Remember? It's a perfectly fine and useful word, is sexism.
Sexism is commonly considered to be discrimination and/or hatred against people based on their sex rather than their individual merits, but can also refer to any and all systemic differentiations based on the sex of the individuals.
Also see: "sexist," both noun and adjective.
Whereas patriarchy means, as I have understood it:
pa·tri·ar·chy (pā'trē-är'kē) pronunciation
n., pl. -chies. In both senses also called patriarchate.
1. A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.
2. A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by men.
Which, if you're gonna talk about oh say for example the "patriarchal" influences inherent in any society as derived from the Bible, esp. Old Testament, well and good: that makes sense, to me.
If you're gonna call oh i don't know the cultural pressure to wear lipstick "patriarchal," well, honestly, I'm not seeing it, so much. Sexist, arguably. Patriarchal? Only if you can point to a clear place where the "rule of the fathers" dictates the wearing of lipstick.
As I have understood it, traditional patriarchy, at least in this culture, tends rather to be against the whole face-painting business.
Whereas the face-painting itself has a number of origins, not least of which having to do with theatre and religious ritual and other things that really (in my opinion) have very little to do with the "rule of the fathers."
For that matter, personally I don't even see it as necessarily having to do with "discrimination based on sex."
Sure, it can be used that way; or at any rate the pressure for one sex to wear it and the other, not, certainly can be contrued that way.
But that doesn't mean it has to be that way, see.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
The other problem with the generic "patriarchy" is, as B | L often points out, the use of the term as a monolithic signifier. It completely ignores race and class differences within what radfems term "the patriarchy" and removes all possibility of meaningful interrogation of the role of men in sexist oppression across cultural lines. There are inequalities within the patriarchy - white men have more privilege than black men, rich men have more privilege than poor men, etc.
Why do we have to start assigning blame to one monolithic "enemy" - this hypothetical patriarchy - when it's much more productive to look at individual power structures? What is there that can be gained from this reduction?
A sense that it all *does* make sense, even of a hideous oppressive sort, after all?
Really good question about sexism, I think 'patriarchy' has become a feminist short-hand for macro-power structures, and lost a lot of its pre-modern connotations. In some ways, phallocentric capitalism would be a more accurate term.
"Sure, it can be used that way; or at any rate the pressure for one sex to wear it and the other, not, certainly can be contrued that way."
Good point. I think that trans and genderqueer people explicitly challenge the biologically "determined" link between gendered symbols and body (and butch-femme has the same defamiliarising effect), and it's a shame that some feminists at least don't support that. What's more radical, not watching pr0n or walking the streets every day and saying 'fuck you' to the binary gender system?
Though I suppose I am a bad transgirl and my arguments don't count as feminist, partiarchal oppression etcera.
> Bryan: the gain, as they see it, is to preserve solidarity.
And it's working so well! 'cause, check it!
"And then there's the Popular Peoples' Front of Judea--he's over there. SPLITTER!"
or
"Insanity is doing the same goddam thing over and over and expecting different results."
...the nasty little secret is, the *real* gain is in fact no such thing, at least not in any practical political sense; the real gain is achieving a sort of oceanic oneness with one's fellow-travellers.
That's why it's fought for so desperately. if it were truly only about realpolitik, most people wouldn't give that much of a shit. It's something else, at bottom.
Oh, I dunno, I find 'the patriarchy' a useful enough shorthand but then I was raised by wolves and hippies to strike back at 'the man' whenever possible. It's the same fight, slightly different perspective.
But no pointy-headed analysis -- not the feminist, not the marxist, nor any other that I've yet seen -- really gets to the point quite as well as your average monty python movie/sketch. Thanks for the Life of Brian ref, belledame. Cheers me right the fuck up :)
Belledame and everyone else, well said.
I've been pulling my hair out for months with the folks using "patriarchy" as if it was a synonym for "sexism," and totally ignoring all the baggage.
Another mothballed feminist term: "male chauvinist pig." Such a shame!
(I'm a longtime lurker by way of BL, and thought I'd join the conversation)
@ scenius:
*Some* trans and gq people the biologically based symbolic system, but they (we/I?) often take shit from the more conservative/"traditional" transpeople (usually, ime, mostly transsexuals) for it.
But it is a damned shame more feminists don't support that activity. I would suspect that a lot of it is based on a perceived requisite need for fundamental categories of men and women (which again, is a shallow analysis not at all shared by all, or even most, feminists, just too many).
Ah, obviously I should check reponses to my comments more often - I just spent a few minutes catching up on everything that's been said. Belledame and B|L, right on, thanks for clarifying.
I've always found it interesting - being a man and all - how the patriarchy can be treated as some all-powerful monolithic force. I mean, there's often no comparing women's oppression to what goes on between guys, but don't ever let anyone tell you there isn't a hierarchy amongst men. A lot of what it amounts too though (at least amongst the white middle-class) is trying to get guys to toe the party line - you know, how to properly objectify women, and all that. That's partly why I never understood the radical lesbian critique of homosexuality as the ultimate patriatchy when gay men (or even slightly effeminate straight men - hell, I've always gotten a lot of flack for not playing sports) are completely marginalized within most male social circles. It's almost like there is such a desire to totalize everything that radfems, etc. intentionally misread or ignore reality to make it fit their theoretical schema. Theory is supposed to fit the facts - not the other way around.
hey, prosphorous! thanks for de-lurking, glad you could join us. same to scenius, bryan, brian.
and same goes for all who've been posting here before, obviously...(nice to see you around again, tuffy)
>That's partly why I never understood the radical lesbian critique of homosexuality as the ultimate patriatchy
hoo boy, haven't seen *that* one resurrected lately.
i am sure it's just a matter of time tho'.
>Theory is supposed to fit the facts - not the other way around.
wouldn't you think?
Do you have a link, EL?
oh keerist, don't make me go over to the Margins, please.
i'm still digesting Heart's last poetical-type "gift to the universe." i dunno as i can stomach any more, really.
...the nasty little secret is, the *real* gain is in fact no such thing, at least not in any practical political sense; the real gain is achieving a sort of oceanic oneness with one's fellow-travellers.
Boy, did this make the bells go off for me something fierce.
Yeah. It's conversion for its own sake. Same as any other obnoxious proselytization - the more of Us there are, the more it affirms what We All Believe. Or something.
The use of the phrase "come to Jesus" in re. all this, ironical though it be, speaks a volume of truth.
I think you're right wrt patriarchy being less likely to be co-opted for any other use than male-over-female sexism. At any rate I have seen several people arguing rather strenuously that there is not, cannot be any such thing as "misandry."
Which, Mary please.
Hatred of men? Of bloody course it can and does exist.
I do hate the term "reverse" anything; racism is racism. sexism is sexism.
I think it's perfectly easy to understand that the fact that one acknowledges that yes (name your "ism") can be pointed in any direction (on a micro level at least) does *not* mean that therefore *institutionalized* (name your *ism*) now works any way you say it does.
that is, if you want to.
per Heart: yes well. nice is as nice does. I lost whatever sympathy I had after seeing the way she responded, or rather didn't, to antiprincess' response to that particular gift to the universe.
I actually encountered something really weird the other day... This person called me a "slave to the patriarchy" because I do not wear burkha. She wasn't even Muslim. It was... surreal.
Are such arguments common these days? Am I out of the loop?
They told you you were a slave to the patriarchy because you *don't* wear burqha?
how bizarre.
i don't know. I keep going back to Molly Ivins, for whom feminism never meant a goddam thing about what you do or don't wear except for the proposition that June Cleaver might've been happier had she not done the vacuuming in high heels.
Jesus fucking Christ. I have no words. If that isn't the most Orwellian...
I mean. The dictate that women cover themselves comes from, *where*, again???
Which is more "patriarchal" (as opposed to plain ol' sexist):
1) Playboy
2) Sports Illustrated
3) Fundamentalist interpretrations of the Big Three monotheistic religions
hint #1: it's not God/Yahweh/Allah the GREAT-AUNT, there, bucko.
and yes obviously it would be just as insulting to go up to a veiled woman and pull that. I'm just gobsmacked that anyone could really be that clueless of what the word "patriarchy" frigging *means*.
Re - burqah comment
That's one of the weirder things I've heard in a while - however, maybe it stems from a misunderstanding of the purpose of hijab.
But that's the crazy thing about dividing up the whole wide world into good guys/bad guys on the basis of "the Patriarchy". ANYTHING can be construed as evidence of the Evil Empire. One day removing the veil is "liberating" and women who still veil are poor sad falsely-conscious pawns of the patriarchy, the next day putting on the veil is "liberating" and women who don't veil are poor sad falsely-conscious pawns of the patriarchy.
Either way, the discussion totally ignores how a individual woman might have come to the decision to veil or not to veil, which (as I am led to believe) should rightly be a result of the discussion between her and her Creator.
Exactly, El. It's so unfair, and condescending, and SAD!
for some reason, I'm flashing on the fabulously brittle actor playing John Cleese's wife in "Fish Called Wanda;" Kevin "Don't Call Me Stupid" Kline is trying lamely to bluff his way out of being caught in her house with some story about being the CIA, and how she should thank him (and all Americans) for saving their bacon; she goes,
"Well, -thank- you for popping in and protecting us!"
I've been reading through all the comments in one go (yes, as a matter of fact I *do* have a big project I'm procrastinating on!) and I think "patriarchy" is an essential term if it's used in a specific and limited way. I don't think it's academics who are misusing the term; I think it's ordinary people grasping for words to describe the injustices they see. Like Bryan said, somehow feminists find it very easy to use the word as shorthand for a kind of one-size-fits-all oppression.
I think it's the sound of it. It's got a nice jargony "oomph" (unlike "sexism" or, say, "being an asshole") without being too convoluted. And that "archy" suffix just radiates authority. Hierarchy, anarchy, oligarchy, patriarchy -- it works.
"Misogyny" can't even compare, but I'm not sure why. Somehow it sounds less objective, more shrill. And weirdly medicalized, I think. "Sorry, ma'am, we can't do much for your husband -- it's a textbook case of misogyny."
(belledame: thanks! Nice to be around again. I overdosed on blogs for a while there, but I finally trimmed my feed list and I feel better.)
speaking of words that have fallen out of favor -
about a month ago my husband and I were driving home with my husband's fiftyish Aunt C. Aunt C. was telling some long rambling story about some incident back in the mists of childhood where my husband was fighting with his younger sister W. Younger Sister W. was getting the upper hand and took a mighty swing at my husband, which according to the story connected with a resounding ke-rack! to the jaw. And then everyone got in trouble and a whuppin' and sent to bed without supper.
Aunt C., however, did not consider this justice. Even some thirty years later she had an opinion on it, to wit:
"I'm a libber," she said, "and I think that whoever takes a swing at you, you're entitled to a free one back, male or female."
woah...did she just say "libber?"
"libber?" who uses that anymore?
ha! Well Done, Sister Suffragette!
Aunt C. is a Force of Nature.
what was intriguing was the way Aunt C.'s assertion collided with my husband's prime directive of "never never never never never hit a female."
So it was fascinating to sit in the back seat and listen to them bounce that back and forth.
Just throwing in a random comment before I tootle off to lunch.
Class = Big HUGE Scary Taboo
It's so taboo that folks not only talk around it, some won't even THINK about it. Because lawd knows what would come of it if we did. I'm wondering if lumping all the sexist social ills into One Bad Thing we'll call Teh Patriarchy is a way to avoid thinking about Where We Stand.
Then again I might be repeating what y'all just said.
Feeding time, I'm outta here.
Libber!
LIBBER!
I love it! We have got to bring it back. From now on, I'm not a feminist, I'm a libber.
WOMEN'S libber, just so we're clear.
even better: "LADY libbers."
has it ever been associated with anything but women's lib? I don't think so.
belledame222 asked:
"Which is more "patriarchal" (as opposed to plain ol' sexist):
1) Playboy
2) Sports Illustrated
3) Fundamentalist interpretrations of the Big Three monotheistic religions" belledame asked.
Maybe that was rhetorical, but anyway, I vote for #3. Oh, and I never did buy that stuff about not wearing make-up. I decided they'd have to accept me make-up and all-- or not. And I think you're right about the connection of make-up to religious performances, etc. Great to find such a provocative post and intelligent conversation. Want to let you know that we put a note about this post on a post called "Buzz Coils" on the new blog "Medusa Coils" at http://medusacoils.blogspot.com
I can't help but think that in cases like that it tends to be more due to convenience than anything else.
iow: if yer white, well-to-do, sexually conventional (either w/in a het model or a lesbian-feminist model) and have no other large oppressions intersecting with that of being a woman plain n simple...mebbe the theory kind of molds itself to that, you know.
but i do notice that it's the women who have something else going on (bi, not first world, genderqueer ever somewhat, disability, not to mention of course WOC and kinky folk) who tend to fall out from the party line more quickly, even if they're still by and large attracted to radfem theory.
stone island
pandora charms
kd shoes
jordan shoes
yeezy 700
longchamp handbags
off white hoodie
jordan 11
yeezy shoes
jordans
replica bags karachi replica hermes u3x05k9p96 replica bags paypal accepted 9a replica bags websites c1l35a4t08 replica bags wholesale in divisoria replica bags near me webpage o5w21f8x07 replica bags dubai
view it now Chrome-Hearts Dolabuy see page high quality replica bags why not check here https://www.dolabuy.ru/
k0x49p8h54 b0j52b6j35 o4h16x6v26 m5p66z0x75 n1e74j6n77 k6d88c4g16
Post a Comment