GMP’s resident feminist, HeatherN, explains the very useful term “kyriarchy”.
In this week’s Ask the Feminist, I’ll be tackling only one question. I’ve been trying to answer at least two, and sometimes three, each week but this one is going to be a bit of a long answer. If you’ve got a question about feminism that you’d like answered, please ask it in the comments below. Alternatively you can e-mail me at [email protected].
Gabby asked: “if the patriarchy hurts men and women, how can it, by definition, still be considered the patriarchy?”
The answer to this is, like so many things, kind of layered. First, I’d be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that there are some feminists out there (namely radfems) who dismiss the way in which the patriarchy hurts men as negligible. Those feminists are, however, on the fringes of the movement. They are considered radical for a reason.
On the other side, we have feminists and social justice types who have basically stopped using the term patriarchy. Instead, they tend to use the term kyriarchy, which is a “set of connecting social systems built on domination, oppression and submission.” The point of using the term kyriarchy is that it looks at how the intersections of sexism, heterosexism, racism, etc. create and maintain hierarchal power structures. Originally the term kyriarchy was not created as a way to talk about our gender system while acknowledging that it hurts men, but that is sometimes how it’s used.
I quite like the concept of the kyriarchy, personally. It’s very useful when trying to understand how different types of oppression intersect. However, I still use the term “patriarchy” when referencing the “western” gender system, because in terms of gender our system is patriarchal. Simply put, the term patriarchy refers to the gender of the people in power. Economically, politically and even domestically, those in power are men. What’s more, the system is set up in such a way as to maintain the gendered nature of power dynamics.
However, and this is key, just because the vast majority of people in power are men, that doesn’t mean that the vast majority of men are in positions of power. This is where the concept of the kyriarchy becomes so useful. Due to class, race, sexual orientation, etc. plenty of men are actually quite disempowered. However, the systematic reasons they are disempowered is not because of their gender, and that is why the term “patriarchy” still fits.
The other thing to remember about the feminist conception of western patriarchy is that it acknowledges that the patriarchy privileges a very specific, narrow and rigid idea of what manhood is. This is how the patriarchy ends up actually hurting men. The patriarchy privileges men who are heterosexual, physically strong, financially successful, stoic, aggressive, in control, etc. It is when men deviate from these very narrow ideas of masculinity that the patriarchy hurts them.
“Simply put, the term patriarchy refers to the gender of the people in power. Economically, politically and even domestically, those in power are men. What’s more, the system is set up in such a way as to maintain the gendered nature of power dynamics.” Sounds like Japan, not North America circa 2013. In Japan, there is a “model” for men who work and for women who work. Men become wage slaves who worship their boss and company, while working insane hours, forfeiting family time in the process. Women go in “make coffee look pretty” type of jobs, paid less, no… Read more »
Indeed we do. I’m not overly familiar with Japanese culture so I won’t comment on them specifically. But just because one culture might be more obviously patriarchal, doesn’t mean that another culture isn’t patriarchal just because it’s a bit less obvious. Plus, you gotta add onto that the fact that it’s generally easier to see how a system works when your outside it in some way. Also, a patriarchy is not a switch. It’s not as if there’s one way to be a patriarchy, and that patriarchy must be absolute or it no longer exists. Western society is certainly not… Read more »
Heather you have done a wonderful job of explain systems of power, societys expectations etc.
What you have utterly failed to do is show “HOW IS THIS PATRIARCHY” unless I just take it at face value that it is, which is what you seem to want me (read: us) to do. Since the definition of patriarchy is a system where the father is the head of the household, this fails to show how all this leads to the father being the head of the household.
That isn’t, actually, the definition of patriarchy. Certainly most patriarchies have domestic systems in which men are the head of the household. However, that’s not all there is to it, and that’s not the definition I used. The etymology of the word “patriarchy” goes back to the Greek which means “rule of the fathers.” However, as with basically all language, our use now is not the same as it was back in the day. I addressed the definition of patriarchy I’m using in the third paragraph of my answer: “Simply put, the term patriarchy refers to the gender of the… Read more »
The people in power are often men. I think that most ordinary men, who by birth are not able or inclined to grab real power, are more like prison trustees, though. We may get some perks, but the price is disdain from everyone and we’re still prisoners :).
Doesn’t refusing to sign up for the draft in the US come with it certain penalities , i.e. federal grants refused, etc. Don’t know all the details.
Thanks for introducing the “kyriarchy” concept; I’d never heard that term before, and always appreciate learning new words. I also nudges me closer to finding a way to intelligently articulate a question that haunts me in every conversation I have about feminists critiques of “the patriarchy’. I guess first off, I’ll say that that phrase alone rankles; as I understand the word, and the world, “patriarchy” refers to a particular kind of social/cultural architecture based on patrilineage, and heavily biased in favor of able bodied heterosexual males -regardless of ethnicity or cultural milieu. Meaning, I suggest, that there is no… Read more »
One reason I really dislike the concept of kyriarchy is because now intersectionality gets used as a shield to pretend that discrimination never impacts men by their gender. A perfect example of this is the draft, and before anyone jumps up and says “the draft hasn’t impacted anyone in over 40 years,” just hear me out for a second. I have seen it argued that the draft is not an example of gender inequality, rather it is an example of class inequality because mostly poor men are the ones who suffer from it.This argument states that when you take intersectionality… Read more »
interesting.
But isn’t patriarchy defined as a social system where the father is the head of the household. I am confused.
Hey HeatherN, I thought I would jump back in here on this ever fascinating topic… You state that patriarchy remains and apt descriptor b/c those in power are men and the system is set-up to preserve that power. You didn’t state, but the patriarchal framework generally implies, that that power structure exists to privilege men at the expense of women; would you adopt that position as a feminist? If not, what do you think the purpose of that system is? What’s always bothered me about the feminist perspective on gender power structures is its rather narrow imagining of power and… Read more »
For a more nuanced examination of power structures, a lot of feminists turn to Foucault. So it’s not only examined in an absolute powerful/oppressed dichotomy. Anyway, the thing is, even if you argue that some domestic relationships are more matriarchal in nature…we’re still situating THAT in a larger social context which privileges economic/political power over domestic power. The systems in which women dominate are often viewed themselves as below the systems in which men dominate. (And even the systems in which women dominate (i.e. domestically), exactly how much official power they have had in western societies until recently has been… Read more »
Heather, I disagree about Foucault, although I do agree with much of what you say otherwise. I think Foucault fails to catch structure at other than a linguistic/cultural level, and doesn’t really analyze structure in any other way. Analyzing discourses in handy, but I admit I privilege class– I see upper class women benefiting in ways that privilege them pretty generally over men in lower classes. It may be that women at each level have been symbiotes of the men at each level in our current society. Women are now acquiring more and more instrumental positions in capitalism and capitalistic… Read more »
I suggested Foucault as a good jumping off point to look at different conceptions of power structures, though by no means do I find him to be the last word on the subject. One of the interesting applications of kyriarchy is to do with the way in which you’re saying you privilege class…and thus view other power structures through that prism. Sometimes I privilege gender (patriarchy) and thus view other power structures through that prism. But that’s far too simplistic a way to look at it…rather the different power structures (gender, class, race, etc). all interact with each other…sometimes one… Read more »
Just a note to everyone out there that I’m always looking for more questions to answer! Please ask away in the comments or e-mail me. 🙂
Love these articles Heather! Here is my convoluted critique: The mainstream feminist argument given here falls down for me when it tries to claim that men aren’t disempowered specifically due to their gender. The draft, male violence paradigm, man as provider are all examples of disempowerment in a gendered way. To me it runs like this: Do men have a gender role? Yes. Is it disempowering? Yes. Therefore men are disempowered by their gender. The fact that his gender role is assigned by other men placed above him in a hierarchy is irrelevant to the average man’s lived experience of… Read more »
Your comment is long and so I’m sure I’m not going to end up commenting on all of it. However I’ll address the assertion you make that men and women are divided into “equal and opposite symbiotic gender roles.” That’s not really true, not only because at the top it is men who are in power, but because throughout the other various systems of oppression and power, it is masculinity which is privileged. So, yes, they are both hurt by the rigidity of gender roles, and they are both hurt by the way they are forced to adhere to the… Read more »
Replying to your paragraph about tropes:
Looking at it another way, the “knight in shining armor” trope is not a male power fantasy, but another form of objectification. Just like the damsel in distress is an object to be rescued, the knight in shining armor is a utility to rescue others at great potential cost to himself.
Does the knight really want to risk a gruesome death to rescue the princess? Does the knight have the choice to ignore the quest completely and go do something completely different?
The thing is, no. It is a male power fantasy…as evidenced by the HUGE market for male superheroes and action heroes…and the way in which those particular genres are consumed by men, particularly teenage men. The knight in shining armour is not a utility…these characters are fully fleshed out (or as fully fleshed out as any modern movie character is). They have various motivations, origin stories, complicated relationships with good and evil. They’re portrayed as human beings who must make decisions and face complex moral questions, so on and so forth. And, particularly in a movie, the potential risk as… Read more »
Except what makes the superhero / action genre popular, in particular the hero protagonists, goes way beyond the archetype of “knight in shining armor” and doesn’t have to involve a damsel in distress at all. And there are plenty of female superheroes and action heroes. So yes, the knight in shining armor *trope* is a utility, and the damsel in distress *trope* is an object. But over the course of the movie / game / comic book, the characters will be more fleshed out, though at certain times someone may take on certain tropes. Someone may need to be rescued,… Read more »
Alrighty, just a few notes: female action heroes are actually pretty rare, and women have been fighting tooth and nail to get them. This precisely because being the hero (not just the damsel) is so valued by our society. Case in point: Katnis from Hunger Games…one of the BIG deals about her is that she’s a female action hero whose role has nothing to do with being the object of a man’s desire. She is, in many ways, a female power fantasy. And no, a hero doesn’t always need to have a damsel…but a damsel always needs a hero. That’s… Read more »
Isn’t romance fiction in some fashion about a powerful man rescuing or delivering or completing a women? Men don’t buy romances in any great numbers, so their purchase overwhelmingly by women could be evidence that women do in fact value the role of being rescued. Likely social conditioning. Just as men’s valuing their role as rescuer is social conditioning. And isn’t the ripped, potent, dashing hero of romances created out of women saying she wants someone like him? I see you attempting to split hairs on this issue with the assumption that patriarchy as you describe it exists as the… Read more »
Meant to add that your distinction that “men” get to do stuff is a bit off base. Typically one man or a few men who meet a rigid standard get to do stuff, often stuff like killing many other humans, most of whom are also men.
One guy at the top benefits me how if he’s standing on my corpse? And surely on some subconscious level even the symbolism of the male hero is diminished by all the dead males who defined his heroism.
And bear in mind that when one of those few men on the top is unable to perform anymore (maybe he is maimed, or gets PTSD or something) he is unceremoniously cast aside and forgotten.
Which, folks, is a symptom of patriarchy; I’ll point you to my last paragraph: “The other thing to remember about the feminist conception of western patriarchy is that it acknowledges that the patriarchy privileges a very specific, narrow and rigid idea of what manhood is. This is how the patriarchy ends up actually hurting men. The patriarchy privileges men who are heterosexual, physically strong, financially successful, stoic, aggressive, in control, etc. It is when men deviate from these very narrow ideas of masculinity that the patriarchy hurts them.”
I guess where we weren’t seeing eye to eye, was that I kept thinking you were saying that patriarchy privileges *men” and you were saying that it privileges a certain very narrow idea of *masculinity*. So as long as you are able to keep up and stay in that tiny spotlight you will be awesome and privileged and valuable, but if you lose your pace or trip and fall or just get tired of it all, you will suddenly lose a lot of that value and be considered less of a man by patriarchal society. Is this closer to what… Read more »
So…any privilege men are afforded as a gender is because the poor man could become rich; the weak man could become strong; the shy man could become assertive.
If you are a man you have a chance of reaching that ideal.
Yes, basically. And a man is assumed to capable of being strong, assertive, etc. And we value strength and being assertive and what-not, as a society. Though, of course, whether poor men really can become rich (or weak ones become poor, etc) is another matter.
Yes, there is such a thing as a female-submission fantasy. Apparently my grandmother (however awkward it is for me to know this) loved those types of books. Also, when asked by my then-boyfriend now-husband about political events that happened during her life time (it was for a school project) she answered, “Oh, you would have had to talk to my husband about that. I wouldn’t know about that.” Of course, my boyfriend would have asked my grandfather those questions, but he was dead. So that wasn’t going to happen. The modern female-submission fantasy is the Twilight Series; and you know… Read more »
“The thing is, no. It is a male power fantasy…as evidenced by the HUGE market for male superheroes and action heroes” And you don’t think this speaks to male drive to be cherished and approved of *for doing* in a way most women want to be cherished or approved of for being beautiful? What you are doing is taking a destructive need for approval of men and calling it a power fantasy. Does that mean the makeup arms race is do to women’s beauty fantasy? This is why feminism is being handed it’s hat and asked to leave the building.… Read more »
Sorry about the length! The reply was pretty comprehensive though and there is good stuff to think/read about, so thanks. I think where we come apart is that you see masculinity in general as privileged, and I’m hesitant to conclude that because the privilege is out of reach of most men, so it doesn’t apply to them – perhaps it is just about how class and gender intersect for men, as you mention. I guess this says it: “The patriarchy privileges men who are heterosexual, physically strong, financially successful, stoic, aggressive, in control, etc. It is when men deviate from… Read more »
Oh no need to apologise about the length…I just mentioned it in case I ended up missing something. lol. Thing thing is, by virtue of social identity categories, masculine privilege does apply to men…even if it’s mostly passive. So for instance, there’s M.A.’s example: a man and a woman walk into a classroom; they’re the same age, race, etc. They’re both dressed relatively professionally. Chances are it will be assumed that the man is the profession in charge, and the woman is an assistant of some kind. A man is assumed to be in a position of authority. Or other… Read more »
Hmmm… Now I totally agree with you in the context of, say, a boardroom. Not so much in a classroom, since my experience has been around 8/10 female teachers/lecturers throughout my education (Then again I haven’t focused on science and engineering). I assume you mean college lecturers? But I get what you are saying and agree. However I feel that you’ve picked a context in which masculinity is privileged, and the obvious rebuttal is that there are contexts where femininity is privileged. So if the same two people walk into a preschool, most people are going to see the woman… Read more »
Okay right, but put a professor and a primary school teacher in the room, and who has more authority? Or a business exec and a nurse in the room, and who has more authority? Women are viewed as having authority ONLY in a very small subset of human experiences which society has deemed feminine: this usually involves children or being a caregiver in some way. Men, on the other hand, are imbued with authority in a wide range of human experiences which society has simultaneously deemed masculine, but ALSO deemed neutrally human. So having knowledge about, I dunno, biology, for… Read more »
Except doesn’t “kyriarchy” just mean patriarchy plus a bunch of other things? Gender is still considered a unidirectional system of oppression. Yes, men can experience discrimination but not due to *being men*. It is because they are *poor* men or *gay* men or *black* men. Other posters have pointed out how men can be disadvantaged due to being men. It seems like “patriarchy” is less a system that simply advantages men and disadvantages women, and more of an interlocking, mutually reinforcing set of gender norms that confer a set of privileges on people within those norms, and leveling censure against… Read more »
Indeed, yes, women can perpetuate patriarchy.
“It seems like “patriarchy” is less a system that simply advantages men and disadvantages women, and more of an interlocking, mutually reinforcing set of gender norms that confer a set of privileges on people within those norms, and leveling censure against people stepping outside.”
I would agree with the above statement, except…except that even when people adhere to those norms, women are disempowered, disadvantaged and discriminated against. That’s where the difference lies between how patriarchy affects men and how it affects women.
Yes, and while a select few men will occupy the seats of overt power, men will be expected to stoically bear hardship, injury and death in order to protect and provide for women. I know I’ve been repeating this ad nauseam, but where patriarchy reduces women to objects, it reduces men to utilities.
Their value lies primarily in what they are able to do for others.
It sucks for everyone.
If you look at self-professed patriarchal ideals – it works like this: God is over man; man is over woman: woman is over children. The idea that a man takes care of a woman, just like a woman takes care of children; advantages her in that she is not expected to have responsibilities that a man has, but it also makes her dependent on him and UNDER his authority. That patriarchal structure was once the norm; now it exists in that exact form in many subgroups that proclaim that it is the correct and right social structure. Much of woman’s… Read more »
I think I see where you are coming from, and I totally agree. Gender absolutely should not be a limiting factor in someone’s education or professional life. I beg to differ about men’s value not being what he can do for others though. Just look at any portrayal of “loser” men and “manchildren” in the media, in blogs, in popular culture. At their core they will almost always be men who are living for themselves. Instead of following the socially-approved path of getting married and being good provider/protectors they choose to value their friends, their personal lives, their own selves.… Read more »
Condensing a lot of what is being discussed: Patriarchy is the classical “division of labor”.
The true roots of Patriarchy are that women have babies (directly) and men do not – everything follows: external achievements, male disposability, paternalism and white knights, toxic male sexuality, risk avoidance, role restrictions, statistical tendencies etc
The Patriarchy smasher then becomes technology and the advent of widely available birth control, which the Patriarchy then produces and distributes.
I suggest we rename the term BigBelly, as it holds much more explanatory power and is backed by solid evidence.
“He is afforded and encourages to have ambitions.” And if he is a low ambition man, then he is derided for not exercising his agency. What you would call encouragement, I would call coercion. Look to the record of Patton slapping PTSD suffering soldiers (at the time they called it shell shock) and threatening them with a firing squad. The problem is what men go through *looks* like agency, but really his choices are pre-selected as much as women’s are. The reason is that the culture honors male ACTION, if it is necessary to coerce that action (even if by… Read more »
Heather, great article!
Thanks. 🙂
Heather: If women were the majority of leaders of the US/Canada/UK , if the majority of CEOs were women and the situation were exactly the same your logic says that everything would be OK for women and there wouldn’t be a problem because it would be women doing it to other women, If those leaders of industry and Gov who are women weren’t listening to women by your logic it would be OK because you are solely focused on ‘who has the power at the top’. I am reminded so much of a saying I heard many years ago “Equality… Read more »
That’s not what my argument is. I’m not saying everything would be okay if women held equal power at the top to men. I’m saying that men aren’t disempowered because of their gender (and if women held equal power at the top, then women wouldn’t be disempowered because of their gender). They could still be discriminated against. And they could still certainly be disempowered because of class, race, etc…AND they could still certainly be disempowered because of how their gender intersects with their class, race, etc. BUT they wouldn’t be disempowered because of their gender alone. This is why I… Read more »
But numerous times in this article people have shown you that MEN are disempowered because of their gender but you are refusing to even acknowledge it and that is why a lot of people have turned against feminism. You are refusing to even acknowledge instances where men are in fact disempowered because of their gender. YOU were the one who keeps bringing up that MEN are the CEOs, presidents etc and those that you think are in power but those men are helping other men but they sure are helping women.
Why accuse the author of a stance that is completely counter to the OP?
I wrote several response but they never made it past moderation.
Most feminist and women’s organizations puts are focused on the issues of women and girls. Do you think that is a problem? The “What about the menz?” phrase is general pulled out not to belittle the men’s topic brought up, but to react to common derailing. For example, practically every time I mention Feminist Frequency and that she discusses female tropes in video games, someone chimes in with a demand that she also discuss male tropes. It’s a common theme that when women focus on their own interests, they are accused of being selfish or not serving others adequately. There… Read more »
Its been difficult for men’s groups and feminist groups to work together because the common response to getting men’s issues on the table alongside women;s has been “what about teh menz LOL!”. This is why the mens movement gave up on working with feminists.
The status at the moment is open hostility. You don’t get very far with that. When we can’t get past the “How dare you use the term “patriarchy”!” – we’re not going to get anywhere. If the prerequisite for “working with” some men’s groups is to deny the realities that feminists have been working to confront for decades – it’s a non-starter. I know there are REAL consequences for men to be assumed to be strong, capable, and smart; to have high expectations of your physical and intellectual capabilities; not being held responsible for your own sexuality or the product… Read more »
Your perspective on what is oppressing men is exactly why we reject patriarchy theory. Not being held responsible for our sexuality? Really?
I’m going to jump in and point out that I think what she means by that is the way in which promiscuity in men is explained away as being due to their biology. There are all sorts of articles and what-not talking about how men “can’t help” cheating on their spouses, etc. That’s what she means by “taking responsibility.” Also, she’s probably referring to the way in which birth control is largely considered a woman’s issue and a woman’s responsibility. But I’d also ask that you read the rest of her comment, because I think what she’s pointing out is… Read more »
I read it, and unless you ascribe to patriarchy theory, it doesn’t really add up.
That’s exactly what I meant! Thanks.
“This bizarre idea that our society does not afford more authority to men; that men are at some sort of disadvantage in power due to their maleness is twisted.”
Really what authority do men as a GROUP have. You have said this is a twisted view. Now it is time to actually come out with a couple of different instances where MEN AS A GROUP have more authority.
Why don’t you (if you are male) walk into a room and I can walk into a room – both dressed nicely – in front of a group of students.
Who do you think will be assumed to be there in order to teach the students physics at a college level?
This is how you are afforded authority by no other reason than your maleness.
A man n woman walk into a parents group, who do you think is seen as authority?
Ah, indeed. But a parent and a professor stand side by side, and who is considered a person of authority?
The point of that rather rhetorical question is to mention that even though women might be seen as people of authority in terms of parenting…when parenting is put into the larger social context, it’s men’s roles which are considered positions of authority.
Depends on where you are, and what kind of activity you are doing. Anything to do with childcare the authority automatically goes to females. Business goes to men. Primary n highschool teaching authority over kids will be with teachers whom are more commonly female. At college level probably men (no idea of college as I haven’t been to university, just “TAFE”). Women hold authority over morality in modern society, especially as feminism has come in. Women are largely seen as the more pure, better behaved, more decent human beings and their authority over discussions of equality for instance can be… Read more »
“Primary n highschool teaching authority over kids will be with teachers whom are more commonly female. ” That’s not true. Male teachers are more respected and tend to be promoted more readily. Look at the percentages of male principles compared to male teachers for an example. With SMALL children, women are preferred because 1) It’s a lower status job to teach younger children and 2) there is a perception that men are ill-equipped to care for small children and they are met with suspicion (which is absolutely not fair). Also, there are MANY female-typical jobs that are all about serving… Read more »
Ok, are feminists pushing for women to be including in the dangerous and unglamorous jobs such as logging, etc? To get seen by men as being capable as they are women have to do the hard yards work with the danger attached vs always going for the office-type jobs or the glamorous high up jobs. Women have to get greasy, dirty, with danger involved in some jobs, we’d need to see injury levels at similar rates, income, danger, physical exertion all at similar rates to get the idea of men n women being more similar. We need women in the… Read more »
I’m not the only one showing concern over feminism’s representation of lower class. ht tp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/has-feminism-failed-working-class “The movement today seems to focus on issues that white, middle-class women face exclusively – such as increasing political and workplace representation, or getting more women into top jobs.” “The pay gap, maternity leave, opportunities for promotion, prison conditions – all have been addressed by feminism. But what irks me is when feminists talk about seeking equality. When I see women queueing up for jobs down coalmines, I will believe they are serious about it. ” I don’t doubt there are feminists whom are trying… Read more »
Archy: Are feminists pushing for women to be included in unglamorous jobs? You bet your behind they are…and you bet your behind there is a lot of push-back against women doing those jobs too. Women fighting for equality in the military, for example, was about women being able to hold all the same dangerous, unglamorous front line positions that men could. The movie North Country with Charlize Theron documents a real life example of women fighting tooth and nail to be able to have jobs as miners without threat of sexual harassment. Our society values white collar jobs more than… Read more »
I think you over-estimate how many people in STEM have economically privileged backgrounds. Trust me on that one. 🙂 Also, as Heather pointed out – feminism has absolutely been involved in opening up high-risk and high-risk blue collar jobs to women. This includes the recent victory of women being allowed into combat positions – which not only give them the opportunity to serve but opens up advancement opportunities within the military. I also am getting the impression that “women talking about gender” are being confused with “feminism”. I can’t speak to the UK, but if you want to see the… Read more »
We have “fox news” channel here on foxtel, I can only watch it for a few minutes at a time because the republicans on there seem soooo damn crazyyyy and everything drips with privilege and money (not to mention the fear mongering with terrorism). Australian politics aren’t much better either, it shocks me how out of touch those in power often are. “I also am getting the impression that “women talking about gender” are being confused with “feminism”.” When I talk about it I usually mean feminist campaigns or articles in major news, stuff that I believe gets seen quite… Read more »
@M.A. Melby
“It’s a common theme that when women focus on their own interests, they are accused of being selfish or not serving others adequately.”
As opposed to when men focus on our own interests and are accused of being misogynistic and patriarchial?
The “What about the menz?” phrase is general pulled out not to belittle the men’s topic brought up, but to react to common derailing. This assumes that all mentions of men’s experiences with respect to an issue are derailing, which isn’t true. If you claim that men are the primary cause of a problem when they aren’t or that an issue is the exclusive preserve of women when it isn’t, then it’s hardly rocket science to expect that some people will weigh in to correct you. Many of them will be men. For example, practically every time I mention Feminist… Read more »
Hi, thanks for answering my question.
I have to say I disagree with this, “However, the systematic reasons they are disempowered is not because of their gender”. I do think that men face particular types of discrimination, specifically because they’re men. For example, routine infant circumcision.
I’ll touch a bit more on infant circumcision. Let’s look at the people who make the decisions about whether or not to circumcise a boy: medical professionals and male-dominated religious leaders. The medical profession is most assuredly run by men, and I don’t think anyone would argue that the Judeo-Christian religions are anything but patriarchal. We have men in charge of organisations that are making decisions about other men. They might not be making good decisions (I’m against male circumcision), but it’s men in power making those decisions. And, more importantly, those male-dominated institutions ALSO make decisions about women…the medical… Read more »
“But they aren’t DISEMPOWERED because they belong to the category “man.”” I don’t know how you can say that when baby girls are protected from genital cutting and boys are not.
Again, it’s about power dynamics. Before female circumcision was outlawed, the decision about whether it was recommended or not rested in the hands of institutions run by men. And in countries which still practice it, the decision of whether to do it or not rests in institutions run by men.
Is it womens’ fault when they are abused by other women?
Of course. If I abuse another woman, it’s my fault. But I’m still working within a patriarchal gender system in which spousal abuse is a gendered crime. Patriarchy (and saying that a system which privileges men is a patriarchy) isn’t about laying fault at the feet of men…it’s about describing a specific system of power. Talking about power dynamics is not the same thing as finding fault.
I’m talking about women in general. If a woman abuses you, is it the fault of women in general.
Also, DV is absolutely not a gendered crime. Men and women abuse at equal rates and in fact, women abuse more when the abuse is one sided.
Of course it’s not the fault of women in general. But I’d also hasten to point out that patriarchy doesn’t place the blame on men in general in the case of a man committing domestic violence. Talking about how the patriarchy influences men and women (and how men and women perpetuate the patriarchy) isn’t about blame.
No, “patriarchy” doesn’t. You are right about that.
I meant to say “patriarchy theory,” in the above comment. “Patriarchy theory doesn’t place the blame on men in general in the case of a man committing domestic violence.”
“the decision about whether it was recommended or not rested in the hands of institutions run by men.”
Nothing is “run by men” because most men are not in power. Men are not one group, so I don’t think it’s accurate to say that anything is decided by men (or women).
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: Institutions that shut out women as having any agency or authority what-so-ever; not even considering letting them into the door with a few exceptions of about half a dozen famous women who either had fathers or husbands who had enough power in their institutions to give those women opportunities to succeed within them.
Better?
Heather, I’m not sure that you can say that these traditional institutions promoting FGM were/are “run by men.” Women currently promote FGM as much as men (maybe more.) And like “slut shaming,” you can see that women might benefit more from taming women’s tendencies toward polysexuality. Even if the FGM is just a clitoral “nick,” the symbolic meaning is clear.
It’s men who tend to promote male circumcision too. I think there is a certain – YOU MUST BE LIKE ME – thing going on.
I don’t get your position. It’s like your saying that women can act on internalised misogyny but men can’t act on internalised misandry. This is why I do think that contemporary feminism is like a religion: because its tenets can’t be explained and must be taken on faith alone. Under the law, men are unequal and discriminated against in a brutal way when it comes to RIC but that still doesn’t cause people to question the idea of the patriarchy? Maybe it can’t be questioned… Btw, I do consider myself a feminist, a first wave feminist. I want the sexes… Read more »
I really do not mean to repeat myself…but: power dynamics. Patriarchy theory is about power dynamics, specifically the ways in which gender affects power dynamics. The people in power are men. Masculinity is a set of privileged traits/characteristics. Men are privileged due to being assumed to be able to embody those privileged masculine traits. Men are assumed to be the neutral default, in no small part because the people in power (economic, medical, political, etc) are men. Are there downsides to this system, even to the class it privileges? You bet. But that doesn’t mean that the system doesn’t exist…it… Read more »
Heather wrote: “The people in power are men”. And the people most marginalized are men too. Men dominate the bottom of the power pyramid in about equal numbers to the way they dominate the top. What you have is a system by which a tiny % of the population of movers and shakers (90% of whom are men) making decisions for both men and women, but additionally putting the bottom tiers of society (mostly men) through additional hardships, while securing the social safety net (mostly for women). These men in power demonstrably can be shown with evidence to work things… Read more »
” But they aren’t DISEMPOWERED because they belong to the category “man.””
They sure are, look at your example of male circumcision, it is illegal in the US to perform the equiv of circumcision on a female but not so for a male, that is true disempowerment. Look at reproductive rights, men have none, that is true disempowerment, men have no body autonomy or ability to legally control their reproduction, how can a person be more disempowered , really true disempowerment than to lose the ability to control their own reproduction.
If you define “not being able to force a woman to have or not have a profoundly personal medical procedure performed” as having no “body autonomy” – you defining not having power over other people as not having power over yourself.
Having said that, I do believe in repercussions (social as well as civil in some cases) of women being dishonest to men concerning reproduction. Forcing women to either have abortions or not have abortions after the fact, however, is the exact opposite of respecting bodily autonomy.
In fact, I don’t think “bodily autonomy” means what you think it means.
We can just have paper abortions, or opt-in parenthood. Either the father can opt out prior to the birth of the child. So that the mother can decide to take action (or not) with knowledge that he has renounced all parental rights (and responsibilities). Or the father has to sign a document so that, at the time of birth, with DNA proof that the child is his (or this can be waived for fathers knowingly taking on a kid not theirs), attests to his rights and responsibilities concerning the born child. Her choice, her responsibility, his option. Can’t make it… Read more »
I disagree that men cannot be harmed if the ‘disempowering’ is done by other men in power. Oppression can most certainly be perpetrated against one’s own gender (or race, etc). For instance, it is mostly other (older) women who directly carry out Female Genital Mutilation on young girls. Shall we then conclude that these mutilated girls were not actually harmed or disempowered because the FGM procedure was committed by other women? Of courser not. Same thing with men — just because the medical and religious professions are (presumably) led mostly by men, it does not therefore mean that other men… Read more »
Good point. The view being promoted by this article reminds me of how black leaders flock to a city where a cop (of any color) shot down an unarmed black person, but these same black leaders are nowhere to be found on the plague of black on black violence.
Advocates are too concerned with other-group oppression, when the most oppression a person will suffer in their life is same-group oppression.
This article is the same flavor just substituting gender for race.
“Due to class, race, sexual orientation, etc. plenty of men are actually quite disempowered. However, the systematic reasons they are disempowered is not because of their gender” That’s not true. Men are, in many ways, systematically discriminated against because they are men. A straight, white man can be systematically disempowered because he is a man. For example: -A male domestic violence victim will have a harder time getting assistance, because he is a man. -A father will have a hard time getting custody from an abusive mother because he is a man. -Boys are often treated poorly in school because… Read more »
The thing is, male domestic violence victims and father custody issues are both tied up in the patriarchy. BECAUSE the patriarchy privileges a specific type of man over all the others, when that man no longer conforms to that rigid definition, he is kind of screwed. So, a male domestic violence victim is no longer considered physically strong or in control…and thus the patriarchal system views him as less-of-a-man, or not quite manly enough, or worthy of ridicule/being ignored. Same with father’s issues…it’s the patriarchy which insists that women are primary caregivers, so a man who is the primary caregiver… Read more »
1) Here are a couple of examples of how discrimination against male victims is perpetuated, and the cause is not patriarchy: -Many academic feminists distort evidence regarding female perpetrators of domestic violence to downplay the victimization of men. Here’s a paper explaining how they do so: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf -According to the following survey, male victims of Domestic Violence who seek help from DV hotlines/agencies are often accused of being batterers and/or made fun of: http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/Douglas%20%20Hines%202011%20helpseeking%20experiences%20of%20male%20victims.pdf Here’s a quote from page 8 that summarizes the findings: DV Hotlines, Agencies, and Online Resources Men seeking help from DV agencies, hotlines, and via the… Read more »
There are a lot of problems with what you’re saying here, but I kind of feel like continuing to pick apart the details of each of these issues runs the risk of derailing and turn this into an argument. But I’m still going to comment on a couple of points, here. So, with regard to male DV victims who face harassment when trying to seek help. In the cases this does happen, well then the people who are ridiculing/harassing them are perpetuating the patriarchy. There is nothing that says that by virtue of being a DV worker, that person can’t… Read more »
1) “And this idea that women’s health is separated because women are considered more important is totally and completely ignoring the very long history in which women’s health was absolutely ignored.” The claim that medical research excluded women has been disputed: http://breakingthescience.org/Medical_Research_n_Women.php This refers to a study that concluded, “A review of sex-specific enrollments in medical research studies, and an examination of the number of epidemiologic studies and clinical trials that included men and women, point to two conclusions: 1) Historically, women were routinely included in medical research, and 2) Women have participated in medical research in numbers at least… Read more »
I can put up with a lot, but I draw the line at making an apples to apples comparison of male circumcision to FGM. If you want a male equivalent to FGM, it would be chopping off a boy’s penis ay about age 13 with a rusty knife and no anesthetic, with many weeks of recovery, rampant infection, and no orgasms ever again. By all means, talk about the reasons against male circumcision, but PLEASE, do not compare it to female genital mutilation. They are totally different levels of brutality, and FGM is for men to control women sexually. IT… Read more »
Its fine to compare fgm to mgm, bar the most extreme forms
http://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/2010/female-circumcision
And wherever there are girls being cut with rusty blades, its also happening to boys, you just aren’t hearing about because of discrimination.
I’m sticking my nose into this particular line of discussion and pointing out that the article isn’t actually about circumcision.
I wasn’t my intent to derail. I was correcting something that someone else had published.
That whole Oppression Olympics thing is really boring and pointless and there should be a holistic anti GM movement instead in my opinion – but inaccurate claims should be corrected otherwise they get taken as fact.
The reason that male circumcision wasn’t tackled at the same time as female circumcision was a conscience decision due to there being much more acceptance of male circumcision. The most difficult objection to banning female circumcision is because it is “like male circumcision” (in its less severe forms) which is widely accepted. So, the two needed to be separated in people’s minds for the anti-FGM movement to be successful. I know that “incremental justice” is not a very ideologically satisfying thing; but in practical terms there isn’t a good way around it. Now that all forms of (even the very… Read more »
Can you publish a source for what you’ve just published please.
I don’t get what you’re asking. If you are asking for a source for what I just said – it’s essentially me. I’ve witnessed the conversation unfold and the read some of the arguments coming from the anti-FGM crowd; while that whole thing was going down. That’s my own impression of how that movement operated, but I don’t have any inside information or particular article that I’m thinking about. It’s been ages. I tend to have an intuition of how political lobbying tends to work though, since I used to be a student lobbyist back in the day and my… Read more »
Lori, is it legal for a doctor to do a pinprick style symbolic (whatever the term is they use for the practice that is usually FGM) in many western countries where it’s legal to circumcise an infant? In this particular case the pinprick is extremely less invasive and damaging, but as far as I am aware this is still banned. As for comparability, from the WIKI I’d say male circumcision would be worse than most of the Type IV stuff apart from cauterization such as the pinprick. Types I, II and III I’d agree would be worse + the cauterization… Read more »
No, I don’t, Lori.
Because even ritual nicking of the clitoral hood is still lumped under the FGM banner, and the M stands for mutilation.
If ritual nicking is mutilation, then chopping the foreskin off is DEFINITELY mutilation.
Women do not own the word mutilation.
I read the article you provided about grading boys and girls in school. Here is the full article: http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=48404 The idea that this is some sort of smoking gun for explaining why boys don’t do as well academically as girls doesn’t make a lot of sense since we see this at the college level where male instructors out-number female instructors; and females tend to do better on de-identified standard tests. The study is interesting and certainly nothing to scoff at, but part of the effect – the idea that females tended to grade females better, and males tended to grade… Read more »
and it is difficult for a boy or a man to respect the authority of a woman.
that is an inflammatory claim.
why would you think that.
to clarify, your sentence read as if you were not saying , ‘it is difficult for a few boys or men to respect the authority of a woman.’
but instead, ‘it is difficult for the majority of boys or men to respect the authority of a woman.’
is that what you intended, as it seems out of phase with the rest of yr comments in the thread
You’re right. I should have qualified that better. I teach physics. I used to be a “shift-runner” at a pizza place back in college, and did that for several years. There are very few exceptions in my experience – to the point where when someone actually gives me the type of respect that I see my male colleagues receive it’s a pleasant surprise. It doesn’t help that many women struggle with stereotype threat (including myself) and lack of confidence; which makes that whole thing a lot worse. This is not an unstudied thing; though I haven’t looked into the literature… Read more »
HeatherN: “What you bring up with regards to boys and girls in school is a lot of speculation and a lot of generalisations with absolutely no statistics to back it up.”
Maybe it’s because people refuse to talk about it, you ever consider that angle?
By the way, the more you call girls hurting boys “Speculation” the more I feel like I want to fly into a fit of rage (for reasons you likely know already) since said attitude is what leads to rendering survivors like me invisible.
To be clear, what I was referring to as “speculation” is the claim he was making that generally girls are allowed to hurt boys without any repercussions. I do not think it “speculation” that some girls hurt boys. Of course some girls hurt boys…kids can be mean.
Girls hurting boys is sometimes not treated nearly as seriously because the girl is not perceived to have the ability to hurt the boy. If a boy hurts a girl, it is treated more seriously.
Melby: “Girls hurting boys is sometimes not treated nearly as seriously because the girl is not perceived to have the ability to hurt the boy. If a boy hurts a girl, it is treated more seriously.” And why is that the case? Let me guess: “Partriarchy”. Nevermind that GIRLS are hurting boys. Or it could be the fact that people don’t want to look at girls that hurt boys, which is sort of what you’re saying Melby. Plain ignorance, callousness, and maliciousness. Yes, maliciousness. Treating a problem less seriously because the victim is a boy and the bully a girl.… Read more »
Well, attacking someone who just agreed with you that a problem exists is sort of stupid, now isn’t it?
Do you want to burn bridges and alienate people because you just can’t get over the term “patriarchy”; or do you actually want to move forward?
Cause you apparently would rather attribute to me a whole mess of imagined baggage and have a fight with someone who doesn’t actually exist than to have a conversation with me about this topic.
Tactics – my friend.
No, M.A. Melby, I think you just accomplished the task of burning bridges yourself based on your response to me. Nowhere in my response did I attack you: used inflammatory language, insulted you, incorporated derogatory terms about your character. I stated my rebuttal that also agrees with what you said. But since you want to attribute it as an attack and therefore retaliate, fine. You’re welcome to it. And as far as getting over patriarchy is concerned, no I won’t. Because, in my opinion, it’s used as a label where it shouldn’t be. Girls attacking boys has nothing to do… Read more »
Alrighty, M.A. and Eagle, let’s keep the conversation civil and keep away from saying anything personal about each other. 🙂
With all due respect, HeatherN, if I may defend my character here, II never made it personal. I stated my rebuttal which, in the end, agreed with what Malby explained previously.
Not my fault it’s constituted as an attack.
Just trying to cut this thing off before it becomes personal, is what I’m saying.
“Or it could be the fact that people don’t want to look at girls that hurt boys, which is sort of what you’re saying Melby. Plain ignorance, callousness, and maliciousness. Yes, maliciousness. Treating a problem less seriously because the victim is a boy and the bully a girl.” Perhaps I read that paragraph wrong? If so, my apologies. Did you mean, “Treating a problem less seriously because the victims is a boy and the bully a girls is plaint ignorance, callousness…..”? Because I read it as you accusing me of treating the issue casually due to acknowledging that traditional patriarchal… Read more »
Malby: “Did you mean, “Treating a problem less seriously because the victims is a boy and the bully a girls is plaint ignorance, callousness…..”? That’s exactly what I meant. The plain ignorance, callousness part I was applying to the people that do it in society. Not to you. Malby: “You also get a slightly different dynamic, where a woman is assumed to have had a good reason for the abuse of the man. She is assumed to be the one defending herself, while the man is assumed to be the aggressor. This has some of the same origins, but is… Read more »
Sorry, accidentally hit enter.
Anyway, you should also add VAWA and the Duluth Model to the list. Two tools that fight domestic violence and sexual abuse only one way (female victims only) and exclude the rest (male and female victims of women).
All the minimization of my trauma taken to the next level: Law. There’s where it’s REALLY personal for me and I will not rest until people open their eyes about male survivors like myself, whatever it takes.
Again, pink is no excuse.
Not directed to you. Just to said cold-hearted snakes and misandrist feminists.
Historically, circumcision of boys was to prevent masturbation, and “make him focus” on non-carnal pleasures by making sex less pleasurable than otherwise.
The hygienic and tradition things are recent. And only needed as excuses because some people actually care about men’s rights nowadays. And they wouldn’t do it if it was outright said to be about curbing his libidinal tendencies.
Pretty much.
At least the sex justification has gone out of style.
The studies involving HIV transmission is bringing back the support of circumcision; it’s going to be the new go-to rationalization for it.
Maddening.
The practice is getting less popular in the U.S. these days. What I would like to see is to, at the very least, make it illegal for federally funded health insurance to pay for it – since at the very least, it is an elective procedure.
I’m not sure if any anti-circumcision groups are going that route.
Straight-forward article. I may link to this one when the issue comes up. Thanks.
Those are my feelings EXACTLY
I have not seen a feminist organisation or media area that does not put womens issues front and center. I’ve also seen that the “what about the menz (abused, raped, discriminated against, suicide) LOL!” type of response to womens issues is wide spread. You are saying there that there only a fringe that are like this but I’m not sure that’s true.
That said, I am open to seeing a mainstream feminist area or organisation that does not take this approach.
However, I still use the term “patriarchy” when referencing the “western” gender system
As opposed to “non-western” gender systems, which somehow aren’t patriarchal?
I specified “western” gender systems because that’s what I’m referring to with the answer. That’s all. A lot of non-western gender systems are totally patriarchal…most of the big ones are at the moment. But they aren’t necessarily the same as western systems. (Heck, there’s even variation within western gender norms).
The patriarchy moves in mysterious ways.