| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 ms chinook |
|||
|
Chickenier than thou
Posts: 1089 (05/02/08 7:16 PM) |
"Just out of curiosity can you list the laws that you feel hold you in patriarchal bondage ?"
The application and misapplication of the laws are just as much of a problem.
*****************
Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to always be one of the crowd. Christopher Morley www.life-suitcase.blogspot.com |
||
|
Tishie |
|||
|
Posts: 2099 (05/03/08 8:38 AM) The Tishie |
EC, I don't even know why i start. If you honestly don't see any sort of patriarchy, which isn't even behind a friggin curtain, I don't know
how to discuss this with you.
|
||
|
bleustocking |
|||
|
Feathery chick
Posts: 177 (05/03/08 10:10 AM) |
BL, thanks! Wow did I not remember that right!
|
||
|
easstcoast |
|||
|
Tell Tishie your custom level!
Posts: 1368 (05/03/08 10:32 AM) |
EC, I don't even know why i start. If you honestly don't see any sort of patriarchy, which isn't even behind a friggin curtain, I don't know how to discuss this with you. I never said I "don't see any sort of patriarchy". I wrote: "Me personally, I'm hard pressed to think of a single aspect of my life that's controlled by men" - I just think if anyone is going to cite patriarchal oppression as the reason for female inequality then I feel we, as feminists, at least have an obligation to define, in precise terminology, exactly what patriarchy is and how it impedes womens lives (which is why in my first post in this thread I asked: "How exactly do you define "patriarchy" in this context ?) Simply stating "the laws" or "the misapplication of laws" seems a little vague and amorphous to me. Now, if we were talking specifically about women around the world, I would be in total agreement as I think women in the non-western world absolutely live under patriarchy. Horrible oppressive patriarchy. But the U.S ?? I think that's a much more difficult case to argue and that's why I asked for a list of specifics. Perhaps an open discussion where differing perspectives were heard and examined it may result in some clarification and/or resolution. |
||
|
Moody01 |
|||
|
Molting chick
Posts: 199 (05/03/08 12:50 PM) |
For me, I think patriarchy is the over-arching system that allows all the sexist, homophobic, etc. things to happen. These things play out in the formal laws,
statutes, etc. but also throughout society. A few examples: domestic violence persists, regardless of it being illegal; women and girls are trafficked
throughout the world, including into the United States; militaries rape their own female soldiers and any other "enemy" women they might come across;
the media glorifies an emaciated, unrealistic ideal woman's body...the list goes on and on. For me, patriarchy is what allows these things to continue to
happen. It's why people can't just say, "wait, thats harmful to women" and stop it. Sure, groups of people argue that, but not the larger
society (whether thats the US or globally) and that's how it continues to happen. That, I think, is patriarchy.
And, EC, I cannot disagree with you more that non-Western women are "horribly oppressed" by patriarchy and Western women are not. I think we all get our fair share, it just plays itself out differently in each situation. ETA: And to answer the original question, I think those in power, those who benefit from patriarchy, will be harmed from ending it. |
||
|
Tishie |
|||
|
Posts: 2101 (05/03/08 3:32 PM) The Tishie |
I get that, EC. I just don't have the energy to explain it to you.
Does a law need to be harmful to women to be created by men? If the lawmakers and enforcers and interpreters are men, then are you not controlled by men? |
||
|
easstcoast |
|||
|
Tell Tishie your custom level!
Posts: 1377 (05/06/08 8:53 AM) |
For me, I think patriarchy is the over-arching system that allows all the sexist, homophobic, etc. things to happen. These things play out in the formal laws, statutes, etc. but also throughout society. A few examples: domestic violence persists, regardless of it being illegal; women and girls are trafficked throughout the world, including into the United States; militaries rape their own female soldiers and any other "enemy" women they might come across; the media glorifies an emaciated, unrealistic ideal woman's body...the list goes on and on. It might be helpful for the sake of continuing this little colloquium if you (or anyone) could name one single solitary specific law (local, state or federal) on the books that denies women the right to do something that men are allowed to do. If you could do that we might be able to focus in on exactly what patriarchy is, how it impedes our lives and perhaps arrive at solutions to combat injustice where it exists. Simply repeating "the laws" or citing "the over arching system" seems disingenuous to me and that makes it difficult to move the discussion forward. With regard to the things you mentioned (DV, rape, sex trafficking), sure those are horrible, inexcusable, atrocious events committed by men against women but you just casually gloss over the fact that their illegal ( "....regardless of it being illegal" ) - don't you think that's an important little detail ? They are illegal. Those things not sanctioned by our culture. What else can a civilized society do other than outlaw violent or offensive acts and punish the offenders ? Any suggestions ? As far as "the media" glorifying unrealistic female body images goes (and I agree with you it does), I worked in publishing in NYC for 14 years for a company (Bertelsmann) that owned dozens of womens magazines (including Cosmopolitan, Elle, Glamour, Marie Claire) and I can absolutely assure you that the vast majority of individuals toiling in the fashion/editorial departments of these periodicals that propagate these damaging images and those that consume them are not men (at least not straight men). They're women! Hardly a conspiratorial patriarchy. |
||
|
Simthie is EZ |
|||
|
Chickenier than thou
Posts: 1497 (05/06/08 9:04 AM) |
"...don't you think that's an important little detail ? They are illegal. Those things not sanctioned by our culture." IME, a whole lot of things that men do to women which are illegal ARE sanctioned by our culture. Sexual harassment being the most obvious example. I think that, if our culture was truly opposed to say, rape, we would have far fewer rapists to centend with. |
||
|
easstcoast |
|||
|
Tell Tishie your custom level!
Posts: 1378 (05/06/08 9:15 AM) |
You don't think our culture is truly opposed to rape ? Funny that you mention sexual harassment. It seems to me that a few years ago we had a bone fide sexual harasser sitting in the Oval Office and the "left", including so-called "feminists" (remember "one free grope" Gloria ?) were bending over backwards to make excuses for him or to look the other way. Oh! Wait he was "pro-choice" so he gets a free pass. |
||
|
Moody01 |
|||
|
Molting chick
Posts: 208 (05/06/08 9:24 AM) |
The point of my earlier post was that these things are illegal, but continue to happen, as Smithie said. Why hasn't sexual harassment been stopped?
Because some people still benefit from sexual harassment (the men in charge who are doing it) and its those people that are likely the ones who could stop it.
The same for everything else I mentioned - I think our culture says its opposed to rape, but then why do the women get attacked in the media/courtroom, etc? If
they men are actually prosecuted, why do they get such light sentences? Rape is illegal, but as a society, we're obviously not too concerned about it to
actually work on stopping it, or at least adequately helping its victims.
And for the media people being women, women can perpetuate patriarchy too. |
||
|
radicalbean |
|||
|
Wild 'n' freerange chicken
Posts: 914 (05/06/08 9:25 AM) |
I have a huge problem with the belief that existing laws means that something is no longer sanctioned. I'd say that there are a lot of things that are
illegal that aren't only sanctioned, but outright condoned. If that weren't the case, we would have a significantly higher conviction rate for rapes.
If that weren't the case, we would have a hell of a lot less rapes and a hell of a lot more people willing and able to report those rapes. Same for
domestic violence, and sexual harassment, and many things that would fall under discrimination and hate crimes.
The belief that a written law makes everything equal or ok also harms a lot of people who are fleeing other countries (either back to their own country with children, or to a new country) because human rights violations are only considered to be so if there are no laws protecting people from such violations. So, technically speaking, there are laws against domestic violence in Poland, Hungary, The Netherlands, and France. Never mind the fact that the law states it is only DV in Poland when the bruises last at least 10 days, or in Hungary when there is permanent damage (like the loss of a limb or death). Never mind the fact that police in France rarely do anything about DV other than mandate mediation (which benefits the abuser). Never mind the fact that it takes, on average, a month to get a hearing for a restraining order in The Netherlands or that the Dutch police are given the legal discretion whether to release the police reports documenting the abuse or not. They have laws, therefore, there DV, according to this logic, DV is not sanctioned. I'd strongly disagree with that. A group of fat chicks with pom pons are an unstoppable force -- Marilyn Wann
F.A.T.A.S.S. |
||
|
easstcoast |
|||
|
Tell Tishie your custom level!
Posts: 1379 (05/06/08 10:01 AM) |
Well, there are many things that are illegal but continue to happen. As I asked in my previous post: What else can a civilized society do other than outlaw violent or offensive acts than publicly condemn and punish/prosecute the offenders ? Can you offer any suggestions ? Shall we just preemptively arrest people that we think might rape or sexually harass ? If you have a problem with our judicial system or with the criminal justice system being too lenient or with the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" then I'm asking you to specifically list your grievances! Do you think the bar is too high to obtain a conviction ? Are the sentences too light ? (what is the average sentence for rape ? anyone know off hand ?) I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm just saying if we're going to casually blame "the patriarchy" for what we (the collective "we") perceive to be female oppression. I feel that we at least have an intellectual obligation to clearly and explicitly delineate what exactly "patriarchy" is in this context and how it operates and what we can do to put an end to injustice. If we fail to do at least that then our grievances kind of fall into the category of flippant whining.
Last Edited By: easstcoast
05/06/08 10:21 AM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
radicalbean |
|||
|
Wild 'n' freerange chicken
Posts: 916 (05/06/08 10:28 AM) |
We could, as a society, stop reinforcing and holding up the patriarchal rape culture that makes it nearly impossible for a rape victim to actually have these
laws enforced.
A group of fat chicks with pom pons are an unstoppable force -- Marilyn Wann
F.A.T.A.S.S. |
||
|
windy |
|||
|
Chickenier than thou
Posts: 513 (05/06/08 10:35 AM) |
We could also decriminalize prostitution and raise penalties on pimps and johns.
We could also allow victims of prostitution and pornography to sue their abusers for damages. I mention these specifically because I know they've been mentioned here roughly one zillion times, give or take a few hundred.
No damn class in the Classic City.
|
||
|
easstcoast |
|||
|
Tell Tishie your custom level!
Posts: 1380 (05/06/08 10:55 AM) |
We could also decriminalize prostitution and raise penalties on pimps and johns. If we decriminalize prostitution (and FTR I'm against that) why would there be penalties for anyone ? Is buying a body for sex a crime but selling a body for sex is not if a price is agreed upon by both parties ? That doesn't strike you as illogical ? And not to derail this thread in a whole different direction (in fact this is probably worthy of it's own thread) but who gets to define what pornography is (Madonna, Hugh Hefner, Christie Hefner) ? and who gets to determine what the damages are ? Again, not trying to be argumentative here, I just feel if a subject is going to be truly mined it should be examined from every angle.
Last Edited By: easstcoast
05/06/08 10:57 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
windy |
|||
|
Chickenier than thou
Posts: 514 (05/06/08 11:09 AM) |
If you really care about those subjects, start threads about them. Better yet, search for and resurrect the ones that already exist.
I get that you think there should be examination and topic-mining. This is not the way to go about that. You seem to have trouble with the definition of patriarchy. The term does NOT simply refer to a system that is a)blatantly sex-specific and sexist and b) run and controlled only by men, and it is blatantly unfair for you to insist that other women here accept this definition in order to justify their positions as relating to the patriarchy. Patriarchy can also refer to a system that routinely supports men's interests over women's and devalues women as women. This is how family structures that some people call "matriarchy" still qualify as patriarchal, by the way (see: stereotype of strong black women heading up families and are called matriarchs, but are expected to do the vast majority of the work in a family while men do little). Erego, Playboy would be the patriarchy despite Christie Hefner being its CEO and regardless of how many women (or gay men) she hires to work on its staff and however women make money from Playboy. Because Playboy exists for men's sake, not women's, and it "serves" those men by doing things that are harmful to women. Patriarchy. In which women can and do participate, even (occasionally) in the upper echelons, but is still patriarchy because ultimately it increases the power of men as a class and devalues women as fully human beings. Capisce?
No damn class in the Classic City.
|
||
|
windy |
|||
|
Chickenier than thou
Posts: 515 (05/06/08 11:17 AM) |
And, regarding the thread-opener, I don't believe that any women, anywhere, would be harmed by the end of patriarchy. That's just BS, pure and simple,
and any idea that it would be otherwise rests upon a flawed assumption of what the world would look like without dominance systems. Since that's what the
end of patriarchy MEANS to feminists, at least this one. It means an end to dominance hierarchies built upon sex, race, orientation, class, ability, and so
forth. If all of those hierarchies aren't undone, you're not DONE yet. If they ARE undone, how can a group be specifically harmed?
Definitely women may be harmed in attempts to end patriarchy, and ideas feminists come up with to do so can have disparate impacts upon less-powered women unless those women are specifically represented in coming up with the solution. However, specific attempts to further end patriarchy (the means) =/= the end of patriarchy (the end). The means can be flawed and prejudicial. People's visions of what the end looks like may be constructed in their own image, and therefore may be flawed or prejudicial. The actual state of no-dominance is not flawed or prejudicial. By definition.
No damn class in the Classic City.
|
||
|
radicalbean |
|||
|
Wild 'n' freerange chicken
Posts: 920 (05/06/08 11:33 AM) |
ITA with everything windy just said.
A group of fat chicks with pom pons are an unstoppable force -- Marilyn Wann
F.A.T.A.S.S. |
||
|
easstcoast |
|||
|
Tell Tishie your custom level!
Posts: 1381 (05/06/08 11:51 AM) |
windy, I don't feel I'm the one having with trouble with the definition of patriarchy. From my first post in this thread I asked: "How exactly do you define patriarchy" in hopes that those participating can make an attempt to be on the same page. And bean replied: "For the purposes of this discussion, I think that the definition is open for interpretation" - And that's where I think misunderstanding can occur. If, for the purposes of this discussion, the term "patriarchy" is in fact open for interpretation then it's reasonable to assume that different people will arrive at different definitions. I get the feeling that my definition absolutely differs from yours. If you believe (as I do) that pornography harms women then how do you suggest we work towards ending it (when we - collective "we" - can't even seem to be able to agree what "it" is) in a free society without infringing on first amendment rights ? Also, if your concerned with ending a system that devalues women as full human beings, why would you want to decriminalize prostitution ?
Last Edited By: easstcoast
05/06/08 11:54 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
sinaasappelsap |
|||
|
Egg
Posts: 2 (05/06/08 8:31 PM) |
Well, the dictionary defines patriarchy as "control by men of a disproportionately large share of power." "The patriarchy" isn't one
specific grievance here or there, like what you're asking for; it IS a social organization with many facets that pervades everyone's life. Even if you
personally don't feel that YOU are controlled by "the patriarchy," the people you're around are influenced by it, and the world we live in
has been created by it.
I can absolutely assure you that the vast majority of individuals toiling in the fashion/editorial departments of these periodicals that propagate these damaging images and those that consume them are not men (at least not straight men). They're women! Hardly a conspiratorial patriarchy. But see, the patriarchy does apply. All of those publications are in existence for one reason: to make money. So even if it's the women who are personally writing the articles, they're doing it for a higher purpose: to make money. Even though it's girls buying the magazines, it still has so much to do with men, because women are socialized to want men to like them. Men like x, women want men to like them, so they try to become x. People (women) are hired to produce magazines and such to help women become x. So it's all a production in order to make (wait for it!!) something MEN like. If we decriminalize prostitution (and FTR I'm against that) why would there be penalties for anyone ? Is buying a body for sex a crime but selling a body for sex is not if a price is agreed upon by both parties ? That doesn't strike you as illogical ? Nevada has decriminalized prostitution. There is still illegal prostitution that happens there, when it happens outside of the licensed cathouse. The reason some feminists want to legalize prostitution is to make it safer. Having pimps and johns is not safe; having a house where the females are looked after, where the customers can't abuse and are accountable, and where the environment is regulated is preferable to having a woman walk the streets, at the mercy of not only abusive customers but also aggressive and abusive pimps. Prostitution happens all the time, legal or illegal; isn't it better to make a safe environment for it to happen in? As far as it being illogical...hey, if I really want to sell sex to someone on a price I set, then I really think that's my choice. |
||
