Feminism redux - please read first post of thread

[Lyanna Stark]

Career mothers can take maternity leave with pay. I think that single parent fathers should be allowed to take time off with pay as well, or at least work less hours as an allowance to parental duty. That isn't really provided for under UK law. Granted, the law does cater to the majority in this instance, because I appreciate that pregnancy and childbirth involve the female more than the father, and that there's more single mothers out there than single parent men.

Well, in Sweden, which is a more equal country and where feminism is pretty accepted, fathers and mothers can both take parental leave and employers are not allowed to deny that parental leave either. In fact, if both parents in a two-parent family do not take out parental leave days, you get fewer days. This is purely due to feminist and feminist aligned demands.

So I am at a loss to how this is "not included" in feminism, because it is. As I have also lived in the UK (and moved to Sweden mostly because being a parent here is much easier and makes you less poor) I can attest that a. equality is a bigger thing in Sweden b. feminism is not as accepted in the UK as it is in Sweden.

Ergo: a higher acceptance of feminism would make the UK more equal. Hell, when I had my daughter in the UK, there was only maternity leave. My SO got two weeks unpaid leave and that was it. Here he could take out 90% of the parental leave and we would be no worse for wear.

[mormont]

Career mothers can take maternity leave with pay. I think that single parent fathers should be allowed to take time off with pay as well, or at least work less hours as an allowance to parental duty. That isn't really provided for under UK law.

Um, yes, it is.

Paid paternity leave is a thing, albeit only two weeks' paid leave at present. (ETA - that can be more, if the maternity leave is shared, and of course many employers offer more than the legal minimum.) I've never met a feminist that doesn't support increasing that, mind you. Fathers also have a legal right to request flexible working including reduced hours to account for parental responsibility.

[Athias]

You seem to be spending a great deal of time writing long posts involving your beliefs as to why "Patriarchy Theory" is wrong.

In the interest of saving time you may want to educate yourself on what the theory of the patriarchy actually is before doing this again.

Hint: it does not have anything to do with design to subjugate; it requires no ill intent on anyone's part. Whether a social construct is a relic of a outdated necessity or a new invention is not relevant to whether it is a social construct.

You may also not want to undermine all your effort at attempting to portray high-minded discussion by ending with...whatever the hell kind of muddled evopsych mess that last paragraph was. Because bald husbands typing up spreadsheets in cubicles are risking their lives, apparently by metaphysical kinship with mammoth hunters or something.

Well, I don't know if I spend most of my time arguing that patriarchy is wrong--it's my 4th post, after all. And I know what patriarchy is. It's a form of social organization in which the father--pater being the Latin word for father--is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe. This is not to be confused with "Patriarchy Theory" which, commonly employed in political spheres, argues that political, economical, and social institutions have been set up to keep women in subservient roles at the express benefit of men. Note that the political narrative differs from that which centers on the father's authority and coveys a class conflict between men and women. Notice that in my posts I refer to Patriarchy Theory, not patriarchy.

As for my last paragraph, feel free to criticize. It's as I said, it's just my speculation. It may be true that working on spreadsheets is no more endangering than folding bed sheets, but it's more about the perception of the home--which has traditionally been a safer place. I wouldn't call it a "metaphysical" kinship. I'd say it's more instinctual.

We have a live one.

Athias, a few points.

...

- If doing anything other than surviving and procreating is something other than "the role described by [our] sex", it holds for people who aren't women, too. No career aspirations for anyone, just subsistence.

Very true. However you forgot the modification I made by adding "supposedly" which was meant to illustrate that the description is "perceived," not "ascribed."

- We didn't "evolve" into the nuclear family structure, one family to a dwelling, or we'd see it throughout more of the world. Don't mix sociological and evolutionary drivers without being able to at least try to separate them.

I don't remember stating that we "evolved" into a nuclear family structure. If anything my posts suggests that we have moved out of it. And my suggestion hints on sociobiology, so there's no need to separate sociological and evolutionary drivers.

Avoiding evolutionary arguments at all is probably not really the route you want to go down. We do a lot of things we haven't evolved for, like post on message boards

:).

- Women were not protected from all harsh conditions. In some cases, they weren't precisely protected, they were forbidden. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't take those risks. Of course, in some cultures, they were also considered too weak or brainless to vote, or run certain businesses (but not others, funnily), or walk without metal cages supporting their rib cages, so every "fact" about what women are capable or not capable of might not hold true.

- There's a difference between being constructed to subjugate women and having the effect of subjugating women. I imagine that some of the greatest restrictions and oppressions were worded -- and possibly even believed -- to be "for their own good".

I agree. Most, if not all, protectionist norms and policies bear the guise of acting "for their own good." But who were the oppressors? Men? If women were subjugated by hypoagency, then men were burdened by hyperagency. Men were legally responsible for financing the sustenance of their families. In addition, men were also responsible for their wives' agency. In the 19th century, and I kid you not, if a married woman were to commit a crime (at least in the U.S.) her husband was responsible for her crime. Men were excommunicated and were often the recipients of legal sanctions if he refused to have sex with his wife. If a man was beaten by his wife, he'd be humiliated by Skimmington Rides or the banging of kitchen ware by members of his community. I'm mentioning this because Patriarchy Theory employs Marxist Conflict Theory in characterizing the interactions of men and women to that of the bourgeoisie (men) and the proletariat (women.) Considering all the penalties that both men and women faced for functioning outside of their deemed roles, I'd argue that Patriarchy Theory offers a false characterization.

Not all baby formula is the powdered stuff we know today. However, even that was really pushed in the middle of the 19th century. "Dry nursing" and pap and all that has been around much, much longer. Not everyone could either breast feed or have a wet nurse, so they found ways.

I know.

It is entirely possible to question whether someone is a bad parent. Judging a mother for doing it when a father goes unremarked is still completely sexist. Judging someone for doing it with no details about how long or how often they're away is just knee-jerk -- any time away becomes "too long". It's also sexist to say that men are never capable of being stay-at-home carers, as a general comment. Since you agree that men are capable, then why not someone else? A different family member? A dedicated carer like a nanny or au pair? Why does the judgement so regularly fall on the woman and never the man when a parent is not home all of the time?

But why is the characterization of the mother contingent on how "equally" one characterizes the father? Can she not be judged on her own? I don't agree with what the journalists did but their actions don't warrant a qualitative analysis of the function of her children's father. Would it have been mitigated if de Blasio was included in their characterization? No. To begin with, it's a rather uniformed characterization.

As for why judgement befalls women regularly when a parent is not at home all the time, I'd ask how do you know it's regular? And who are making these judgements? If I were to indulge this premise, I'd say that traditional gender roles may inform the perception. The mother does not have to stay at home, but there's also nothing wrong if she does decide to stay at home. And this opinion of mine extends to fathers as well.

As a side note, using "whom" incorrectly isn't really better than omitting it. The latter's everyday, casual speech, but the former is an error.

Thank you, but I know how to use "whom." It was an honest mistake. Like you, I find editing--especially long posts--to be frustrating, and I might miss a few mistakes here and there.

Goodness, this seems to me to be completely wrong.

In pre-industrial and in early industrial times the basic work unit was not the man, but the family. Everybody worked as soon as they were physically able. A child of four or five was old enough to scare birds for instance (in which capacity a young Thomas Hardy was employed as a boy) or think of Dickens in the boot blacking factory. Part of the inspiration behind machine breaking in the early industrial period was exactly that it threatened to break up traditional family working were the whole family in their own household were employed for instance, at weaving, with each person doing what they were physically capable of, replacing it with a system of factory discipline - but even in that case women and children still worked (until such times and in such places as factory legislation intervened as social attitudes changed), although that shift did put nursing mothers out of the formal economy. In short everybody worked, in parts of the world this is still the case, in Nepal for instance a major cause of miscarriages is that in the countryside women are expected to work in the fields throughout their pregnancies.

I agree. Especially when subsistence agriculture was concerned, the family was integral. But it still remains that in the 19th century, most of "women's work" was domestic--that is cleaning, cooking, caring for children, managing the household, etc. Yeah, there were women and children in factories, but they were assigned safer tasks in relation to men. If they weren't, government policy would change to accommodate their participation. What used to have a high social and cultural value had been diminished by, as you mentioned, a movement of economic activity into the paid industrial labor force.

I did not suggest that motherhood was isolated from economic activity--that's a rather ridiculous notion. It was only isolated from wage-labor. And by no means, have I suggested that a mother's tasks in a pre-industrialized society were easy. (I think most people today would fret at what mothers accomplished daily in agriculturally-based and preindustrialized economies.) Nonetheless, her tasks were not as physically straining as the father's. While she may been out on the fields weeding, with a baby attached to her, he was was out on the fields setting up ploughs. While a mother may have been shoveling coal onto lorries, her husband was down in a coal mine. I'm not saying this to imply that "men had it worse." I'm suggesting that these roles were developed so that men bore most of the risk when physical labor was concerned. Patriarchy theory would suggest that these roles were developed in contempt for women being women. Now, while I agree that this protectionist attitude did curtail many of the liberties to which women were entitled, it still does not fit the narrative of class conflict and gendered-oppression perpetuated by Patriarchy Theory.

[MinDonner]

I have no idea what words mean or what I'm talking about

FTFY

[MinDonner]

double

[Athias]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me--in fact I welcome it. If you feel that my entire argument--or at least parts of it-- exudes ignorance, then by all means, "educate" me. If that's not your cup of tea, where it might perhaps be a waste of your time, then why do you bother to post a response in the first place?

[emberling]

This is not to be confused with "Patriarchy Theory" which, commonly employed in political spheres, argues that political, economical, and social institutions have been set up to keep women in subservient roles at the express benefit of men. Note that the political narrative differs from that which centers on the father's authority and coveys a class conflict between men and women. Notice that in my posts I refer to Patriarchy Theory, not patriarchy.

--

Fun fact: When you redefine the language and meanings of other peoples' views such that it refers not to what those people propose (i.e. not something called Patriarchy Theory) but to something facially similar but invented by you, either due to malicious intent or misinformation, it is called a straw man fallacy and invalidates everything you have to say about it. You have displayed exceeding skill at deploying these: e.g. "but this is not an example of an institutionalized "group think" that is geared to disengage women from purposes outside of their "expected" gender roles" - a parodic caricature of the concept of patriarchy - in reply to absolutely nobody saying anything of the sort.

FWIW, patriarchy is out of date anyway; we're all on kyriarchy now.

--

Patriarchy theory would suggest that these roles were developed in contempt for women being women.

--

nope

--

Now, while I agree that this protectionist attitude did curtail many of the liberties to which women were entitled, it still does not fit the narrative of class conflict and gendered-oppression perpetuated by Patriarchy Theory.

--

if one group receives any privileges another does not, simply due to being in the group, then it is a part of the class conflict referred to as kyriarchy.

if the privileged group is some variety of 'men' and the oppressed group is some variety of 'women' it likewise fits under patriarchy.

that is definitional. that is what those words mean. if there is an 'attitude' of society which 'curtails many of the liberties to which women were entitled' then there is no valid understanding of patriarchy that excludes that attitude; patriarchy is the sum of such attitudes, no more and no less.

[KiDisaster]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me--in fact I welcome it. If you feel that my entire argument--or at least parts of it-- exudes ignorance, then by all means, "educate" me. If that's not your cup of tea, where it might perhaps be a waste of your time, then why do you bother to post a response in the first place?

Because the posters here are sick of having to "educate" people like you. Did you not read the first post of this thread? Every few days somebody comes in rehashing the same old anti-feminist or the-patriarchy-isn't-real arguments and it gets bloody annoying to read them again and again.

Go back and reread the old threads, I'm sure you can find rebuttals to your points. They've all been made in some form or another before.

[sologdin]

set up to keep women in subservient roles for the express benefit of men

doctrine doesn't require that it be deliberately set up with the specific intent to effect that particular end through the legal or political system, a de jure system of discrimination. that'd be a fairly narrow variant of the thesis, perhaps held only by the most rightward of liberal feminists. the more standard recitation is that it involves de facto disparities amid de jure equality, and had evolved without necessarily being deliberate or for the particular end identified.

[1918me]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me--in fact I welcome it. If you feel that my entire argument--or at least parts of it-- exudes ignorance, then by all means, "educate" me. If that's not your cup of tea, where it might perhaps be a waste of your time, then why do you bother to post a response in the first place?

If you want to learn more, try this: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

It's great that you seem open to learning more about this; it's frustrating when dealing with people that come in, attack the validity of what is being discussed, etc. I know I don't usually have a lot to contribute here, but it's nice to be able to focus on the problems themselves, and not when whether or not they exist.

If your post was being sarcastic, I apologize.

[Athias]

--

Fun fact: When you redefine the language and meanings of other peoples' views such that it refers not to what those people propose (i.e. not something called Patriarchy Theory) but to something facially similar but invented by you, either due to malicious intent or misinformation, it is called a straw man fallacy and invalidates everything you have to say about it. You have displayed exceeding skill at deploying these: e.g. "but this is not an example of an institutionalized "group think" that is geared to disengage women from purposes outside of their "expected" gender roles" - a parodic caricature of the concept of patriarchy - in reply to absolutely nobody saying anything of the sort.

FWIW, patriarchy is out of date anyway; we're all on kyriarchy now.

----

nope

--

--

if one group receives any privileges another does not, simply due to being in the group, then it is a part of the class conflict referred to as kyriarchy.

if the privileged group is some variety of 'men' and the oppressed group is some variety of 'women' it likewise fits under patriarchy.

that is definitional. that is what those words mean. if there is an 'attitude' of society which 'curtails many of the liberties to which women were entitled' then there is no valid understanding of patriarchy that excludes that attitude; patriarchy is the sum of such attitudes, no more and no less.

I'm not redefining anything, especially other people's views. You said that I didn't know what patriarchy meant (without offering any correction.) I define patriarchy as well as elaborate as to what I mean by "Patriarchy Theory" for which a quick google would vouch. I did not invent the term for any "malicious" purposes or otherwise. If you take issue with the concept of "Patriarchy Theory," then you are obviously welcomed to express your objections. In fact, I'd appreciate it. It's only a strawman argument if you can show that Patriarchy Theory is a fallacious concept. Now, unfortunately, I don't know the political discourse outside of the United States, but I can assure you that when it comes to issues of gender equality, political and social ideology centers on "Patriarchy Theory," as I've described it. If you believe this to be misinformed, the I sincerely ask you to elaborate. But as it stands now, all you're really doing is criticisizing my arguments--which is fine--but if that's all you're going to do, then you can spare us some time by refraining. I won't seriously consider your comments.

And I agree with you that we're under a kyriarchy. You'll find no argument there.

As for gendered-oppression, it really depends on which privileges were recieved. To me, the sociopolitical relationship between man and woman was very similar to that of parent and child. Saying men were privileged while women were oppressed is like saying that parents are privileged while their children are oppressed. And anyone who's had a child can tell you that is utterly false. If women submitting to the authority of their male counterparts constituted oppression, what would a simulataneous, compulsory obligation men bore to their wives and children constitute? I'm not saying there's was no oppression; I'm just saying that it wasn't gender-focused even if it appeared dichotomic. I honestly believe it was political kyriarchy. Again, if you have a criticism, please elaborate.

Because the posters here are sick of having to "educate" people like you. Did you not read the first post of this thread? Every few days somebody comes in rehashing the same old anti-feminist or the-patriarchy-isn't-real arguments and it gets bloody annoying to read them again and again.

Go back and reread the old threads, I'm sure you can find rebuttals to your points. They've all been made in some form or another before.

And how am I like? I did read the first post which suggested that participants not undermine the validity of feminism. Where in my post did I attempt to invalidate feminism? it's true that I don't subscribe to feminist idelogy but not for the you reasons you may speculate.

If you want to learn more, try this: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

It's great that you seem open to learning more about this; it's frustrating when dealing with people that come in, attack the validity of what is being discussed, etc. I know I don't usually have a lot to contribute here, but it's nice to be able to focus on the problems themselves, and not when whether or not they exist.

If your post was being sarcastic, I apologize.

I think some--not all--are burderning my premises with ghosts of arguments past, :).

[Lyanna Stark]

I'm suggesting that these roles were developed so that men bore most of the risk when physical labor was concerned. Patriarchy theory would suggest that these roles were developed in contempt for women being women. Now, while I agree that this protectionist attitude did curtail many of the liberties to which women were entitled, it still does not fit the narrative of class conflict and gendered-oppression perpetuated by Patriarchy Theory.

OK, so your theory is based on only the 19th century, by omitting everything else.

This makes sense how?

And how am I like? I did read the first post which suggested that participants not undermine the validity of feminism. Where in my post did I attempt to invalidate feminism? it's true that I don't subscribe to feminist idelogy but not for the you reasons you may speculate.

Oh my, how mysterious! Your trollishness is of a completely new kind!

Try baffling us with your non-feminist insights, oh clever one. I am certain we have never heard it before.

EDIT: Actually, if you are a non-feminist marxist, I actually don't think we've seen it before. Are you?

[Stannisaurus]

If some of you guys are in a link-sharing mood, can anyone give me a link with detailed explanations of the "male privilege"? I found some myself but they are a bit unsatisfactory and usually extremely context-dependent (e.g. in high-powered jobs such as lawyers or business executives). More specifically, I would appreciate it if the link included:

1) Definition of "male privilege"

2) Practical examples of how "male privilege" affects men/women, preferably in western-world contexts

3) How those examples, derived from the definition, are "translated" into a justification for feminism

I'm not going to debate about it, just want the link(s)

[Mad Monkey]

I don't think feminist requires that discrimination against women be based on contempt or personal dislike from specific men, right? Discrimination doesn't have to originate from conscious malice at all; the bus driver (James Blake) who sent Rosa Parks to the back of the bus probably didn't seethe with unusually high levels of hatred for black people, but that doesn't make it not discriminatory.

I'm also not sure that, "women aren't oppressed, they are just treated like children" is a very strong defense. Society circumscribes the powers of children to a degree that would be unacceptable to most adults. They can't vote, they can't legally buy certain things. In some areas their religious freedom and medical freedoms are exercised by their parents. I can't imagine how this cannot be seen as gender-focused discrimination if women are required to submit to the authority of men in the same way that children submit to their authority of their parents. The fact that there are reciprocal obligations doesn't really make it right; James Blake was obligated to take Rosa Parks to the destination of her choice when she got on the bus, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have any power over her or that the way he (and society) exercised power over her wasn't discriminatory.

Does that make more sense? Having a tiered society in the way that you're describing is inherently discriminatory. To a certain extent the way children are treated can be seen as age discrimination, but we allow it because children aren't born able to make decisions for themselves. But when it comes to adult women, does it really make sense to hem them into a complementary relationship with men where they give up all of their personal autonomy and civil liberties in exchange for a vague notion of "protection" that each individual woman might not even want? Surely you can see how it's sexist, especially when the reverse arrangement (where a man enters into a relationship with a woman where he gives up his rights as an adult in exchange for shelter and an allowance from a woman) is almost unthinkable even today?

[1918me]

If some of you guys are in a link-sharing mood, can anyone give me a link with detailed explanations of the "male privilege"? I found some myself but they are a bit unsatisfactory and usually extremely context-dependent (e.g. in high-powered jobs such as lawyers or business executives). More specifically, I would appreciate it if the link included:

1) Definition of "male privilege"

2) Practical examples of how "male privilege" affects men/women, preferably in western-world contexts

3) How those examples, derived from the definition, are "translated" into a justification for feminism

I'm not going to debate about it, just want the link(s)

I don't know if you came across this or not, but it certainly addresses point 1, touches upon 3, and gives an example such as in 2, although it doesn't go hugely into depth about how it affects men/women.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/

[emberling]

It's only a strawman argument if you can show that Patriarchy Theory is a fallacious concept.

Not how it works. The fallacy is in arguing against a position that has not been proposed. It isn't relevant whether either the actual proposal or the straw-man reframing are fallacious in themselves. Your claim, as I understand it, is that something called specifically "Patriarchy Theory," with caps, exists; that this theory involves social or legal rules being specifically and intentionally targeted towards the oppression of women; and that US social justice discourse regarding women almost entirely hinges upon this theory. I believe that each of those three things are incorrect, but the second is the one that matters.

You suggested a quick google of "Patriarchy Theory". Did you do this yourself? You'd quickly find that the phrase "Patriarchy Theory" is not used by feminists and instead associated with anti-feminists and MRAs. You'd find a reasonable explanation of the actual concepts of patriarchy (though I vehemently disagree with that site's use of 'patriarch'; it's not a particularly useful or meaningful concept, and mentioning it serves to reinforce the misconception of patriarchy as some kind of world misogynist conspiracy council, consciously degrading women to their own gain. In fact, here is a better explanation linked from that very page.)

To me, the sociopolitical relationship between man and woman was very similar to that of parent and child. Saying men were privileged while women were oppressed is like saying that parents are privileged while their children are oppressed.

Agree with this. Many of the complaints that historically attach to the patriarchy are in fact areas where women are treated as if they were children. It should be noted that women are not children.

And anyone who's had a child can tell you that is utterly false. If women submitting to the authority of their male counterparts constituted oppression, what would a simulataneous, compulsory obligation men bore to their wives and children constitute? I'm not saying there's was no oppression; I'm just saying that it wasn't gender-focused even if it appeared dichotomic. I honestly believe it was political kyriarchy.

This is where I think the Marxist oppression vocabulary can be misleading. Since the child's perceived needs come first, it's hard to see the child as "oppressed". However when we talk about oppression in this context it's invariably linked to agency, to choice, to hierarchy and status. Who has control? Who decides what the child's needs are? Who is seen as an independent entity in society, and who is seen as an attachment thereto?

Children are not adults. We do not judge them capable of independent function in society. Attaching similar status to women is absolutely oppression of women, because women are capable of independent function in society. Said oppression also harms men, but it is disingenuous to pretend that women are not the focus and the target*.

I'm a little puzzled by the attachment of political to kyriarchy. I've not encountered the phrase before that I recall, but I'd interpret it as implying a kind of etymological literalist sense rather than kyriarchy's coined meaning of an intersectional version of patriarchy representative of multiple oppressor/oppressed axes beyond man/woman. That doesn't seem to fit the context though.

*metaphorical language should not be interpreted to require malicious intent from a cartoonish villanous Patriarchy Council

[sologdin]

cerys--

well, there is that guy zippersomething who came off as anti-feminist and then began running around with Stalinist iconography, so yaknow.

[mouse]

As a feminist and mostly lurker on this thread, I think that it is a fair discussion topic - and, more importantly, not in violation of the first post warning/spirit of the thread - regarding whether a cultural shift where fathers can be and are criticized for working too much means that mothers can be fairly criticized for working too much. I think most of us would answer that question similarly for a lot of reasons,* but I don't necessarily agree that asking the question (even in the way the poster did) warrants the reaction. For me, at least, the post didn't come across as the all-too-typical thread-derailing nonsense. Just my two cents.

*I think many of us would say that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison; that criticism of man-as-negligent-parent comes across as, "It's sad that he wasted his life on unimportant things," whereas woman-as-negligent parent comes laden with vitriol and anger. (I also think there are others here that would articulate that way better than I have.) Still - is it progress that men are starting to get criticized for caring too much about their jobs and too little about their families? Or is it not?

[Stannisaurus]

I don't know if you came across this or not, but it certainly addresses point 1, touches upon 3, and gives an example such as in 2, although it doesn't go hugely into depth about how it affects men/women.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/

I did found that before, I don't think it addresses neither (2) or (3) in any important way. But thanks for the link anyway, appreciated.

[Lyanna Stark]

I did found that before, I don't think it addresses neither (2) or (3) in any important way. But thanks for the link anyway, appreciated.

Here's a tangential article, dealing with the concept of privilige as a whole, explaining from a different perspective how the mechanics work.