The Good Men project takes on the subject of patriarchy.

[MerryHappy]

Interesting article.

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-cont ... y-not-men/

[eohiken]

this, most definitely this.

kyriarchy is a much better word for it, but yeah.

[debrand]

There’s more to it, though, and in The Feminine Mystique Freidan also touched on how men were hurt by the system. In a patriarchal system a man’s wife is his dependent in every sense of the word—she’s not his best friend, not a partner, not a companion that shares life’s ups and downs. She’s a helpless creature that needs to be sheltered, taken care of and who can’t really make conversation about anything other than diapers and PTA meetings. The full responsibility for anything that isn’t cooking, cleaning, or childcare related rests on the man of the house and there’s no one to share the responsibility with.

I've never understood why anyone would want to be in a partiarchal society, either men or women. Do men really want to be unable to share their deepest fears and worries with their spouse because she is so emotional that she needs protection?

I like that Bill Gates said that gender equality was needed because "you need all the smart people you can get and no one can afford leaving half of their population behind.â€

[debrand]

Reading some of the comments amaze me. Can people really be so ignorant?

Ah, the magic word patriarchy! It is magic because feminists use it instead of “menâ€, when they don’t want to look sexist. The thing is, they ARE sexist to the core.

Patriarchy bashing! What a cutie. You have to bash something, doncha. You can’t attack men directly (in the name of PC), so do it indirectly. This game is getting old and transparent….

“In a patriarchal system all men are literally the kings of their castles, and we all know that kings aren’t allowed to do anything that isn’t in the protocol (or they shouldn’t anyway).â€

You seem to hate all hierarchies what exist, but the truth is, they are everywhere, and working. Hierarchies have rules, and without these rules every living society (human or animal) would sink into anarchy. Yes, society is a construct, so what? In a patriarchy, leadership means responsibility also. Would you give your life for your beloved ones, if needed? Are you ready to replace men working on shitty and sometimes deadly jobs civilisation would stop without? If the answer is yes, men will be happy in a matriarchy and will have a life free from any stress..Let women lead the world, and die for us, not the reverse. You know, the top- and the bottom- of the society will be yours.

But in case the answer is not, please just stop complaining..

[debrand]

this, most definitely this.

kyriarchy is a much better word for it, but yeah.

Why is kyriachy a better word for it?

[Austin]

Wow, some of those commenters are so transparent.

[emmiedahl]

From wikipedia: Kyriarchy is a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza to describe interconnected, interacting, and multiplicative systems of domination and submission, within which a person oppressed in one context might be privileged in another.[1] It is an intersectional elaboration of the concept of patriarchy[1] — it extends the analysis of oppression beyond traditional feminism to dynamics such as sexism, racism, economic injustice, and other forms of internalized and institutionalized oppression[2].

Just so we don't all have to look it up.

[Childless]

Bill Gates rocks!

[Childless]

Since when are women's lives stress free? I work a full time job and take care of a toddler. I am the sole supporter of my family. And guess what, I don't mind. It's something that is expected of me and something I need to do for my family. I don't have any problems taking on the "traditional" role of the man. I'm very good at what I do and I work hard. How dare someone trivialize that because it doesn't fit into their preconceived notion of what a family should look like. And even though I work and my husband stays home with the baby, our family isn't imploding or suffering or struggling (anymore than a family with a stay at home mom struggles). I'm not sure why these individuals think the sky will fall if patriarchy ceases to exist. My family is proving them wrong.

[LynnKaboom]

this, most definitely this.

kyriarchy is a much better word for it, but yeah.

Kyriarchy? I know I should probably just Google it but my Internet is being stupid and refusing to load Google, and the word isn't in my dictionary app. It sounds like some kind of system?

[deelaem]

Oh my god - what about the menz!!

[eohiken]

like emmiedahl said.

Kyriarchy is to patriarchy as the food chain is to the food web. Same concept, in this case domination and oppression, but instead of the binary man vs woman, it's a multi-leveled and intersecting power game of factors: sex, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, religion etc...

[CanadianHippie]

like emmiedahl said.

Kyriarchy is to patriarchy as the food chain is to the food web. Same concept, in this case domination and oppression, but instead of the binary man vs woman, it's a multi-leveled and intersecting power game of factors: sex, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, religion etc...

In other words, it's more complicated than some feminists would like to believe it is. Just like the rest of the real world.

[eohiken]

There is still the simple truth that men carry a more privileged position of power than women, no matter how complicated the system.

[CanadianHippie]

There is still the simple truth that men carry a more privileged position of power than women, no matter how complicated the system.

But when you start digging into the system you realizes it's way more than just "men get more privileges than women. Period. End of story."

[emmiedahl]

Patriarchy is a form of Kyriarchy. We can only take on one social ill at a time in most movements. So feminists, of course, will focus specifically on the oppression of women. Nothing wrong with that. I don't expect Somalians to riot for the freedom of North Korea.

[Boogalou]

But when you start digging into the system you realizes it's way more than just "men get more privileges than women. Period. End of story."

I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to ever argue that, except there are some crazies out there so I wouldn't be surprised. Obviously, that's not the end of the story, simply part of the story.

[Soldier of the One]

Kyriarchy. Interesting, I learnt something new :)

And that is exactly how oppression works; different networks, different degrees, different shades of privilege (or lack thereof) depending on your position in the matrix. Nice to know that there's some social theory behind that.

[Patsy]

In other words, it's more complicated than some feminists would like to believe it is. Just like the rest of the real world.

The focus of kyriarchy is not "but patriarchy hurts menz too". It's on the intersectionality of a whole bunch of power relationships that have to do with things other than sex, gender and sexuality. Certainly, that addresses some serious shortcomings of feminism as it has been done in the past 100 years (see: idiotic racism, throwing other minorities under the bus, radical feminism and transphobia), but I don't think these are the shortcomings you seem to be mentioning. Seriously, seriously, please, can we not turn kyriarchy into 'but what about the menz'? At least in my perception, it hasn't been about that, and I don't want to feel like I'm losing a useful term.

It's about the human tendency for everyone trying to take the role of lord/master within a pyramid. At it best heights, studying kyriarchy displays that it's more than just rich, white Christian men at the tip top and, personally, they're not the ones I find most dangerous. There's a helluva lot more people a few levels down the pyramid who are more interested in keeping their place in the structure than to turning the pyramid upside down.

http://myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.html

[CanadianHippie]

The focus of kyriarchy is not "but patriarchy hurts menz too". It's on the intersectionality of a whole bunch of power relationships that have to do with things other than sex, gender and sexuality. Certainly, that addresses some serious shortcomings of feminism as it has been done in the past 100 years (see: idiotic racism, throwing other minorities under the bus, radical feminism and transphobia), but I don't think these are the shortcomings you seem to be mentioning. Seriously, seriously, please, can we not turn kyriarchy into 'but what about the menz'? At least in my perception, it hasn't been about that, and I don't want to feel like I'm losing a useful term.

http://myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.html

:?:

I pointed out that it's more complicated than "I blame the patriarchy". I wasn't turning into anything other than what it is.

[Patsy]

:?:

I pointed out that it's more complicated than "I blame the patriarchy". I wasn't turning into anything other than what it is.

What I read: 'Yeah, feminists I've disagree with, TAKE THAT! It hurts men too!' That's not the point of the term. That's what I was trying to point out.

[CanadianHippie]

What I read: 'Yeah, feminists I've disagree with, TAKE THAT! It hurts men too!' That's not the point of the term. That's what I was trying to point out.

What I wrote: 'It's more complicated than some feminists want to believe.' No men involved in my post whatsoever.

[Soldier of the One]

I think kyriarchy makes a lot of sence because - Captain Obvious here - it takes a lot of variables and nuances into account.

And yes, I think that's the shortcoming of many classical 'isms', as helpful as they may have been to address power disparity. Marxism, feminism... they all tend to focus on their own definitions and interest groups. Now, that is normal. And both those 'isms' have had significant intellectual and social contributions to Western society, but it is nice to see a broader and more inclusive definition being developed.

I like that bit, about people fighting hard to keep their position in the pyramid. Because that is often what it is. And that is what maintains the structure of the pyramid as a whole. People are scared to loose whatever they have, which is a very normal and natural response. But it is also what keeps significant social change from happening.

Not that I have any answers to that, mind you.

[Patsy]

No men involved in my post whatsoever.

Re-read your second post. It's what you were pointing us to.

[FlorenceHamilton]

I like this term Kyriarchy. I do not think that women with a feminist point of view should discard this concept, not allow it to be co-optedby the anti-feminist agenda.

It is more difficult, but useful to view our many social heirarchies as a matrix rather than series of linear relationships. By bringing in multiple issue, it becomes clearer that there are certain woman who would support an anti-feminist agenda. If a woman happens to fit into the upper tier in several other categories, she may find a patriarchal system quite to her benefit. If she is white, comes from a economically comfortable background with an educated father, then she is more likely to be well spoken and have been trained to use her brain effectively enough to be an interesting conversationalist. This gives her the best opportunity to find a husband with similar attributes to her father. If she finds a man who is wiling to be the headship of her dreams, she may be quite happy to have no chioce but to be his helpmeet.

A woman who comes from a poor background and meets a harshe reality in her adulthood may also benefit from the patriarchal gender system. If she is in this category, a system that holds the woman in her abject state without opportunity to get herself out of the position also relieves her if responsibility and makes her conpletely dependent on charity for her well being. It doesn't sound like anyone would want that life, but there are many who do. Interstingly, these are the people that the first set of people complain the most about. Genderism ultimately imprisons these women and they beging to feel entitled to the handout for their survival. Although the entitled classes blame her for her circomstance, perhaps even by labeling her a sinner and deserving of her fate because of her loose moral fabric, her sheer neediness leads to a kind of subsistence living that is free of the obligation to contribute to society. Some women take that bargain.

Taking factors such as race, ethnicity, education, geography and other factors into the puzzle does help make some of the puzzling aspects of disparities make more sense. It shows some of the ways that a female person may favor a system that benefits her in some way, but does not benefit the majority of women. Under a patriocentric system, the only way for a female to navigate the matrix is through men. If that puts a woman in a favorable place, she may like it.

Fro people ho think more globally, this is not a good system. Global thinkers feel the need to remove that barriers in the matrix so that all humans can navigate the entire web. Men get the freedom to choose pathways that were previously blocked as well. Some examples may be the opportunity to nurture children, to car for their homes, to do volunteer work, find creative outlets for their hobbies. We have experimented with removing other barriers with limited success. Examples include removing barriers to education, to transportation, to institutional racial segregation and others. Very consevative people point to the mixed outcomes and call things like Equal Opportunity a failure. In fact, these efforts have not failed. There is a far more solid black middle class than ever before. (Although they are falling hard in this economy) We have a black POTUS, and a consevative black candidate. Progress does happen, but it is not smooth. Not every social program works. Some work, but fall inot disrepair and need to be updated.

Ultimately, the be a heathy, sound, prosperous nation, it is in our best interests for government to provide a minimum of good food, approproriate clothing, clean water, adequate living conditions, transprotation and basic health care to its workforce. It needs to provide for the health, education and shelter and nutrition for the children who will become the next workforce. Since fixed hierarchies can never do anythng but maintain the staus quo, it makes sense to reduce/remove the barriers so that the people at the bottom wrung have a fighting chance to navigate the matrix.

Finally, for a nation to remain healthy, sound and properous, we need other nations to also be healthy sound and prosperous so that we have partners with whom to trade and interact.

I am processing this concept of kyriarchy on this post. Thank you for your patience. This is great stuff. It does not prove that gender equality is a bad thing. Even inside the matrix, it is an unneccesary and conterproductive barrier except for a very few individuals.