|
Author
|
Topic: Rejecting the concept of patriarchy
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 01 August 2006 05:20 AM
From another thread: quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann: Huge thread drift alert! Start new topic immediately! Bigcitygirl, I reject the whole concept of patriarchy. It's a politically loaded, unexamined and reflexive term that feminism has fallen back on which won't stand up to close examination. I would not make these comments in the Feminist section of Babble because I don't want to offend and wish to play by the rules. But here, where explanations of war and peace intersect with leftist/feminist/progressive analysis, I think it's fair game. To cut to the chase, I think there are a few of these unexamined terms like "patriarchy" that need to be revisited by feminist thinking because they are getting in the way of real progress for women and for feminism and for humanity.For most men, as strong an impulse as sex (and perhaps much stronger) is a need to protect women and the weak and children. One may witness over and over again the story of ordinary weak men accomplishing or attempting great feats of courage when their loved ones were at risk. For every such story of a man's courage there is also a story of the acts of a courageous woman. Courage is clearly a perogative of neither sex. But with men, there is an additional biological need to protect territory, to externalize, to anticipate threats. Sometimes this is smart, sometimes not. In the big picture, I think men have fucked things up so bad that women ought to be given a chance, and that's why I'm so grievously angry at feminism, because as far as I can see, it betrayed its promise of trying to create a truely different world, which it might have succeeded at, and became a petty pointless playing of the worst man's game, a search for power.
1. Women post everywhere on babble, why not think twice before posting sexist drivel anywhere on this board? 2. The concept of partriarchy doesn't stand up to close examination? Really? Looked at the Prime Minister and the 10 premiers lately? Checked out who's the majority of heads of state lately? If you truly believe this, Brett, then nothing that I, or any feminist, say here will change your mind. Oh well. 3. Have you read any feminist theory? How about you do before telling feminists what we do and don't have to revisit, hm? 4. You're angry at feminism? Awww! Because it was going to make the world a better place while you sat on your duff? Aww! Take a look at the premise of Western feminism, particularly the language of equality, which is still used today, and is highly problematic as far as anti-racist feminists are concerned. In Canada, the voting issue is not "Women were not allowed to vote. Then after suffrage women were allowed to vote". The issue was, well-placed middle class white women fought and argued and made a huge fuss and problem about the LAW that declared women were not legally permitted to vote. After much resistance, they won the right to vote, but only for white women. This was a huge victory, but it also speaks to the context of who was fighting for what rights. Feminist movement and activism has moved so far beyond "equality with men". I've grown tired of challenging those who still believe that's what feminism is. People don't even say "equality with men" they simply say "equality" which has even less meaning. And many feminists in other parts of the world, predating much of North American feminism, btw, never framed feminism as "equality". Women are half the world, Brett. And I have every right to infuse a discussion about "why war?" with a gendered analysis. Ask any woman who's lived through a war, or an invasion (if she wants to talk about it). Women know very well the impacts of war. Whether women are participants in war, which I haven't denied, doesn't refute this. [ 01 August 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441
|
posted 01 August 2006 07:32 AM
The unexamined aspect of the concept of "patriarchy" is that it carries the strong suggestion that men have in almost every culture, imposed rules on women against their will. This suggestion ignores a number of facts, including the reasonable one that in even the most male-dominated cultures, some significant degree of acquiescence and co-operation from women would be necessary for the continued existence of the culture. Also ignored is the biologically-based differentiation of roles in more primitive cultures which placed a higher value on men's physical strenght (defending against tigers and raiders, etc.) A warrior culture in these circumstances would be a necessity for the survival of the whole tribe, and a dimunition of women's leadership chances would be a "side-effect", not the primary reason for such a culture. In the modern western world, where women are fully enfranchised politically and represent at least half the voters, where financial resources are shared more equally (many women are far better off financially than many men) the idea of "patriarchy" seems quaint and misleading. I'm not questioning the right of women to use this term if they think it is useful and meaningful. I'm just saying I don't.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 01 August 2006 07:34 AM
OK i'll bite.
Brett Mann: quote:
I think there are a few of these unexamined terms like "patriarchy" that need to be revisited by feminist thinking because they are getting in the way of real progress for women and for feminism and for humanity.
Opining that a concept "needs to be revisited" is not the same as telling people what to think. It's questioning the current language, which might cause confusion, or complacency, or misplaced effort.
Re-examining basic concepts, every generation or so, is probably a good idea, because the use of language changes, because words and phrases too often repeated tend to lose meaning and because there are always new people coming up who have not heard it all before.Is he right about feminism having failed humanity? Well, if Christianity, backed by the power of Rome, then Europe, then America, didn't save us, it's not entirely fair to expect a minority of (until quite recently) unarmed, politically oppressed, economically deprived, undereducated women to manage the trick!
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 01 August 2006 07:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann
In the modern western world, where women are fully enfranchised politically and represent at least half the voters, where financial resources are shared more equally (many women are far better off financially than many men) the idea of "patriarchy" seems quaint and misleading.
Of course patriarchy is "quaint and misleading" if you think it just means that men like to defend women from tigers. How, exactly, are women "fully enfranchised" when the parliament of one of the world's most progressive countries has a criminally low 11% female representation in its ruling party and a measly 21% in parliament as a whole? [Source] Patriarchy is both dominant and residual. It is in male culture's best interests to maintain the disparity between men and women, and so unless we are vigilant, it will persist. It's not about essentialist bullshit that a man is more likely to protect his family (mother bear and her cubs, anyone?) but rather centuries of embedded cultural structures that privilige males and subordinate females. Patriarchy is vast and subsuming, not the "quaint" simplistic reduction you paint. Seriously, hunting tigers? Do you really have no respect for feminists at all? The only proof required that society is a male-dominated one is found in positions of power. They're all male, and it's not by accident. Look at CEOs, governments, working people, and lobby groups. The people who run them are overwhelmingly male, and this means they promote patriarchy--the power structure that keeps them in control. If you disagree, please argue why the numbers demonstrate that women would rather subordinate themselves, since according to you, it's not male dominance that is doing it.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 01 August 2006 08:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
I don't know if I would even dignify the baseless rant in question with his own thread.
I should have listened to you, Catchfire. Dammit!  "What have I done??" (said in overly dramatic tones whilst gesturing to the sky above) Hey, hot enough for ya?? 
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441
|
posted 01 August 2006 10:34 AM
Does the fact that women are under-representated in government demonstrate a lack of women's power? Not if the men MP's are elected as much by women as they are by men. By the way, I would be personally very happy to see a greatly larger number of elected women officials, as well as much greater women's representation in the corporate world. As I've said already, I think men have generally screwed up the world, and that there is at least some evidence that women would do better. What I think the world needs and women are well able to provide is an entirely different cultural and economic paradigm that values real human needs in a way our predatory, power-worshipping capitalist system can never provide. Hence my disappointment when I see women apparently more concerned about redressing injustices which are already in decline and seeking the same kind of power that has misled male dominated thinking.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 01 August 2006 10:58 AM
Brett, you simply refuse to get it. I'm not going to bother with helping you get it either because some people have already posted up lots of things to help you along. quote:
Does the fact that women are under-representated in government demonstrate a lack of women's power? Not if the men MP's are elected as much by women as they are by men
Gee Brett, since say, people of colour vote men in, does that mean they are equal too? See where this goes? Could it be, Brett, men are elected in because there are a lot more of them running (which has sweet fa to do with women not wanting to).
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 01 August 2006 11:33 AM
This thread is a classical example of a failed effort at dialogue. Brett Mann expressed doubt with respect to the superficial meaning of patriarchy, he was answered with very short points which are in and of themselves meaningless unless placed in a context, and then he is criticized. As for having read feminist theory, quite frankly, the body of human knowledge is vast, and there isn't a single person out there anymore who is an expert on everything. A lot of the people who debate other social issues have not extensively studied genetics, neuroscience and statistics for example. quote:
2. The concept of partriarchy doesn't stand up to close examination? Really? Looked at the Prime Minister and the 10 premiers lately? Checked out who's the majority of heads of state lately? If you truly believe this, Brett, then nothing that I, or any feminist, say here will change your mind. Oh well.
That effect can be argued to be due to a large number of causes. A better argument would be one that notes the effect and systematically argued against the other potential likely causes. E.G. Men are taller on average and thus their social authority correlate with instinctive height authority (notice politicians are tall). [ 01 August 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 01 August 2006 12:35 PM
500 Apples, you are full of it. Brett Mann did not "express doubt" with regards to patriarchy. His first words are "I reject the whole concept of patriarchy." This is not a sincere, earnest examination of patriarchy, it is discarding it out of hand. In fact, Brett Mann's conception of patriarchy inexpilicably stems from an absurd image little primitive brown men wrestling tigers. If Brett Mann didn't want to be criticized for not reading feminist theory, he shouldn't have brought up a feminist concept and then displayed incomprehensibile ignorance on it. I don't know a lot about knitting, but I don't "reject the whole concept of hook-stitching" either.As for your bizarre attempt at shooting down the logic of why women are disenfranchized, you display an ignorance only slightly bettered by Mr. Mann. I'm not quite sure what to make of your "men are taller, so THAT's why women aren't in government" argument, but consider this: patriarchy isn't the reason women can't get elected. Rather, it's the cultural, social and economic constructs, a structure that explains why women are abused, why they can't hold power, and why they can't make the same money as a man. Or, more accurately, why they don't.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 01 August 2006 01:22 PM
OK, better arguments. quote:
Yet another one who just does not get it. Brett man posited that feminsm was the cause of a lot of today's problems (more or less). You miss that?
Actually, yes. My mistake. Catchfire wrote: quote:
As for your bizarre attempt at shooting down the logic of why women are disenfranchized, you display an ignorance only slightly bettered by Mr. Mann. I'm not quite sure what to make of your "men are taller, so THAT's why women aren't in government" argument, but consider this: patriarchy isn't the reason women can't get elected. Rather, it's the cultural, social and economic constructs, a structure that explains why women are abused, why they can't hold power, and why they can't make the same money as a man. Or, more accurately, why they don't.
You missed my point. I did not use that as a serious example, much more abstract than that, I used that as an example of an example. It's basic epistemology that you can't simply assume a cause for an effect.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425
|
posted 01 August 2006 03:13 PM
I know squat about feminist theory, it's true. I am pretty insensitive to the way sexist assumptions have permeated the thinking of people throughout the world, though I didn't realise how much until I checked out this site, after having finished the host's fantastic memoir of the 1991 invasion of Haiti. Even still, does it really take a frickin' genius to add up the inequities in even the more progressive societies (like Canada) in employment, wages etc, to see the basic anti-feminine tenor of homophobia, the persistence of macho posturing, portrayal of women in most media, in language (listen to even a progressive male's critiques of george Bush and Ann Coulter and see which one gets the gender-based digs)? You have to be willfully senseless to try to posit the "patriarchy is a myth" line, or have some kind of whiner's agenda like the Promisekeepers or some other little Boys' club to be so obtuse  . [ 01 August 2006: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062
|
posted 01 August 2006 03:17 PM
quote:
Rather, it's the cultural, social and economic constructs, a structure that explains why women are abused, why they can't hold power, and why they can't make the same money as a man. Or, more accurately, why they don't.
Least we forget the most important and disempowering construct of all, the top-down hierarchical process of decision making. Nor does it matter whether that decision making is inherent in the family, the workplace or the system of governance. As long as we continue to use pyramidal structures that allow one person, or a small group of persons, to exercise ultimate power and authority over any other persons, groups or populations we will always have the problems of arrogance, oppression and prejudice such as is found in patriarchal systems.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 01 August 2006 03:51 PM
quote:
Yet another one who just does not get it. Brett man posited that feminsm was the cause of a lot of today's problems (more or less). You miss that?
I missed that, too. I read him as saying that he had placed [unrealistic] faith in feminism to solve a lot of today's (and yesterday's) problems, and is disappointed.
Know what? I'm a bit disappointed, too. More female corporate sharks and more Condi Rices was not my dream. Maybe i'm just another one who does not get it. quote:
Congratulations Brent your trolling has got you quite the catch. Does anyone really think he is looking for a real answer?
For one thing, Brett Mann didn't start this thread. For another, his question, posted under the topic of war, was a response to some pretty broad generalizations about aggressive male behaviour and patriarchy. And, in every instance, his language has been unfailingly polite. Is it really necessary to come down like a ton of bricks on everyone who posts an unpopular question and opinion? [ 01 August 2006: Message edited by: nonsuch ]
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441
|
posted 01 August 2006 05:19 PM
Thanks for the attacks and the support, but I'd like to focus on my main point(s). I'm grateful to feminism in many ways that hurt me to admit. I've got two daughters and a grandaughter who have much broader opportunities to display their full abilities because of feminism. "Hurts me to admit" because I'm so damn angry at feminism, for several reasons. Bob Dylan, Hunter S. Thompson and somebody else were having a discussion after the assassination of John Lennon. Dylan said "I don't understand it, why didn't they come after me, I've been at least as politically outspoken as Lennon was". HS Thompson replied, "you didn't offer them hope, a promise, and then not come through on it"I feel betrayed by feminism this way, like it was the only way forward that offered any hope, and it quickly degenerated into something else. Because of feminism, women no longer know how to respect men, and without this element of respect, nobody's going nowhere. Feminists have hollered for respect. Can they give it? Because if they can't, feminism remains nothing but a victim-centered philosophy with nothing to contribute to the big picture. From day one feminism has excluded and attacked men and their opinions. This is a dead-end street if we really want to change the world. There is a subtlety of awareness required to solve this problem - we have to appreciate that we both, men and women, may be indulging in aniquated and wrong-headed thinking that is only making the situation worse. I respectfully submit that one of these ways of thinking may be an unconsious reliance on unexamined terms like "patriarchy" and "objectification" and similar terms which skew the discussion and reveal their own built-in biases. I realize I'm freaking people out here, challenging their deepest assumptions. I can only ask you all to recognize that I'm doing it out of a love of women and a respect for truth and humanity, and hope that with a little bit of trust and good humour, we can accomplish something important in our thinking on these matters. [ 01 August 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 01 August 2006 05:54 PM
Actually, Brett(assuming the Dylan-Hunter S. Thompson conversation you quote really occurred)Dr. Gonzo was wrong on the distinction he made between Dylan and John Lennon. In abandoning political music and then viciously turning against and dissing the political folkies who'd given him his "big break", Mr Zimmerman DID offer people hope and then not come through with it. Guess it's just lucky that Joan Baez and Pete Seeger didn't waste the little bastard.(Thread drift, I realize, but it had to be said) Getting back to the thread, Brett's remarkable statement he is "grateful to feminism in many ways that hurt me to admit" is revealing and disturbing on an incredible number of levels. [ 01 August 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ] [ 01 August 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ] [ 01 August 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 01 August 2006 08:25 PM
Not necessary. You reveal your sexism and your contradictions with every post.You started this whole discussion, with a really silly sweeping attack on an idea you clearly don't understand. It's a situation you have to get YOURSELF out of. (If nothing else, you could say "Gee, I admit I made a complete twit of myself here and I retract the point I now realize I couldn't actually make".
It's not clear if you have enough self-awareness to do so, however.) And with that, I'm out of here. Have fun!
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 01 August 2006 08:50 PM
Brett Mann, if this is how you feel about feminists and feminism, it's time for you to stop posting in the feminism forum for good. I've let it go this far because I recognize that this thread was started about you specifically and it's not really fair not to let someone answer when they're being singled out.But the generalizations you've made about feminism and feminists are repugnant. Furthermore, if I see you write anything like that about feminists on babble again, in any forum, I'm going to lock your account. It's not acceptable anywhere on this forum, period. This is your first and last warning. I'm closing this thread now, and I would appreciate it if people also would not bait Brett into responding after this with references to his feelings about feminism.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Email this thread to someone!
