Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

I can see that patriarchy no longer has the power, the 'grip' on our culture(s), that it used to have. But I can also see clear signs that it might still be present. I suspect that we could be premature in declaring the demise of patriarchy.

A "patriarchy" that no longer has power can hardly be called a patriarchy because power is intrinsic to its definition. However, I accept that we should not be too quick to declare that we are no longer a patriarchy. That is precisely why I created this thread and asked the question.

Let's remind ourselves of your definition:

The first line from Wikipedia on the topic says this: "Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of dominance and privilege are primarily held by men."

Fair enough. This goes back to the dictionary definition of the word. Male dominance, or male supremacy.

Just to be clear, that wasn't my definition; it is one I found in Wikipedia. In my first post I felt this definition was a bit weak and slightly wide of the mark. I laws and institutions should also be designed in such a way as to preserve male dominance and supress women. I think it is pretty clear that men and women are equal in the eyes of the law and that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. That said, I think there is still scope to argue that certain institutions function in ways that more subtly inhibit women and favour men, not through any explicit rules but implicitly through the way they are structured. No one is yet to make that case in this thread that I have seen.

That leaves only the second. And that is more difficult, for the reasons I have described above. I think we can rule out the extremes — Patriarchy no longer exercises total control over our cultures and societies; patriarchy is not yet a thing of the past.

But between those extremes, where do we sit? I'm not sure. I am definitely not as confident as you seem to be, that patriarchy is a thing of the past. Have we really reached that point?

Well, we might start by pointing to those laws and institutions that supposedly favour men over women. If you are to claim we are living in a patriarchy to any extent, you should be able to point to examples of those.

And to be clear, I am not talking about social attitudes in the population at large. These are quite distinct from the question I am asking here I believe.

[Sy Borg]

When we take the Middle East, Africa and Asia into account, if we in the west are living in patriarchies, they are extremely low-key patriarchies. It would seem that the vast majority of societies throughout history and around the world were far more patriarchal than any modern western society.

[Sea Turtle]

There is a binary question for us, selection vs discrimination. If I select everyone with IQ above 40, that is discrimination of those below.

I disagree, for reasons I have already explained. If you choose from the whole population, on the basis of (in your example) intelligence, that isn't "discrimination". I think we could call that 'selection', or just 'choosing'. But as soon as we narrow our population to (say) men, or to Christians, or maybe even white-skinned people, that is discrimination.

But I don't think your question is a binary one. I'm sure, if we put our minds to it, we could come up with examples that seem to sit somewhere in between selection and discrimination. We can easily recognise the extremes, but the 'grey area'? More difficult. Nevertheless, I think we can be clear that, if one is choosing from the whole population, with no-one excluded, there is no discrimination. There is selection, in your example it is on the basis of IQ, and it is selection (not discrimination) as long as no portion of the population is excluded before the acceptance criteria are even considered.

Who decides what is selection and what is discrimination?

I do understand your ideas. I am asking how do you decide what attribute should be treated as sacred and never considered.

An example is:
We select men from the entire population of all people. That is selection.
We select smart men from the entire population of all people. That is selection.
We select smart people from the entire population. That is selection.

Does your viewpoint believe that selecting men is discrimination of women?
Does your viewpoint believe that selecting smart is discrimination of not smart?

The only difference is that the group in the first choice that is not selected is complaining.

[Pattern-chaser]

I can see that patriarchy no longer has the power, the 'grip' on our culture(s), that it used to have. But I can also see clear signs that it might still be present. I suspect that we could be premature in declaring the demise of patriarchy.

A "patriarchy" that no longer has power can hardly be called a patriarchy because power is intrinsic to its definition.

I think you have misread my comment, as emphasised by my highlighting. I did not say, and I do not think, that patriarchy "no longer has power", but that it no longer has the (amount/degree of) power that it used to wield.

However, I accept that we should not be too quick to declare that we are no longer a patriarchy. That is precisely why I created this thread and asked the question.

OK, and I think my words, above, are my initial response to that.

I think it is pretty clear that men and women are equal in the eyes of the law and that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender.

That is true. But only in theory? For the laws that you mention are flouted widely. And only the most serious infractions are brought before courts. You can make all the laws you like, but if they are widely disobeyed, as currently seems to be the case, what then?

Well, we might start by pointing to those laws and institutions that supposedly favour men over women.

I don't think the laws do favour men over women, or not that much, anyway. It's adherence to those laws that is the issue here, I think?

[Good_Egg]

I think you'll find that patriarchy has a root meaning along the lines of "rule by fathers".

So that, for example, a culture which is obsessed by "boy bands" has a gender bias, but is not a patriarchy.

Do we live in a patriarchy ? Of course not. We live in a culture in which fatherhood is denigrated.

Do we live in a culture that has gender biases ? Yes. Such biases occur naturally, associated with real male-female differences to do with nurture and aggression.

A culture with no such biases is a highly artificial construct. Something that some people want to aim for.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think you'll find that patriarchy has a root meaning along the lines of "rule by fathers".

Sorry, I was going by the Wikipedia definition you posted in your OP, that seemed to define and describe it well.

[Fried Egg]

I think you'll find that patriarchy has a root meaning along the lines of "rule by fathers".

Sorry, I was going by the Wikipedia definition you posted in your OP, that seemed to define and describe it well.

You're not confusing Good Egg with Fried Egg I hope? Easily done I'm sure...

[Fried Egg]

Well, we might start by pointing to those laws and institutions that supposedly favour men over women.

I don't think the laws do favour men over women, or not that much, anyway. It's adherence to those laws that is the issue here, I think?

I wouldn't dispute that many people continue to discriminate on the basis of gender, despite what the laws of the land might say. I'm not sure what you would call this situation but personally, I would not call it a "patriarchy", nor would I call it even a weak version of a patriarchy. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that most of the discrimination at play in society is necessarily at the expense of women.

Ultimately, I don't think we should dwell so much on apparent disparities and differences in outcomes between men and women. Largely because we have no reason to suppose that their existence necessarily implies that there is any kind of systemic sexism. What concerns me, and what I think constitutes a "patriarchy" is when the system itself is designed in such a way as to benefit one segment of society at the expense of another. Where we find such things, I'm sure we can agree that they should be dismantled.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think you'll find that patriarchy has a root meaning along the lines of "rule by fathers".

Sorry, I was going by the Wikipedia definition you posted in your OP, that seemed to define and describe it well.

You're not confusing Good Egg with Fried Egg I hope? Easily done I'm sure...

Ooops!

[Pattern-chaser]

I wouldn't dispute that many people continue to discriminate on the basis of gender, despite what the laws of the land might say. I'm not sure what you would call this situation but personally, I would not call it a "patriarchy", nor would I call it even a weak version of a patriarchy.

Using the Wikipedia definition, I *would* call it a patriarchy, in practice if not in theory. Men hold most of the positions of power. Just look at the gender profile of billionaires...

Furthermore, I'm not so sure that most of the discrimination at play in society is necessarily at the expense of women.

Our societies are rife with discrimination, against any and all minorities. [Question: why are women considered to be a minority in these matters?] It comes down to the basic human 'them and us' sentiment. All minorities are 'them', and so they suffer discrimination. All (?) men are 'us', and so they don't. Isn't it really that simple, and that shameful?

Ultimately, I don't think we should dwell so much on apparent disparities and differences in outcomes between men and women. Largely because we have no reason to suppose that their existence necessarily implies that there is any kind of systemic sexism. What concerns me, and what I think constitutes a "patriarchy" is when the system itself is designed in such a way as to benefit one segment of society at the expense of another. Where we find such things, I'm sure we can agree that they should be dismantled.

The patriarchy I see today depends on a system that is designed to allow the privileged to remain so, although the system features that allow this may not be obvious. Sometimes, these things are not advertised, but they're there in the background. It is said that in America, one can break any law with impunity, providing one can afford an outrageously expensive lawyer (who is also one of the privileged — and wealthy — few).

[Fried Egg]

I wouldn't dispute that many people continue to discriminate on the basis of gender, despite what the laws of the land might say. I'm not sure what you would call this situation but personally, I would not call it a "patriarchy", nor would I call it even a weak version of a patriarchy.

Using the Wikipedia definition, I *would* call it a patriarchy, in practice if not in theory. Men hold most of the positions of power. Just look at the gender profile of billionaires...

Ok, so if we are using different definitions, we will likely disagree about the answer to the question I posed in this thread, however it seems by other things you have said that you would even disagree even if we both use my definition:

The patriarchy I see today depends on a system that is designed to allow the privileged to remain so, although the system features that allow this may not be obvious. Sometimes, these things are not advertised, but they're there in the background.

Certainly, I can agree that this might well be the case, but we should still be able to point to them and identify them, rather than merely assume they must exist because of a disparity of men in positions of power. You cannot assume that a complete abolition of all legal and systemic factors that benefit men over women will lead to an equality of outcome (i.e. equity). Unless, perhaps, you also believe that there are no innate differences between men and women, which going by what you posted in the other thread, this is a view you do not hold:

viewtopic.php?p=443213#p443213

Well, it certainly seems that it is desirable among some people to believe that there are no innate differences between men and women...

No-one that I have seen holds or expresses such opinions. No-one on this forum, anyway.

"Equality" does not mean that those concerned must be rendered identical. It refers mostly to 'equal opportunities', I think.

Therefore, if there are indeed innate differences between men and women, it would be surprising if we ever had equity between men and women (even in the complete absence of any institutional/systemic advantages for men).

So, you must do more than allude to idea that the system is rigged against women. You must identify these institutional mechanisms however well hidden they might be.

[Pattern-chaser]

Ok, so if we are using different definitions, we will likely disagree about the answer to the question I posed in this thread, however it seems by other things you have said that you would even disagree even if we both use my definition

I don't think we disagree, except in our assessments of how far historic patriarchy has faded away, and the extent to which it remains. A matter of degree, nothing more, I believe?

[Fried Egg]

Ok, so if we are using different definitions, we will likely disagree about the answer to the question I posed in this thread, however it seems by other things you have said that you would even disagree even if we both use my definition

I don't think we disagree, except in our assessments of how far historic patriarchy has faded away, and the extent to which it remains. A matter of degree, nothing more, I believe?

I think when you say "historic patriarchy", you are referring to what I would call the lingering effects of patriarchy (again, lingering not because it is minor, but because they persist despite the now all but absent patriarchy). In as much as we seem to be using these words a little differently and yet hinting at a similar underlying meaning then, yes, it is a matter of degree.

[Good_Egg]

Men hold most of the positions of power. Just look at the gender profile of billionaires...

And look at the gender profile of convicted felons...

Seems like one of the real differences between men and women shows itself in men being over-represented at both extremes of the spectrum of achievement.

Our societies are rife with discrimination, against any and all minorities. [Question: why are women considered to be a minority in these matters?] It comes down to the basic human 'them and us' sentiment. All minorities are 'them', and so they suffer discrimination. All (?) men are 'us', and so they don't. Isn't it really that simple, and that shameful?

Tribalism - us and them - certainly exists, and explains a lot.

Women are counted as a minority only by those with a selective definition of "discrimination".

The patriarchy I see today depends on a system that is designed to allow the privileged to remain so, although the system features that allow this may not be obvious. Sometimes, these things are not advertised, but they're there in the background.

They're not obvious because they're not there. The system is not "designed" at all. The system evolved.

What it evolved from is pre-feudal kingship - a social contract between farmers and fighters.

You're dabbling in conspiracy theory - the male-supremacist secret society that controls the world behind the scenes...

[LuckyR]

Men hold most of the positions of power. Just look at the gender profile of billionaires...

And look at the gender profile of convicted felons...

Exactly. Some personality types risk failure to possibly attain better. Others fear failure and are more comfortable with average. Relatively speaking.