Many guys go on cruises because it's so much cheaper than divorce.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Patriarchy"
- Thread starter Me Myself
- Start date
I think he was describing that women walk up to men and grab their genitals as often as men do in clubs and bars. If I'm correct, he wasn't describing my defending myself as a perpetrator. And if that's the case, his complaint was that because women do this as often as men do, then we really don't live in some "made-up rape culture" that apparently only is out to demonize men everywhere.
Sexual assault is sexual assault. This is one of the reasons why it's SO important to recognize what informed consent looks like and how to set clear boundaries, male and female alike.
Wrong or not, the actual issue is the erroneous attribution of pre-existing ideas to feminists or the dreaded "radical feminists".
If anything, the very existence of how many tangents "patriarchy" and "feminism" can take or has taken in this thread alone is evidence enough of how complex and broad each perspective takes in socio-economic studies.
Oxford dictionaries and wikipedia articles are woefully inadequate in and of themselves.
Oxford dictionaries and wikipedia articles are woefully inadequate in and of themselves.
You can point at them and say "that's what I mean". Inadequate but very fast. And doing better than decent reference material is work.
dust1n
Zindīq
Me neither. I won't get on anything I can't easily jump off of... except a roller coaster maybe.
dust1n
Zindīq
BTW, found a great summary on patriarchy and Marxism, which goes over some of the historical usages, found specifically in the text of feminist writers, which is free. Just to give a rough idea.
"The concept of patriarchy has been used within the women's movement to analyse the principles underlying women's oppression. The concept itself is not new. It has a history within feminist thought, having been used by earlier feminists like Virginia Woolf, the Fabian Women's Group and Vera Brittain, for example 1. It has also been used by the anti-Marxist sociologist, Max Weber (Weber, 1968). In trying to provide a critical assessment of some of the uses of the concept of patriarchy within contemporary feminist discourse, it is important to bear in mind the kinds of problems which it has been used to resolve. Politically, feminists of a variety of different persuasions have seized upon the concept of patriarchy in the search for an explanation of feelings of oppression and subordination, and in the desire to transform feelings of rebellion into a political practice and theory. And theoretically the concept of patriarchy has been used to address the question of the real basis of the subordination of women, and to analyse the particular forms which it assumes. Thus the theory of patriarchy attempts to penetrate beneath the particular experiences and manifestations of women's oppression and to formulate some coherent theory of the basis of subordination which underlies them. The concept of patriarchy which has been developed within feminist writings is not a single or simple concept but has a whole variety of different meanings. At the most general level patriarchy has been used to refer to male domination and to the power relationships by which men dominate women (Millett, 1969). Unlike radical feminist writers like Kate Millett, who have focused solely upon the system of male domination and female subordination, Marxist feminists have attempted to analyse the relationship between the subordination of women and the organization of various modes of production. In fact the concept of patriarchy has been adopted by Marxist feminists in an attempt to transform Marxist theory so that it can more adequately account for the subordination of women as well as for the forms of class exploitation. The concept of patriarchy has been used in various ways within the Marxist feminist literature. To take several examples: Juliet Mitchell (1974) uses patriarchy to refer to kinship systems in which men exchange women, and to the symbolic power which fathers have within these systems, and the consequences of this power for the 'inferiorized . . . psychology of women' (Mitchell, 1974: 402). Heidi Hartmann (1979) has retained the radical feminist usage of patriarchy to refer to male power over women and has attempted to analyse the inter-relationship between this and the organization of the capitalist labour process. Eisenstein (1979) defines patriarchy as sexual hierarchy which is manifested in the woman's role as mother, domestic labourer and consumer within the family. Finally, a number of the papers in Women Take Issue (1978) have used the concept to refer specifically to the relations of reproduction which exist within the family. The different conceptions of patriarchy within contemporary feminist theory correspond to some extent to different political tendencies within feminist politics."
Feminist Review - On Patriarchy
Emphasis added.
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/fr/journal/v3/n1/full/fr197921a.html
"The concept of patriarchy has been used within the women's movement to analyse the principles underlying women's oppression. The concept itself is not new. It has a history within feminist thought, having been used by earlier feminists like Virginia Woolf, the Fabian Women's Group and Vera Brittain, for example 1. It has also been used by the anti-Marxist sociologist, Max Weber (Weber, 1968). In trying to provide a critical assessment of some of the uses of the concept of patriarchy within contemporary feminist discourse, it is important to bear in mind the kinds of problems which it has been used to resolve. Politically, feminists of a variety of different persuasions have seized upon the concept of patriarchy in the search for an explanation of feelings of oppression and subordination, and in the desire to transform feelings of rebellion into a political practice and theory. And theoretically the concept of patriarchy has been used to address the question of the real basis of the subordination of women, and to analyse the particular forms which it assumes. Thus the theory of patriarchy attempts to penetrate beneath the particular experiences and manifestations of women's oppression and to formulate some coherent theory of the basis of subordination which underlies them. The concept of patriarchy which has been developed within feminist writings is not a single or simple concept but has a whole variety of different meanings. At the most general level patriarchy has been used to refer to male domination and to the power relationships by which men dominate women (Millett, 1969). Unlike radical feminist writers like Kate Millett, who have focused solely upon the system of male domination and female subordination, Marxist feminists have attempted to analyse the relationship between the subordination of women and the organization of various modes of production. In fact the concept of patriarchy has been adopted by Marxist feminists in an attempt to transform Marxist theory so that it can more adequately account for the subordination of women as well as for the forms of class exploitation. The concept of patriarchy has been used in various ways within the Marxist feminist literature. To take several examples: Juliet Mitchell (1974) uses patriarchy to refer to kinship systems in which men exchange women, and to the symbolic power which fathers have within these systems, and the consequences of this power for the 'inferiorized . . . psychology of women' (Mitchell, 1974: 402). Heidi Hartmann (1979) has retained the radical feminist usage of patriarchy to refer to male power over women and has attempted to analyse the inter-relationship between this and the organization of the capitalist labour process. Eisenstein (1979) defines patriarchy as sexual hierarchy which is manifested in the woman's role as mother, domestic labourer and consumer within the family. Finally, a number of the papers in Women Take Issue (1978) have used the concept to refer specifically to the relations of reproduction which exist within the family. The different conceptions of patriarchy within contemporary feminist theory correspond to some extent to different political tendencies within feminist politics."
Feminist Review - On Patriarchy
Emphasis added.
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/fr/journal/v3/n1/full/fr197921a.html
dust1n
Zindīq
Okay, yea, that makes sense. Sorry, EDIT: I mean, Mathematician, I think I read that one wrong.
If it's about Marxism, why doesn't mention the extensive discussion of patriarchy by core Marxists writers, especially since it precedes the usages they mention?
Maybe by "Marxism" they mean "Marxism without Marx and his associates who we dare not read". It's kind of like Roman Catholics who were not supposed to read the Roman Catholic Bible.
dust1n
Zindīq
Ok, number 1, this paper from a journal and is only 17 pages, so not everything is going to be included when you are talking about a specific subject. Number 2, I'm not aware of any usage of patriarchy, as I'm reading Das Kapital, by Marx, so I went to the Marx and Engels Internet Archive where I searched the entire archive and didn't find one use of it. ( Marx and Engels Internet Archive )No. 3. The essay is about the usage of patriarchy and some of the relationship and past it has with socialism, not about how Marxism did anything. The essay just describes Marxist-feminist approaches of a couple different types. A complete description of feminism and Marxism in conjunction would be quite the project, seeing how it's basically its own branch in philosophy, with hundreds of scholars now who have contributed.
Yet it mentions Max Weber...
Look for "patriarchal" and other variants. These are mostly translations, you know. It's in the Manifesto, Engels wrote a book about this stuff and so forth.
The problem with stuff like this: "Marxist feminists have attempted to analyse the relationship between the subordination of women and the organization of various modes of production"
... is that everyone and his brother has been doing that before anyone called themselves feminist (non-feminist Marxists in particular of course).
This is precisely the sort of historical misrepresentation that fuels the thread's OP.
Becuase people here seem to love strawmen, I'll pre-emptively add: I understand feminism has unique insights, theories and practices. I'm not saying "feminism is the same as X" or "X is the same as feminism".
But the stuff that's unique to feminism is evidently not what triggered the OP. What triggered the OP seems to be old-hat basic socio-historical analysis (along with his imagination).
Alceste
Vagabond
That reminds me, my Dad loaned me this when I was a teenager:
Bernard Shaw's guide to the post-crash world
I was not yet into non-fiction (or maybe my moderate taste for it was already saturated by school books), so I only got through the first few chapters, but I've always meant to finish it. I love Shaw's writing.
dust1n
Zindīq
It mentions Marx and Engels, too.
"Patriarchal" is in the Communist Manifesto once, and there are mentions in letters and correspondence and so fourth. I don't think anyone is denying the history of socialism and feminism and there cross-sectioning. I like Marxism and I like feminism. I'm not really sure what the point of contention is here.
What has evidently triggered the OP is evidently a distaste for word 'feminism' being all feminine and 'patriarchy' being masculine. This leads to many apparent attempts to discredit feminism's use of patriarchy (though one is not known by the OP at all) because it's often used in ways that do not match up with the narrowest, historical association with the word's meaning. This has been evident to many people reading this thread since the beginning.
dust1n
Zindīq
Thanks for the article. It was well written. I actually haven't read any Shaw yet, though I was given a book of his plays and hope to read it sometime.
19th & 20th centuries were a huge mosh posh of ideas ranging from insane to genius and its kinda fun to disentangle things as much as they can and examine relationships and influences between writers, theorists, etc.
Alceste
Vagabond
The industrial revolution was like a Cambrian explosion of ideas. Very interesting times, philosophically speaking. It's understandable that people might get their terms mixed up sometimes.
In the first few posts, he claims feminists are wrong to use the word "patriarchy" for the oppression/killing of males. This was supposed to be an indication of their nefarious agenda. Or some such.
But this is not an innovation of feminism (rather the contrary as some feminists de-emphasize male hierarchies, in part due the democratization of the patriarchal role which was taking place at the time). We have discussed this at length. For instance, Plato has been quoted to this effect I think.
Rather than "attempring to discredit feminism's use of patriarchy", he unknowingly is objecting to "the narrowest, historical association with the word's meaning".
Since we're doing full disclosure, I don't.
There's a full-text search. You should find quite a bit more than that, starting with Engels' book. Or you can use a general search engine which works even better for famous works since people who comment on this stuff may use different variants of the words.
Choice bits like this one do not use the actual word (though it's used elsewhere in the piece as you noted):
"The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production."
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Indeed. Pesky French Revolution inspiring ideals into working class people, then into Europe and Eurasia, then America, then (far too slowly) all the world's colonies of various sorts, and then persisting will into the industrial revolution and then into the glorious modern times where most things are somewhat better than the past, granted after tons of bloodshed. Oh 21st century, thanks for being the accumulation of terrible, scary history and a trillion deaths to have made my life reasonably comfortable.
:beach:
dust1n
Zindīq
That was my understanding amongst of couple of key contentions.
Fair enough.
Patriarchy has been used in that sense before feminism or around proto-feminisms, with the same connotations we are now. I agree. When I say the narrowest or historical (which might not be the right word), I look at something like:
patriarch:
late 12c., from Old French patriarche "one of the Old Testament fathers" (11c.) and directly from Late Latin patriarcha (Tertullian), from Greek patriarkhes "chief or head of a family," from patria "family, clan," from pater "father" (see father (n.)) + arkhein "to rule" (see archon). Also used as an honorific title of certain bishops in the early Church, notably those of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome.
Online Etymology Dictionary
Compare to:
"
Etc.
That's cool, too.
Indeed. It's not my claim socialism doesn't talk about feminism. It made the word. I'm just saying my article was about 'patriarchy' and just some of its various uses, not about specifically where it comes from, who made it, etc. I know that socialism talks about feminism. I know feminism talks about socialism. Weber, Engels, and Marx are all in there. I'm just trying to reply to a problem you apparently you had about people not reading or referring to the Marx or Engels... :areyoucra
What do you think of this?
[youtube]hQvsf2MUKRQ[/youtube]
George Bernard Shaw Defends Hitler, Mass Murder - YouTube
Yes, obviously.
And it is not the same thing as "only males can be political leaders ( the highlighted part being the only actual meaning of the word patriarchy)". Pay attention to the "only" part as it's critical and has been at the center of some arguments in this thread.
You of course find "only males can be political leaders" in some historical societies but it's also something that some women and some feminists are particularly preoccupied with. I guess many feminists would say that "only males can be political leaders" is part of patriarchy.
The general historical meaning of patriarchy (as well as the current meaning according to some dictionaries) does not however rule out female political leaders. Most historical patriarchal societies didn't rule out female political rulers either, only insisted that they were subservient in some actual or symbolic way to male political leaders.
As I have argued earlier, it's not optimal to rule out female political leaders, either from the perspective of male political leaders or of the societies in question (outside of special cases). In contrast, the patriarchal system itself used to be advantageous, which is most likely why it was so widespread.
This is part of why I'm saying that the feminist and historical meanings have been confused by some including the OP.