What’s to be done about the patriarchy?

[Jazzicatz]

Hello all, as a revolutionary feminist I am really interested in how we as feminists should enact change to overthrow our oppressors. I have read a lot of Lenin on what is to be done about class struggle. Do you think we could ever overthrow patriarchy and if so, how?

Denmark is also a reasonably wealthy society with a good welfare state. So the "penalty" for choosing comparatively less well paid jobs (often female dominant jobs like childcare) is less as well.

That aside, it is interesting that the less "patriarchal" the society, and the more decision making is made by women/considers women, the more men and women default to stereotypically male/female roles. You would think that would make everyone happy - the people that want more female led decision making are happy. The people that want more "traditional" gender roles would be happy to. But instead, you see this being quoted as an argument against feminism. And the people who say they think traditional gender roles are better for society aren't advocating for a Denmark model - even though that would be the best way to get.

I don't think its necessary for men and women to always be doing the same thing. But when it comes to decision making roles - you need women as well as men or it is "patriarchy". What is usually missed (and I'm glad you didn't) is that the Nordic countries like Denmark while not utopias do have lots of women in positions of power, even if other roles are more gendered.

Basically - get rid of patriarchy/reduce male power = more traditional gender roles. Progressives and conservatives rejoice.

Hmmm... Yes something which didn't kill them off but weakened them or made them infertile. That would be perfect.

But what if as in Denmark, you equalise representation, and the state provides cheap affordable childcare but women are still, generally making different choices and decisons to men, as studies show?

Denmark is a patriarchal society and doesn't exist in a vacuum. Women are still viewed as responsible for housework and caring responsibilities. They tend to choose part time and public sector work that is more flexible and fits around caring duties. Gender stereotypes are still ingrained and they have one of the most gender segregated workforces.

Men still hold the majority of the powerful positions and I'm afraid Norway has a lot of sexual harassment and abuse.

Even with free state childcare the people looking after the babies and toddlers of the women in F/T work are other women Plus,many women would like to be able stay at home and look after their children in the early years, especially - or want to reduce their hours to P/T if they are able.

Studies have shown that in Denmark, even when men are doing traditionally women's work that tasks are divided between the sexes and it's easier for men to get promoted.

Yes, there are women who would prefer to stay at home with babies and young children. Women tend to go for part time work because the burden of caring and housework tends to fall on them.

I suspect a lot of what you are referring to as gender stereotypes are really the choices, preferences and decisions that people, and here we are talking about women, are making in their actual life.

We're all socialised with gender stereotypes and I can guarantee that women are not choosing to do everything themselves. I don't know any woman who is choosing to work, run around after children and do most of the house management and chores without support.

With such strict gender segregation it's often difficult for the sexes to take on less stereotypical work. Women still face sexist and outdated attitudes in all male workplaces and traditional feminine attributes are often not recognised or allowed for.

I also suspect that unless you can find a way to do away with biological sex altogether then there will always remain differences between the sexes...and these differences will inevitably shape choices, preferences and therefore possibilities.

Women and men are not the same, the aim is not to create a nation of automatons who all make the same choices.

So called traditional female roles such as nursing and caring are essential and should be paid well.

Women have children and therefore need time off work to have the child and nurture it. However, that doesn't mean men can't support their partners and take a more active role.

We don't have a country where children are
socialised without gender stereotypes and outside influence. Where there's complete gender parity and equality in the home.

Danish authorities are working on how to increase women's employment in more traditionally male roles. It's still a work in progress.

You could wipe out 90% of us from the planet, but the 10% of us left would still own most of the land and the means of production.

Until women are represented equally at all levels, and evidence suggests it would be transformative if that were the case, then there's only so much that can be achieved.

Capitalism & patriarchy are so intertwined I honestly don't think you can defeat either on their own, it's the social relations of production and/or the social relations of reproduction (Juliet Mitchell) that need deconstructing.

So make all men infertile, so all women would be infertile as well because it takes two. I feel sorry for the last sad old people who will have no one to help them, I guess they will have lonely probably hungry deaths The things we wish for.

My take on getting rid of the patriarchy:

• Zero tolerance for casual misogyny.
• Harassment and assaults against women carry the harshest sentences.
• Absent fathers to be held financially responsible in equal parts to the mother. This includes the cost of the time spent by mothers who have to take time out of employment. A bit like student loans, the debt stays with that father indefinitely until he pays it.
• Paternity leave to be equal to maternity leave.
• Responsible and engaged fatherhood seen as culturally and socially important.
• Female empowerment and equality seen as intrinsic to British values and part of the citizenship test and taught in schools.
• Boys educated throughout their schooling about their privilege and how to behave appropriately.
• Protection and well-being of girls and women at the heart of social policy making.
• Harshest fines for corporate intransigence on the gender pay gap.
• Women have special rights in law to challenge male dominance where it is seen as discriminatory.

Wow thanks all, I wasn’t expecting so many responses. So from what is written here, we either go down the route of separatism from men, or change happens from more of a liberal approach through changes to policy/laws?

This is an interesting discussion, so much serious consideration given to it.
I've been thinking about this.. oh, pretty much all my life, I was never happy with being female in this society.
My conclusion is that the dynamic between men and women, or 'the patriarchy' and women is so entrenched and pervasive - I mean, so many women live with the 'oppressing group', and raise the next generation of them. I don't see structural separation as being possible.
I see it as a question of every women having to find her level of resistance/survival/solidarity to get by in what is a sexist world. It's unlikely ever to be completely equal or equitable. We just have to help each other through it as much as we can, and not let the perfect be the enemy of the OKish..

So Brefugee I agree with you when you say:

To be honest? it is never ever going to end.
Funnily enough while in Australia they now have no sex at all, only gender, in Afghanistan women are forbidden to show any scrap of skin.
And everything in between.

But I can't accept:
I am over it all. I simply cannot care about any of it at this stage. I will continue to share information and go on marches about MVAWG and that is my lot. I am beaten and i am not getting back up again.
I don't think you are beaten at all! You've chosen your level of resistance, which is not negligible, it's certainly more than I can manage.

You're doing valuable stuff by sharing info and marching. Head up, eyes front, what you are doing is valuable and it's appreciated✊

Survival rates of infants is improved by maternal grandmothers, post menopausal women, surprisingly fathers have little effect on child survival rates.

I can't find it now, but I do remember some years ago seeing a study published with a title something like "no reason for existence of post menopausal women" done by a couple of male researhers. Being post menopausal myself I did find this incredibly offensive. They clearly did not look very hard for any evidence. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513807001055

it was a virus that killed the alpha males

it changed the culture of the baboon troupe from violent to much less violent

it shows us I think that male violence is not inevitable, it's cultural

and culture can change

https://www.upworthy.com/something-fascinating-happened-after-these-male-baboons-died-men-should-keep-this-in-mind

You don't need to start poisoning anyone. Just get the justice system to start actively punishing the most violent. That's what its for.

There is a theory that the reason humans are less violent than chimps is because the less violent/horrible men and the women banded together to take out the most violent men and as that repeated down the generations humans became less violent.

Yes, its stupid to say there is "no reason" since there is such an obvious disadvantage to menopause (in terms of not passing on your genes) there has to be a really good payoff.

I realise menopause is different for everyone but for me it is bloody marvellous and I think of it as the reward for going through years of horrible periods which for me were irregular, painful, came with migraines every month, came with cold sores every month. I'm enjoying my best life even if I have a touch of arthritis in one joint and am still battling long covid which 30 months in is getting better.

I think the truth for me, after many years of living, experience and reflection, is that Feminism is a political ideology like the rest; with necessary articles of faith such as 'the patriarchy'. 'The patriarchy' provides an explanation for the conditions we experience and don't like or which we feel oppress us as female people.

. Of course all political action is designed to improve or change conditions to make life better/easier/more fruitful for people - but at some point you inevitably come up against intransigent resisitance to change, and after decades of coming up against it you do begin to consider that maybe not everything can be eliminated or totally transformed in the way that we'd ideally like.

What I now tend to see is people struggling with their own human nature, the difficulties of life, the inherent differences/assymetries brought about because of biology and life in a sexed body on Planet Earth and wishing it wasn't so.

But sometimes there can be liberation in acceptance ( not acceptance of clear injustice or abuse, obviously) but acceptance that life is not and never will be a 'safe space' free of challenge, struggle or scarifice or suffering - that life on earth is often necessarily limiting and restricting. We have to make choices - according to our values - and often the choices we make are based on the wisdom or practicality or what best works for us in our circumstances.

As i said earlier, i think the job of good government is to provide as level a playing field as practically possible, whilst also trying to ameliorate some of the difficulties of life- taking into account the differences between individuals and groups. I think we've come pretty much as far as we can with that project in the West ( remaining minor tweaks not withstanding).

I'm not advocating strict gender roles at all......but neither am i dismissing the idea that for many people for some part of the time they can work. If, as a mother, you opt ( or more likley have to) to continue to work F/T after the birth of a child then you are sacrificing precious time with your child in their earliest, most needy, and most formative years; and if you decide to stay home or work P/T when the children are young then you are sacrificing the pursuit of other types of activity or ambition/interest, and may also suffer longer term career decline.

Of course men/fathers can step up too and within reason governments can permit greater flexibility for fathers/paternity - though i suggest that in most circumstances it would most naturally be the mother who opts for time off to spend with baby/young children - and that most mothers would rather it be them than the father who does this - if their living conditions/material circumstances allow.

Denmark also has one of the highest rates of divorce - which tends to suggest that women in Denmark are less likley to put up with any perceived unfairness in marital roles or behaviours......but then divorce is not an ideal situation, either.

So, it seems we keep coming up against, what I imagine you are calling, 'the patriarchy' but what I now tend to think of as an almost inevitable consequence of some of the differences between the sexes as they play out in our lives.

You make interesting points but I am not sure why you quoted me, what you wrote doesn't bear any relation to what I was saying.

I am a bit tired of people using gender roles in Denmark as a "gotcha". When Jordan Peterson did it, he was responding to a specific point about pay inequality/women's participation in certain parts of the workforce. The person was blaming "patriarchy" so his point was a direct refutation of that (and indirectly a suggestion by him that Denmark is less "patriarchal"). But now, people keep using that argument as a response to completely unrelated issues - I don't think anyone was talking about the jobs women do until you brought up the fact that women in Denmark choose to do certain jobs. Well good for those women. But it isn't an argument for not worrying about male violence in society. for not worrying about male dominance in politics/decision making roles etc. At most, it shows that if you lessen those problems, it gives everyone more freedom and choices (the whole point Peterson was making hinges on the fact that women in Denmark have more choice and therefore choose specific jobs. Some people disagree but that's the whole argument.) Denmark has comparatively low rates of male violence and high rates of female participation in politics.

Just responding to any argument about "patriarchy" or "feminism" or "male violence" with "Denmark" and "ideological traps" is, ironically, itself an ideologically limited response.

Why is it acceptable to talk about ''differences between the sexes' when its jobs women choose in Denmark, but not when its male violence against women and children?

I don't think I am particularly wedded, as a feminist, to the idea that women would or would not choose some aspects of the gender role norms that patriarchy also flavours (and insists are essential to female identity). That is not the problem afaic. The problem is that those gender role norms amount to less access to decsion making, resources and basic human respect for women across the world. The choice discussion is pointless while that is the case imo

Exactly!!!

Its especially annoying when women are e.g. talking about male violence against women and someone pops up to say "actually Denmark proves the gender pay gap doesn't exist". Thank you captain strawman!

I actually massively changed my mind about women in coding etc. Its very obvious that girls are less likely to want to go into those fields - that's at least partly a nature thing as well as nurture. I used to think that doesn't matter - but recent events show it has had a massive impact on the ability to debate/discuss. And male thechy types on reddit etc are quite gleeful about shutting women down.
I don't know what the answer is.

I'm pretty sure Peterson was arguing that the biological differences between the sexes means that women and men choose different roles. He used Denmark as an example of that.

Although Denmark has a higher than average amount of women in politics, 44% was the highest, there are relatively few women in management positions and few businesses owners

In Denmark, domestic violence is 19% higher than most equivalent EU countries, at 52% of women.

Yes so AT MOST if you follow Peterson's arguments and don't introduce counter arguments, it shows that men and women choose different roles because of their innate differences but politics is not one of those gendered roles. Taken at face value, it suggests that women's lower participation in politics elsewhere is not natural.

I know in reality there are lots of issues with Denmark as there are everywhere. But people like Peterson want to use it as an example where there is less "patriarchy" or male dominance (to prove this isn't the reason for male/female jobs). By their own arguments, people that say they want traditional gender roles should be advocating for reducing male political dominance/increasing female representation to achieve this. But they aren't 🤔

I just think but who fuckimg cares whether women want to do this or that or not. Why does that make them less of a person? is the problem. Less entitled to respource, respect, or consideration by policy makers? And whatever the dominant norms are, enough men and women actually would choose against the grain that its really important that we don't make it hard for them just because of their sex.

And if we must have tedious choice discussion, I would say it is not women who choose to have less socially powerful or economically rewarded jobs. It's just that you are more able to compete for those positions and make them work if you are unencumbered by the second shift. So I would just say that men choose and are able to pursue their choices more freely because of the fact they have fewer competing responsibilities and considerations. And coding DID used to be female dominated but when it became obviously lucrative, men took over! The issue is while there is such a clear disadvantage to being a carer we are going to be experiencing inequality to the extent we participate in caring. So WHY is it we tolerate a situation where it is so disadvantageous?

I'm baffled as to why anyone thinks Peterson is some sort of guru. Many of his arguments on women fail under interrogation for example, he says that women have never been oppressed. It's blatantly obvious that that isn't true, but his mouth breathing followers are lapping it up.

Denmark is a patriarchal society with the same disadvantages women face in most Western countries. Peterson doesn't take socialisation into account, he makes the assumption that Denmark is a completely level playing field; it's not.