Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Like I said, I'm not saying these things don't happen. Does they still happen in places? Well clearly yes! And it is sexist!  But to say that the patriarchy is the only thing that causes sexism is just wrong. In a patriarchal structure only men can own land, and even if you remove that law, for some time only men will own their own home, but as the source I linked shows, women own their own home as much as men. If you have a law that only men can be legislators, then even after there will only be male legislators, yet we have female leaders. Yes, it takes time to undo the damage of a destructive system, and a patriarchal system is destructive and prevalent in many places, but here evidence suggests it is dead and rotted here, yet sexism lives on.

Is it so radial to propose maybe there are other causes for the prolonged suffering of many? Maybe the patriarchy isn't the only demon to slay, so to speak.

[palsch]

Maybe some 101 level explanations of what feminists mean by patriarchy would be helpful?

It occurs to me when reading feminist blogs and comments to blog posts, that there is a lack of understanding about what patriarchy is and means. This is especially obvious in discussions of men's role in feminism, in society and in a feminist society. Many feminists start out with the caveat that they 'like men' or 'don't think all men are oppressors', but few feminist theorists would bother making that point, as 'men are all evil' is not actually what is meant when they refer to patriarchy.

Patriarchy is a social system which includes men and women (as well as people who don't easily define as either). The philosopher Bourdieu argues that power can be direct- such as when you force someone to do something through coercion, or physical violence- or indirect, exercised through culture, social values and institutions, and language. The exercise of power becomes a social system when power moves from being direct to indirect. Patriarchy is not exercised directly by men over women, but indirectly through our involvement in social structures- the way we talk to each other, what we mean when we think 'woman' or 'man' in our heads, our legal system and governance, social customs, traditions and formal institutions like education and religion. Patriarchy is a social system which is built on the concept of gender difference and that gender difference should determine how we think about each other, what our role is in society, and what people get to exercise power. While feminists are usually concerned with patriarchy's impact on gender relationships, it also incorporates other power structures seen in race, class, disability and sexuality politics (and more)- as these power structures all combine and inform each other.

I'd note that a lot of people prefer the term kyriarchy for such intersectional power systems rather than using patriarchy outside the realm of gender, although more people are likely to understand what is meant by patriarchy. Anyway, back to the quote;

Both men and women live within this system and it is the act of living in it that both creates patriarchy and reinforces it. Men gain from patriarchy, but not exclusively. Some men gain more than others; some women also gain. Furthermore, by the time power is a social system, everybody who is operating within it is participating in its continuation- even if you don't want to be. In this way, women are as responsible for the perpetuation of patriarchy as men. And, while men gain more from patriarchy, and so may be more reluctant to give it up, they are just as much 'victims' of patriarchy as women. They can no more choose to remove themselves from a patriarchal world than women.

When power is direct, it is easier (but not necessarily easy!) to address- you can fight back, you can remove yourself from the realm the individual exercises power in, you can resist. When power is a system, fighting back is a lot more overwhelming. First you have to decide what your goals are, but this means changing the way you understand the world. If you have been brought up your entire life to believe that women are lesser human beings than men, taking the conceptual leap to equality is actually a major breakthrough. Yet, we made that leap and we made tangible goals to make change- increased education, votes for women, access to the professions, equal pay, reproductive rights, rights to exercise our sexuality; rights to our own body. Some of those goals have been met; some we are working towards.

When someone versed in feminist theory like Anita uses the term patriarchy (once in the two videos, and quoting someone else - I’ve heard it said that “In the game of patriarchy women are not the opposing team, they are the ball.”) they are using it in this sense.

[Max White]

Except that is wrong.
The strict definition of a patriarchy isn't one rules by oppression (Actually I really like that term kyriarchy) but one strictly under male rule. The base of the word is 'patri', Latin for father, implying male rule. The opposite it a matriarchy, ruled by women. It implies male and not much more. If over the years feminists have redefined the term to mean any society built on oppression, isn't that in itself a little unfair? I mean the use of language and terms can be sexist, right?

Also, how is the common person, who hasn't graduated a gender studied coarse, meant to know that when Anita says "patriarchy" she really means kyriarchy rather than referring to men? If Anita is versed in feminist theory like you say, wouldn't she have heard the term kyriarchy at one point and thought to use that instead, so at least when people don't know what it means they look it up and find a wikipedia article explaining it, rather than assume she is talking about what patriarchy actually means and blame men?

[Graknorke]

I think she meant that it is a kyriarchy where the rulers are men. So it's both, but only one of them is said and the other is implies.
Also, Firefox spellcheck tries to correct kyriarchy to patriarchy. It really needs a better library of obscure words.

[GlyphGryph]

And we come back to the only thing I actually dislike (and, in fact, hate) about feminists (and many other areas of social advocacy), their stupid decisions in regard to language.

If you use dedicated field jargon to speak to the general public, which happens to use already existing words that public knows, to express different but slightly related concepts, you are a fucking asshole. Full stop.

Communicating poorly does not make you clever, or right. It's fucking bullshit. At least most technical jaron fields try to limit their jargon to words that are not actually close in meaning, so it can be figured out from context, but a fuckton of feminist language seems devoted to muddying issues and making attempts at communication pointless unless your part of the "inner circle", which is seriously messed up and the people who decided to use these words are bad people who have done quite a bit to harm the cause they claim to represent.

[Max White]

I think she meant that it is a kyriarchy where the rulers are men. So it's both, but only one of them is said and the other is implies.
Also, Firefox spellcheck tries to correct kyriarchy to patriarchy. It really needs a better library of obscure words.

If she says one word and means the other, she is doing a bad job explaining herself.

Now perhaps, instead of trying to find a interpretation of what she says that is correct, we should try to judge if what she says is actually correct.

If you use dedicated field jargon to speak to the general public, which happens to use already existing words that public knows, to express different but slightly related concepts, you are a fucking asshole. Full stop.

Thank you Glyph, that is what I was trying to say.

[palsch]

If over the years feminists have redefined the term to mean any society built on oppression, isn't that in itself a little unfair? I mean the use of language and terms can be sexist, right?

They haven't so much redefined the terms as the power systems themselves have evolved.

The modern soft power structures and gender perceptions were shaped by and flow from older more formal forms of patriarchy. They have the same source and same effects. The term has been in use in this sense for decades and is, in my eyes at least, a sensible and reasonable one to use.

As for kyriarchy, it is still a rather fringe term that only really gets used when talking about intersectional oppression. When you are talking about specifically gender issues (as Anita is) kyriarchy reduces to patriarchy. So she used the term right.

And remember, her entire use of the term was that one line I quoted, which was fairly obvious in context. I think you are getting hung up on things she didn't say again.

[Max White]

No I am getting annoyed with the things she does say, notably the misuse of the term patriarchy just because some feminists decided that it meant pretty much any sort of oppression and didn't really ever tell anybody else what they meant.

What is obvious to you, the very person who provided this new definition of patriarchy, might not be as clear to everybody. You can't just assume everybody makes a living studying this stuff, most people will misunderstand when you use incorrect terms that also have been appropriated by academics into their jargon.

If you have to provide a definition for the video series to clarify what these videos mean, then these videos have a problem.

[Reelya]

There's what you say, and there's the model / framework in which you're operating. You don't need to explicitly say "patriarchy" to be talking about it.

[palsch]

No I am getting annoyed with the things she does say, notably the misuse of the term patriarchy just because some feminists decided that it meant pretty much any sort of oppression and didn't really ever tell anybody else what they meant.

Again, all of the references to patriarchy in the videos;
I’ve heard it said that “In the game of patriarchy women are not the opposing team, they are the ball.”
I find it a little hard to believe that that is the reference that has made you so annoyed. I have trouble believing that people would take this second-hand saying and be confused as to what it means. You have to want to read something into it that isn't there.

There's what you say, and there's the model / framework in which you're operating. You don't need to explicitly say "patriarchy" to be talking about it.

True enough, and I'd argue that all the videos are about (the feminist theory of) patriarchy in this sense. What she is describing is the sort of things that patriarchy theory does discuss and explore. How gendered assumptions about people change how we address them in media.

[Max White]

So narratives that frame intimacy, love or romance as something that blossoms from or hinges upon the disempowerment and victimization of women are extremely troubling because they tend to reinforce the widespread regressive notion that women in vulnerable, passive or subordinate positions are somehow desirable because of their state of powerlessness. Unfortunately these types of stories also help to perpetuate the paternalistic belief that power imbalances within romantic relationships appealing, expected, or normal.

Violence against women is a serious global epidemic; therefore, attempts to address the issue in fictional contexts demands a considerable degree of respect, subtlety and nuance. Women shouldn’t be mere disposable objects or symbolic pawns in stories about men and their own struggles with patriarchal expectations and inadequacies.

[palsch]

Except those aren't references to the patriarchy in it's general, theoretical sense. Those are references to specific beliefs and expectations which people hold. Are you denying that people hold them? Are you denying that they are patriarchal/paternalistic in nature (by any definition of those terms)? What are your problems with those quotes?

[Max White]

Are... Are you trying to strawman? No I'm not joking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum#Straw_Man_argument

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

I'm not denying that some people hold these beliefs, but attributing violence against women to a patriarchal system is a fallacy. Once again we are back to the idea that all discrimination must be because of a patriarchy, and questioning the idea that we should be blaming the patriarchy is suddenly questioning that anybody on earth has these views. Try to be rational.

[Reelya]

I think the appropriate saying here is that when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

As I linked before, there are many fraudulent statistics you can find on "fact sheets" all over the web about domestic violence ala the patriarchy model. This doesn't necessarily reflect badly on the model itself, but it shows there's a culture of sensationalism around it.

One common myth is that wife beating is the leading cause of birth defects, causing 30% of all birth defects.
Another common myth is that 20% of all ER visits by women are cause by domestic violence.
A third common myth is that wife beating increases 40% during the Superbowl - there's no source for this, but it was widely reported.

For all these (and possibly others), the source is bogus, or the figure is misreported (the first is fake, the second is actually about 1%, the third is fake)

So, it's a hot button topic, and there's some really terrible information getting around on both sides, inflaming things even more.

[palsch]

OK, if I misread your argument then I apologise and ask humbly for clarification.

I assumed you were claiming she had made other direct references to the concept of patriarchy by quoting two sections of the video that used similar language.

If you were trying to make some other point related to my post with those quotes, please, let me know what it was.

I'm not denying that some people hold these beliefs, but attributing violence against women to a patriarchal system is a fallacy. Once again we are back to the idea that all discrimination must be because of a patriarchy, and questioning the idea that we should be blaming the patriarchy is suddenly questioning that anybody on earth has these views. Try to be rational.

Except that this has nothing to do with the passages you quoted. You keep insisting that she holds this view without her ever claiming anything close to it. At no time has she even said that depictions of women in the media are the most important factor in addressing the issues she is relating them to. She is just saying they are related and contributed at some level.

I'm beginning to think you have no interest in trying to understand what she is saying, and that's making this whole discussion of very little value. If you just want to try to score points in some abstract debate then I can admit I've lost. My only goal here is to try to help people understand the topic. If I can't do that, if people aren't interested in actual discussion and learning what the arguments are, then I'll admit defeat and fuck off.