I just realized I haven't said directly in months just how much I appreciate your posting links habit. While I may not follow every link, I usually follow and read a majority of them, and almost always learn something interesting. You rock!
Thanks, that was interesting. The individual/class dichotomy is something that can be difficult to communicate and difficult to appreciate- both one one side, from men who feel that class statements always represent personal accusation, and from the other side, from women who feel that class misdeed implies personal misdeed.
It comes down to the same human error in the end, and is an ironic example of how similar we are, regardless of gender.
I think you're right, I think it is the same human error. And I think there are parallels with that sort of individual/class dichotomy with regard to other privileged classes in our society, too.
As a het woman, obviously, I don't think that all men are somehow personally and purposely imposing patriarchy on me. I think they benefit from their class privilege, though, just as other privileged classes benefit without regard to whether they seek to exercise their privilege or seek to impose or preserve it. Obviously I benefit from racial and sexual identity and class privileges I wish I didn't benefit from because I wish they didn't exist. (I'm not sure that sentence made sense). But I'm not personally classist or racist. Or homophobic. Men benefit from patriarchy without necessarily being sexist. The flip-side, of course, is one feminist man can't negate for me the effects of living in a misogynist culture.
Anyway, thanks for reading!! I'm now officially pretty late for work, and should try not to spend the whole workday on the internets today like I did yesterday.
Whether or not we are privileged enough to sensibly be called ---ist (racist/classist/sexist), I personally believe that most (if not all) of us have internalised bigotries into our personal worldview, and hold them as personal stereotypes
It's my ambition to unravel my own prejudices.
But right now, I'm off to play Halo with the wife. :-)
It's the system of patriarchy that imposes itself on men and women. We are all victims of it, whether most people acknowledge it or not. Male priviledge comes at the cost of dehumanization.
Whether most men even recognize this trade off is irrelevant, in the same way that women may not feel that patriarchy affects them, or profess to enjoy the role they have been assigned. They don't have to acknowledge it, the effects are real.
I've heard many feminists use the word "men" and "patriarchy" interchangeably, as though they see men as "the enemy". That attitude will not help to change the system, it just feeds the system. Seeing it as men versus women is a patriarchal view, which survives by dividing people and pitting them against each other. Anytime a woman uses a "combat" analogy she is feeding the system.
You could relocate every single male member of society, from the elderly to newborns, to another planet, and patriarchy would still crop up again. All the women who had male children and weren't feminists would teach their children. All the women who didn't consciously try to change their behavior patterns would fall right back into them.
And I know someone will ask for evidence to support these assertions. Off the top of my head: Pioneering research done regarding batterers was done with lesbian couples. I've also heard (and seen) that many gay and lesbian couples repeat the same patterns as hetero couples, hence the terms top and bottom. Or, "she wears the pants in the relationship".
Nicely said. I definitely agree. Particularly with this:
I've heard many feminists use the word "men" and "patriarchy" interchangeably, as though they see men as "the enemy". That attitude will not help to change the system, it just feeds the system. Seeing it as men versus women is a patriarchal view, which survives by dividing people and pitting them against each other.
I find it a little specious to talk about the evils of the patriarchy and then say it's not about men. It's not about how guys act, but it IS about patriarchal oppression. That makes no sense. If guys aren't "the patriarchy", then who is? Women? Rabbits? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? What writing like this is really saying is "it's not about how any individual guy acts, but rather how guys as a whole act", and that's also a little unfair. It's a lot easier to blame a whole group than one person, because you never have to defend your accusations. You can always say, "Oh, not you, it's all the others."
Another thing this rant didn't take into account is that the Madonna/whore complex is mostly women trashing other women. The example given isn't correct: "Women and men alike ... impose these sort of feminized slut shaming things on each other ... when we just see a woman in a tight short dress and so-called "fuck me pumps" walking down the street." Most straight men seeing this will probably think, "Mmmm, hottie." Which, when one gets dressed up that way, is the whole point. It's dressing to attract attention. But many women seeing this will think, "SLUT!" It's female competitiveness, not male oppression, that's largely at fault there. Like some Animal Planet special about mating rituals, it's usually the females that are the most vicious. Which, again, isn't about "the patriarchy" at all.
Actually, the bit you quote from the post most emphatically does take into account that patriarchal norms (Madonna/Whore complex) is enacted by both men and women, and in fact all of the culture. "Female competitiveness" in that manner exists because women are taught in a patriarchal society to value their selves only in relation to their value to men as compared with other women.
The whole point of the post is: "Patriarchal society" does not equal "men." It's the society as a whole, a system which privileges men over women as the norm, treats men as "more" human, and defines women as the sex class. It's enacted and made up of many different relational systems within our culture, and perpetuated in all of the same way other class-based oppressions are perpetuated. Yes, there are many individual men who enact patriarchy and act to preserve their patriarchal privilege. But "the patriarchy" isn't a bunch of guys in a backroom smoking cigars thinking up ways to keep women down. It's a systemic cultural fixture, as is white privilege, as is class privilege.
Regarding "it's a lot easier to blame a whole group than one person, because you never have to defend your accusations. You can always say, 'Oh, not you, it's all the others.'"--that again misses the point. Again, "patriarchy" is a system of male privilege, preserved and enacted by societal and cultural norms. "The Patriarchy" is not synonymous with "a big group of misogynistic men." There are, of course, large numbers of misogynistic men, and when I encounter them I'm more than willing to name names and defend my accusations, to the extent there are accusations being made. Big groups of misogynistic men, however, aren't "the patriarchy," they act to preserve it and maintain their privilege.
"patriarchy" is a system of male privilege I don't think that's true. It's a system of expected roles and behavior, and it's bad for both men and women who don't want to follow those roles.
Actually, I think both statements are true. I think patriarchy is definitely a system of male privilege and power. I think it's made of up and perpetuated by adherence to expected roles and behaviors, and I think that there are definitely negative consequences for those men and women who don't adhere to their defined roles. They can be extreme. One of the ways the system of privilege is perpetuated is to ensure that anyone, male or female, who doesn't fit into their prescribed roles and doesn't enact their prescribed behaviors, is defined as other and treated accordingly.
Incidentally, I also think the system is bad for both men and women who do adhere to and enact their defined gender roles. I think they receive social power and privileges, but are negatively impacted in a number of ways, including as an example (but certainly not limited to) artificial narrowing and minimizing of emotional growth So I think it's bad for everyone. I mean, "privilege and power" is not absolute. You can be privileged based on your gender in some sense and harmed based on your adherence to your prescribed roles in another. Or you can have privilege and power in some aspects of society based on your gender, but suffer societal discrimination based on race, class, sexuality, etc.
I like your phrasing. And I think defining the patriarchal system is surely someone that could be added to and added to--done in a dissertation rather than a sentence, if you will. And my sentence wasn't meant to be limiting so much as distinguishing--ie, it's a system, not a group of mean individual men.
If guys aren't "the patriarchy", then who is? Women? At least as much as the men, yes.
Which, again, isn't about "the patriarchy" at all. Competitiveness may be part of it, but it's more about the women reacting to a violation of what they think the rules ought to be. That's not only enforcement of patriarchy, but also playing the traditional women's role of being more concerned with appearances than men.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-02 08:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-02 12:54 pm (UTC)I'm glad you get something out of it, at any rate!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-02 10:40 am (UTC)It comes down to the same human error in the end, and is an ironic example of how similar we are, regardless of gender.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-02 01:29 pm (UTC)As a het woman, obviously, I don't think that all men are somehow personally and purposely imposing patriarchy on me. I think they benefit from their class privilege, though, just as other privileged classes benefit without regard to whether they seek to exercise their privilege or seek to impose or preserve it. Obviously I benefit from racial and sexual identity and class privileges I wish I didn't benefit from because I wish they didn't exist. (I'm not sure that sentence made sense). But I'm not personally classist or racist. Or homophobic. Men benefit from patriarchy without necessarily being sexist. The flip-side, of course, is one feminist man can't negate for me the effects of living in a misogynist culture.
Anyway, thanks for reading!! I'm now officially pretty late for work, and should try not to spend the whole workday on the internets today like I did yesterday.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-02 11:00 pm (UTC)It's my ambition to unravel my own prejudices.
But right now, I'm off to play Halo with the wife. :-)
Thanks for writing the piece.
adrian
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-02 01:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-02 03:34 pm (UTC)It's the system of patriarchy that imposes itself on men and women. We are all victims of it, whether most people acknowledge it or not. Male priviledge comes at the cost of dehumanization.
Whether most men even recognize this trade off is irrelevant, in the same way that women may not feel that patriarchy affects them, or profess to enjoy the role they have been assigned. They don't have to acknowledge it, the effects are real.
I've heard many feminists use the word "men" and "patriarchy" interchangeably, as though they see men as "the enemy". That attitude will not help to change the system, it just feeds the system. Seeing it as men versus women is a patriarchal view, which survives by dividing people and pitting them against each other. Anytime a woman uses a "combat" analogy she is feeding the system.
You could relocate every single male member of society, from the elderly to newborns, to another planet, and patriarchy would still crop up again. All the women who had male children and weren't feminists would teach their children. All the women who didn't consciously try to change their behavior patterns would fall right back into them.
And I know someone will ask for evidence to support these assertions. Off the top of my head: Pioneering research done regarding batterers was done with lesbian couples. I've also heard (and seen) that many gay and lesbian couples repeat the same patterns as hetero couples, hence the terms top and bottom. Or, "she wears the pants in the relationship".
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-02 04:38 pm (UTC)I've heard many feminists use the word "men" and "patriarchy" interchangeably, as though they see men as "the enemy". That attitude will not help to change the system, it just feeds the system. Seeing it as men versus women is a patriarchal view, which survives by dividing people and pitting them against each other.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-02 04:43 pm (UTC)Another thing this rant didn't take into account is that the Madonna/whore complex is mostly women trashing other women. The example given isn't correct: "Women and men alike ... impose these sort of feminized slut shaming things on each other ... when we just see a woman in a tight short dress and so-called "fuck me pumps" walking down the street." Most straight men seeing this will probably think, "Mmmm, hottie." Which, when one gets dressed up that way, is the whole point. It's dressing to attract attention. But many women seeing this will think, "SLUT!" It's female competitiveness, not male oppression, that's largely at fault there. Like some Animal Planet special about mating rituals, it's usually the females that are the most vicious. Which, again, isn't about "the patriarchy" at all.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-02 05:21 pm (UTC)The whole point of the post is: "Patriarchal society" does not equal "men." It's the society as a whole, a system which privileges men over women as the norm, treats men as "more" human, and defines women as the sex class. It's enacted and made up of many different relational systems within our culture, and perpetuated in all of the same way other class-based oppressions are perpetuated. Yes, there are many individual men who enact patriarchy and act to preserve their patriarchal privilege. But "the patriarchy" isn't a bunch of guys in a backroom smoking cigars thinking up ways to keep women down. It's a systemic cultural fixture, as is white privilege, as is class privilege.
Regarding "it's a lot easier to blame a whole group than one person, because you never have to defend your accusations. You can always say, 'Oh, not you, it's all the others.'"--that again misses the point. Again, "patriarchy" is a system of male privilege, preserved and enacted by societal and cultural norms. "The Patriarchy" is not synonymous with "a big group of misogynistic men." There are, of course, large numbers of misogynistic men, and when I encounter them I'm more than willing to name names and defend my accusations, to the extent there are accusations being made. Big groups of misogynistic men, however, aren't "the patriarchy," they act to preserve it and maintain their privilege.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-03 10:16 am (UTC)I don't think that's true. It's a system of expected roles and behavior, and it's bad for both men and women who don't want to follow those roles.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-03 12:21 pm (UTC)Incidentally, I also think the system is bad for both men and women who do adhere to and enact their defined gender roles. I think they receive social power and privileges, but are negatively impacted in a number of ways, including as an example (but certainly not limited to) artificial narrowing and minimizing of emotional growth So I think it's bad for everyone. I mean, "privilege and power" is not absolute. You can be privileged based on your gender in some sense and harmed based on your adherence to your prescribed roles in another. Or you can have privilege and power in some aspects of society based on your gender, but suffer societal discrimination based on race, class, sexuality, etc.
I like your phrasing. And I think defining the patriarchal system is surely someone that could be added to and added to--done in a dissertation rather than a sentence, if you will. And my sentence wasn't meant to be limiting so much as distinguishing--ie, it's a system, not a group of mean individual men.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-03 10:31 am (UTC)At least as much as the men, yes.
Which, again, isn't about "the patriarchy" at all.
Competitiveness may be part of it, but it's more about the women reacting to a violation of what they think the rules ought to be. That's not only enforcement of patriarchy, but also playing the traditional women's role of being more concerned with appearances than men.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-03 03:42 am (UTC)