT with the current situation where James Damore could write his infamous memo.
Could you please read the article and tell me what overarching term you would use to describe it or do you consider that it has nothing to do with sex and the attitude of men towards women?
www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2019/02/women-s-work-how-britain-discarded-its-female-computer-programmers

Can i assume that most women were in support of James Damore having demonstrated, even in the memo that he was committed to the comfort of women in the workplace?

Prosecuting sex crimes. and the difficulty in doing so isn't anything to do with a patriarchy. Are you saying you'd make them easier to convict and lower the standard of evidence? Are you insane? You dont make things fairer by making them unfair.

All crime do and should have an equal standard, so it seems the primary complaint from people on this thread is that the system is too fair?

I also think its a good thing there are less convictions. Convictions have been going down steadily, year after year since the 70s. Being that conviction rates usually are an indication of the level of a particular crime I don't feel that rape and sexual assualt would be any different.

Although convictions have been dropping steadily, reports have actually increased steadily, but i do think that is something to do with the political climate and other reasons I dont feel would be suitable for discussion here.

It's too bad people have not found a way to discuss the topic. Though I think saying it's not a good faith discussion is pretty odd - originally it was requested to move the discussion from another thread by another poster who I am absolutely sure had no agenda for - well I don't know what.

From what I can see, it pretty much parallels other kinds of discussions around the validity of these kinds of abstractions that are given causative power, in race issues, in economics, etc. People generally think if they can point to an example of the thing that it is supposed to be a cause of, that shows the abstraction is valid and don't see the issue.

I do think that it is fundamentally true that capitalism involves the exploitation of labour

Not only involves but that the exploitation of labour is literally what defines capitalism in that we are free to negotiate for any and all alienation of ones individual labour..

And that part of the problem feminists have with this is looking at it only in terms of women's position vs men,

This is precisely what the problem is. Modern day feminists rely heavily on playing fast and loose with buzz words like 'patriarchy' and 'toxic masculinity'. It still amazes me how a group that are meant to be a collective fighting against a cause, are still unable to clearly define the problems they claim to face.

I mean throughout this thread even, we've heard "well it means this" "no it means that but with this" or "i dont think its anything". How on earth can you expect to fight against something with any degree of seriousness if your collective haven't even put together a coherent analysis of the problem?

Of course this brings us back to the very issue, that there isn't one and its one big ghost chase at best, lead by a minority of loud, angry women who have a personal beef with men but no real evidence or argument that its anything close to a societal or structural problem so they just pick a word that widely encompasses men, and blames them for every and all problems they face regardless of the cause.

The fact that these are often complex issues that are deeply rooted in human beings struggle with nature in general is not simply not convenient them to consider, and so evidence, rational reasoning and science are just tossed out and all labelled as part of the patriarchy as thats what everything has become and must be to the 'feminist'.

I would urge people, especially if you have sons to take a step from this dangerous and irrational group of women before they really cause some harm.

And neither of you can be botherd to read the article.

There are some countries and societies in which patriarchy definitely still exists, if one considers patriarchy to be a society in which women are denied equal rights and opportunities, and in which gender roles are heavily policed, especially for women.

However, the use of catch-all terms as 'Toxic Masculinity' ,'Male Privilege' and 'Male violence' have had their day, certainly for me. They no longer describe our society as I see it. It seems to me that these terms have become somewhat of an indulgence; and are now used in just the same way as any other form of intersectional, oppositional ideology.

As with any other 'ism' ( socialism/marxism/atheism etc) feminism has become a kind of identity - with its own creeds, articles of faith, slogans, and approved ways of thinking or framing situations.
I've used the term patriarchy myself in the past, but when I hear it used these days it makes me cringe - and I reject it.

As with any other imposition of ideology ( & we are increasingly confronted with many competing ideologies) nobody likes to feel coerced or manipulated into accepting another's interpretation of events or situations. Contemporary life is too complex for such rigid analysis.

Okay, help a sister out here..... this whole thread has left me feeling dumb as a bag of hammers......

Quite a few people have given a POV as to what they believe patriarchy means, which boils down to a bias in many areas in favour of men - their biological form in design, their advantages in the capitalist system because they don't (generally) bear children, the default to male models for researching and treating diseases that affect women differently, and the fact that although rape is common, it is now under-reported (hence convictions going down) because women have experienced having to prove they really were victims to a higher standard than men proving they didn't do it (sorry, bit ham-fisted there but I'm sure most will get the gist).

Apparently none of these things down to any form of patriarchal bias, but are just one of those things due to natural effects of biological differences and we should be focussing on the "real" issues that women face, which aren't that many apparently because all the big changes have been made and what more do we really need?

The fact that these are often complex issues that are deeply rooted in human beings struggle with nature in general is not simply not convenient them to consider, and so evidence, rational reasoning and science are just tossed out and all labelled as part of the patriarchy as thats what everything has become and must be to the 'feminist'.

Struggling with nature is how the human race has got where it is in general - as we've progressed men have taken the lead in that but the results have often over-looked women's needs and also rejected and downright stolen / appropriated womens contributions. Why do women sell more books if they write under a mae or gender neutral pseudonym? Why would people assume a written tome is less interesting or worthy or valuable if written by a woman? Why do we assume a doctor is more likely to be the male in a room? Gender construct has evolved in society since men used to have the reins entirely and women mostly accepted it because they were too damn oppressed and weary from child-rearing and too scared to oppose it - who wanted to be burned as a witch?

For me there's nothing fuzzy minded about a word that encapsulates that women must always put others needs and wants first no matter their comfort or safety or suffer the consequences from society at large.

Women who don't do this are being threatened with violence by male bodied people claiming to be women on public platforms and praised for it because of their enlightened outlook. Is that not a product of a patriarchal society?

I am also a bit bemused by the constant drumming in of the message that if we think there's a patriarchal bias still, we're thinking wrong and are man-hating dangerous types looking to eradicate women. Feminism is about centering the needs of women - recognising them and accommodating them because they have been over-looked, dismissed and neglected for so long and ensuring that they are treated equally to men - not better, not worse, equally.

Why is that so dangerous?

Looking to eradicate men that should say, sorry.

Prosecuting sex crimes. and the difficulty in doing so isn't anything to do with a patriarchy. Are you saying you'd make them easier to convict and lower the standard of evidence? Are you insane? You dont make things fairer by making them unfair.

No. No one is saying that.

There are some interesting discussions taking place around the role of the jury in rape trials. Jury bias is a serious issue, if it is caused by socialisation (the acceptance of rape myths as fact); then blind selection cannot create a fair jury.

theconversation.com/is-jury-bias-preventing-justice-for-rape-victims-60090

www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/news/2019/10/8/press-release-should-juries-be-abolished-in-rape-trials-my-jury-is-out

www.thejusticegap.com/rape-trial-influence-jury-bias-verdict-outcome/

In a patriarchy rape will always be difficult to convict because those perceived to be in charge/with power/the ruling class (whatever you want to call it — some of these are loaded terms) will always be given the benefit of the doubt.

It’s the same bias that means execs and wealthy people who commit fraud etc are not punished as harshly as benefit fraudsters/shoplifters etc.