This is an opinion that was sent to me about patriarchy.

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks for the background.


Fashion in the U.S.A. objectifies everyone too, but especially women, much more than men, resulting in a lot of very uncomfortable, impractical clothing for women.


Doesn't make national news as often here in the U.S.A., but it's a big problem here too. For example, here are relevant FBI murder statistics for 2019. Among 13,927 known murder victims total, 482 were the perpetrator's wife and 505 were the perpetrator's girlfriend.

(The total U.S.A. population in 2019 was 328.3 million. The total population of Italy in 2021 was 59.11 million.)


Here in the U.S.A., such crimes do not go unpunished (at least if the perpetrator is caught). "Crimes of passion" are punished less severely than premeditated murder, but they are certainly punished nonetheless.


We worry about this here in the U.S.A. too. Here, murder is certainly punished, but it can be much harder to get the police to take seriously complaints about rape, assault, stalking, and harassment.


Indeed that's an important distinction.


Here in the U.S.A. I haven't seen anyone deny that a man murdering his wife or girlfriend is a big deal. Still, we seem to have a generally more violent culture than some other parts of the world.

Christianity is in rapid decline in the west, so whilst I am sure that there are places that are patriarchal or have 'residues' of patriarchy, those places are disappearing quite quickly. The UK used to be Christian nation for example, but is now mostly secular and has been since the 1960's when Christianity started to rapidly decline.



Marriage mostly benefits women, not men, in most cases.



I don't disagree with that, although there is a massive under-reporting from male rape victims, even more so than female rape victims, from my research on the matter. The numbers aren't as wide as officially reported on in terms of the gap between victims of each sex, in my opinion.



These men are ridiculed in mainstream thought and in mainstream media and whilst it might be a subculture, it is a niche one, at least in the UK.

I still remember when my secondary school class was spouting sexism and my teacher's attempt at comforting me was 'It's a good thing they don't view you as a girl'.

He meant well, but that was... not the best thing to say. I knew what he was getting at - that it was a good thing that I wasn't included in their sexism. It still didn't excuse their behaviour. I remember when we had a female substitute and she told us that the sexist remarks were so toxic that she couldn't take it anymore and she stormed out. It felt... weird that she didn't check in on me. Didn't even acknowledge me as the only girl in the class. I almost felt like saying 'Yeah, how do you think I feel in here? I don't get to storm out'.

It feels... bizarre when people are sexist but you're not included in the sexism. When you're made the exception - 'all women suck, except you because I don't view you as a woman'. Oh. Well. That's not... great. I mean I don't appreciate the sexism either but... yikes.

I'm used to being in male heavy spaces. This was especially true as a teenager. Some have been great! Others... not so much. I remember being told that femininity is bad and that as a tomboy I shouldn't cry because crying is weak. I had to unlearn a lot of that toxic 'I'm not like other girls!' mentality. Crying is actually beneficial for health. Femininity isn't good or bad, it simply is. Likewise with masculinity. I actually enjoy presenting in a feminine manner.

I still don't understand how this relates to the topic of patriarchy, or your assertion that ...




If men are paying alimony the amount is determined by a court of law in accordance with the payor's income and the recipient's need, period. Extenuating circumstances such as the payor losing their job or being unable to work are taken into consideration, but deadbeats of either gender who dodge the system knowingly are held accountable. Men and women should both know the terms of a marriage contract and relevant divorce law when they choose to marry or enter a commonlaw relationship. If the payor formerly agreed to support their partner financially, and that person later becomes dependent upon or legally entitled to alimony, so be it.

If the payor considers their ex-partner's contribution as a full-time caregiver, parent, and spouse to have no value then the courts will do a thorough assessment. For example, if Spouse A stays home to care for the children so that Spouse B can go to medical school and earn a high salary, Spouse A is considered to have benefitted Spouse B financially by saving that person money on child care, home cleaning, meal preparation, and all the other benefits of having a spouse support them through school and a career.

Regarding child support, that money is for the child's care and wellbeing. The amount has been decided by a court of law, with evidence of each party's disposable income as well as the child's needs. Women and all people who receive child support are accountable to local and federal magistrates for providing receipts and annual financial statements to demonstrate the money is used to benefit and assist the child. You act as though women or custodial parents spend this money frivolously or demand excessive amounts from their exes. That's simply not the case.

It seems you have no direct experience with divorce, equalisation of assets, or child custody matters. Perhaps when you've been a single parent for over 25 years you'll be in a better position to report how gender is prioritised in family law, if at all.






Your point with this comment was to complain that men pay more alimony and child support than women. If they do earn more money as you claim, that's only reasonable in courts of law.


Regarding equal opportunities, you didn't use that phrase but you suggest that women who stay home or contribute to the family's wellbeing by raising children full-time, somehow leach off men via alimony and child support in the event that their union is dissolved.

Many single parents don't even apply to court for alimony and child support. They often live below the poverty line, relying on food banks and social assistance to raise their children. This might be because they can't afford lawyers, but it's often because they don't want further contact with the other parent in any capacity (because of abuse, etc.), because the other person has a history of being argumentative or threatening, or because the single parent has too much dignity to follow the other around asking for handouts. Quite frankly, the handouts awarded by courts or even given voluntarily by non-custodial parents seldom make a dent in the cost of raising a child anyway.

The next time you pay for a human being's entire life from birth through the end of college, this reality might make more sense. Don't forget to factor the social, emotional, and sometimes medical toll of being a responsible parent instead of a single individual. In my case single parenting was so stressful it caused me a clinical nervous breakdown and two strokes.






If you believe this is true, what's your point and how does this relate to the topic of patriarchy? You said earlier that women outperform men in education and employment, and that you don't believe there's a patriarchy in modern society.



OK? Can't women earn more than men by working more hours or taking more responsibility than men? Are there not women in the military in the UK? We have British, female veterans here on Wrong Planet. Maybe they can confirm how danger pay works or what it has to do with patriarchy.




I've yet to offer an opinion or imagine "patriarchy" in any of my comments. I'm simply responding to yours. That's largely because your argument does not make sense, and in my opinion it's largely irrelevant to the topic at hand.




I don't know of any such pressure. I was never reliant on my husband, before or after marriage. I'd sooner live in poverty than chase him around for a pittance of breadcrumbs, despite the fact he and his husband are loaded. The only reason I've been in family court so much is that he began motions to get out of paying court-ordered child support. I was not allowed to ignore these motions, and thus accrued nearly half a million dollars in legal debt over 25 years, despite the fact he was not successful in any of his claims.

Our respective genders were not relevant to the law. My daughter was six-months old and still breastfeeding when her father was given 50-50 custody. I had to hand her to him that night, for a 3.5 day visit, and force her to be weaned without warning. My son used to scream and lock himself in the bathroom at three years old because he was afraid of his father who had been physically and emotionally abusive. Court psychologists determined my ex posed a danger to both children's safety and wellbeing, but he was still ordered to have this time with them because of the cooperative parenting model which was enforced at that time. It didn't matter that I was the mother, that I was breastfeeding, or that they were determined by psychologists to be bonded to me as a maternal figure.

The law is the law.






What is this cultural notion you're referring to? I've never heard that. I'm afraid of men with big incomes and so are most of my female friends. We're not stupid. We don't want to be dependent on anyone, or be at risk of them hiring expensive legal teams in the event of divorce or separation.

Who benefits from earning more? I suppose whoever earns money benefits from it as an individual, unless they sign a marriage contract or enter a domestic partnership, in which case they agree to share that money with the other party.






Again, what does this have to do with patriarchy? If men don't want to spend on their partners, they should stop. Likewise for women. You know what I own in terms of clothing and personal possessions. I don't spend money on myself and if you think women (especially mothers) do, perhaps you should spend some time with women's social service programs to expand your awareness of this topic.





What?! The rip-off nature of my country?? My children were in daycare ten hours a day, five days a week. That's 50 hours for each child, or 100 hours per week total care between the two of them, and 400 hours of daycare service per month.

Let's do some math.

I paid $1500 / month for 400 hours of specialised and licenced daycare providers to care for my children at a Salvation Army facility. That included feeding them three hot meals and two snacks (all food catered, with an international menu), changing their bums, taking them on local outings, and teaching them social skills for three years.

1500 / 400 = $3.75 per hour, paid to these college educated, award winning child care experts to care for two children who were later diagnosed as autistic.

What a rip off is right! They were ripped off and should have charged me much, more more.

I still feel indebted to the excellent care they provided, so that I could pursue my career in the absence of their father's support.

There are lots of fundamentalist groups all over the world and even some mainstream ones that only have male leadership and preach that women are subordinate to men - in the church (congregation, mosque, temple, etc.) and/or family. Although parts of the world are becoming more secular, religion still plays a large role in many people’s lives around the globe, even in the UK. For example, the JW religion is patriarchal, and there are 1,614 congregations in Britain alone. There are many, many other groups besides them. Catholics are less extreme, but they don’t allow women to be priests. There are a significant number of Catholics in the UK. “An estimated 3.8 million adults in England and Wales identify as Catholic, while an autumn 2021 count found that 370,000 Catholics regularly attend Mass.”

Perhaps most patriarchal religions, typically founded on patriarchal holy books, teach that their group is the only true church and the only pathway to salvation. That can hinder freedom of choice. I didn’t like my religion, but I stuck with it for a long time because I didn’t feel like I had any other options. It was everlasting life or death.

The world is much better for women in many countries than it was in the past, but that doesn’t mean that patriarchy and patriarchal attitudes aren’t still a problem, especially in specific realms and locales.

What are you referring to? How do you measure the benefit accrued by people in a marriage and decide who benefits the most?

It relates to the topic of patriarchy since it challenges the notion that men are the most dominant people in society. If men are so dominant, and supposedly make up all of the unfair rules in favour of men in society that the concept of patriarchy often promotes - then why do men lose out so often in the family court system? You would think that would be a bias in favour of men, but the opposite is true.




I think this situation will vary by country. The US is notorious for ripping off male parents in family courts, however. Perhaps you are referring to some other country? You have lived in three different countries to my knowledge so I don't know which place you are referring to. I am guessing Canada?



I don't think many people look into the contract of marriage. It's a bit like small print for most people, I would imagine.



I am not sure what your point is here?



I knew this already.



You are making assumptions about my position here, I have said none of those things. I simply stated that men have unfavourable odds in getting a reasonable result in a family court. Obviously this varies by country.



I am not convinced that a single, anecdotal case (yours) is representative of family court trends at large. Or that having direct experience is a prerequisite for having an opinion on the matter.








It wasn't a complaint. It was a challenge to the notion of patriarchy, that posits that men are the dominant members of society. If men are paying more in family courts, this would challenge the notion that there is an institutional bias in favour of men, at least in this specific instance.



I didn't say that, that is another assumption on your part as to what I had in mind when writing the post. The point I made was that "the concept of patriarchy is ridiculous" and the other points I made were pertaining to that particular comment.

.

This does indeed happen.



I think this would vary by court case. But yes, children are expensive.



I am not sure why you are telling me this.








Because patriarchy and its promoters, often puts forward the false idea that women get paid less for the same work. That would be wrong and that is the point.





Women are seldom on the front lines of any war, even in the modern day. Most are purposely assigned to tasks that are behind the front line, such as in administration, or communications.





You have said in a previous post on this forum, that you were heir to a large inheritance when you were in your twenties. I don't think you are representative of the average woman, at least not in the majority of people/the working class. You have also said that a previous partner married you for your inheritance. Again, I don't think you are the average person.



Okay...






What planet are you from? There are countless women in anybody's social horizon that date upwards whilst men have to initiate interest in dating and often pay for dating, and then pay for more things than a woman if they do end up in a relationship. This is almost common sense/knowledge in most places.



Women spend more in shops. Most retail space is dedicated to woman. You only have to go out the house to attest to these things. And women don't earn as much as men, on average. How does that work? Could it be that women spend other people's money?






Men spending more on women than vice versa would suggest that there is no such thing as a patriarchy, or if there is, it is run by men and for females, not males.

In your case, considering the massive debt you have mentioned, I don't know how you have any money at all. So it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't have much or anything to spend.





$1,500 is a month is a lot. The cost should be a government cost, not an individual one. Regardless of the good value of it as you explain.

Last edited by blitzkrieg on 27 Nov 2023, 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What? I live in the US and haven’t seen that. I’ve been screwed over big time, but I don’t want to go into that situation. I receive almost no child support.
WTF

Isn’t it a problem if women earn less than men? Is it “other people’s money” if the woman is engaged in unpaid labor in the home, like child rearing - one of the most demanding jobs there is?
People are often subjected to financial abuse when there’s unequal pay, leading to unequal power dynamics and possible control.

I am not sure how to respond to this without pointing out the obvious and causing offence, so I shall remain silent on this point.





An average of what women earn, even it is less than men, doesn't mean that women get paid less for the same type of work. If you were to compensate for this average, you would effectively have to pay women more than men for the same types of work (the lower paid types which also employ men).

It's a typical feminist fallacy to promote the idea that women get paid less for the same type of work - they don't.



I don't agree that child rearing is anywhere near to being the most demanding job in existence. That's just not true and if you take offense to that I don't know what to say.

Have you raised children? If not, you most likely could not conceive of how difficult it is. Raising children is incredibly difficult. Most parents would say the same.

I didn’t say that women generally get paid less for the same type of work although it certainly happens in some countries. Careers that women often go for - social services, teaching, etc. - do not pay enough, especially considering how incredibly important they are.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 27 Nov 2023, 10:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I read this first response from your long post, and I sense that's enough for now. You seem to confuse "imaginary legislative misandry" with family responsibility and law. None of this represents patriarchy, or the lack thereof.

There are approximately 68,000,000 people in the UK, currently. 0.37 million is a really small amount relative to the population at large.



The US, where you are from, is probably the most Christian out of developed nations and in the western world by number. Also, you have personal experience of being a JW. I am not sure you have seen the severity of the decline of Christianity, from your position in life.



Specific realms and locales of patriarchal type communities, sure do exist. I wouldn't disagree.

I only cited two examples. This is not the place for an exhaustive discussion. Patriarchal religion is still a problem in Italy, the US, the UK, and many, if not most, other places.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 27 Nov 2023, 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Some of the problem seems to be related to a lack of understanding about the challenges (financial, logistical, physical, emotional, etc.) of parenting. I probably didn’t fully appreciate it myself until after I became a parent.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 27 Nov 2023, 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, but I have been a child and have been raised by a parent and similar to most kids these days, I spent most of my time either watching television or playing computer games or playing with friends. I was completely independent with schooling and didn't place that burden on my parents.

The main thing my parents did were take care of my clothes (washing and drying them), making me simple meals and driving me places. Sure, all of that takes some time & effort, but it's not rocket science? And it's not close to being the hardest job, especially if a parent loves their child.



But men do those jobs too, both social services and teaching and they get paid the same, generally, for the same work. It is illegal to pay a person differently for the same job description/role based on a persons gender or sex.

Yep, just like I thought: you don’t have a clue what parenting is actually like. It is incredibly difficult, perhaps especially so when one loves their kids.

It depends on the country.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 27 Nov 2023, 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It costs money also, and money requires time and effort.

I'll take your word for it then, oh wise parent. I don't really have much choice.