Cleopatra did not single-handedly create the systems of today's societies.

Neither did men.

Feminism as practiced is not intersectional? Or feminism as ideal is not intersectional? Not clear from the OP.

Probably not. Your point? — NOS4A2

I can trivially name 10 important ruling men from history. I assume so can you. That should suggest something about the historical power structures to you.

Which parts of society are not patriarchal? — NOS4A2

There's a difference between being influenced by X and being inherently X.

Neither did men. — NOS4A2

Yeah, okay, men have only been responsible for, what?, maybe 99.9% of the historical creation of society as we know it. Whoop-di-do.

I can trivially name 10 important ruling men from history. I assume so can you. That should suggest something about the historical power structures to you.

It says something of our ignorance. To assume women, half the population, had no bearing or influence on the course of history and society is ridiculous.

The capabilities approach strikes me as suitable for sorting such issues. Nussbaum has shown how it's application brings together intersectionalities; which strikes me as a far more useable approach than multiple schisms.

To assume women, half the population, had no bearing or influence on the course of history and society is ridiculous. — NOS4A2

Well, of course it's ridiculous that women haven't been influential. That's why patriarchy is so horrible. But it's what has happened.

Yeah, okay, men have only been responsible for, what?, maybe 99.9% of the historical creation of society as we know it. Whoop-di-do.

Women have birthed 100% of men. I wager this has some modicum of an effect on society as we know it.

Women have birthed 100% of men. I wager this has some modicum of an effect on society as we know it. — NOS4A2

Now you're grasping at straws.

Women bearing children doesn't mean they had a voice in the creation of governments or economies. And it's not like women had a choice about when or how many children to have or if at all to have them.

Do you think the “intersectionality” of current feminism testifies to its moribundity? Or it’s strength?

I think it's a poor analysis.

Now you're grasping at straws.

Women bearing children doesn't mean they had a voice in the creation of governments or economies. And it's not like women had a choice about when or how many children to have or if at all to have them.

No they didn’t have a voice. Then again, neither did most men. Suffrage is a fairly recent phenomenon, at least in historical terms.

Then again, neither did most men. — NOS4A2

That's true. But the people who did shape governments up until recently historically have been 99% men. So patriarchy, and the resulting societal structures are built by and for men.

That’s not quite true. Men in general took the initial steps, sure, for instance shedding blood and fight for suffrage, but these initial these steps allowed woman to take steps of their own with relative ease in comparison.

Feminism has been attacked for only accommodating to the needs of white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, able-bodied women while leaving out other minority women from the movement. — Bridget Eagles

This statement seems a bit dated, since for decades there have been many feminisms--lesbian, of color, working class, etc.--that address different sub-groups of women.

The fact still remains that a woman from any sub-group, including priveleged white women, can be the victim of patriarchal injustice and inequality.

It seems feminists want access to the patriarchy more so than its alteration. — NOS4A2

Not all women are feminists and some women are very identified with and supportive of the values of patriarchy. But I find it impossible to believe that any woman calling herself a feminist would consciously identify herself with patriarchy.

Men in general — NOS4A2

I doubt that.

The existence of good, feminist men does not mean those supporting patriarchy don't exist.

Why did women need suffrage in the first place? Because of the patriarchal structures put in place by men.

Patriarchy, routinely blamed for everything, produced the birth control pill, which did more to free contemporary women than feminism itself.

Perhaps, as someone noted, I’m equivocating between “society” and “the patriarchy”. I might be wrong on that, though I think it’s a distinction without a difference.

But I remember Camille Paglia saying “Patriarchy, routinely blamed for everything, produced the birth control pill, which did more to free contemporary women than feminism itself.”

I think Paglia's statement is stupid. To suggest that patriarchy produced birth control pills seems tantamount to saying that all science is patriarchal. I find it hard to believe that all aspects of scientific endeavor are permeated with patriarchal values and motives, while I would characterize the military (in the US) as patriarchal.

Not every single aspect of a culture should be considered cannon fodder for patriarchy.

It is stupid, and that’s the point. She doesn’t believe in the concept of a patriarchy.

I remember her from the late 80s, but I never took her very seriously. I loved the French psychoanalytic feminists, though: them I could take seriously!!

What do you mean, you might be equivocating between society and patriarchy? I would like to understand that better.

What do you mean, you might be equivocating between society and patriarchy? I would like to understand that better.

I’ve assumed that “the patriarchy” means society in general. In that sense I might be putting a different meaning to it than a feminist might. I still think “patriarchal” is a valid adjective though and has application outside of feminism.

I still think “patriarchal” is a valid adjective — NOS4A2

For me, it only conjures up negative associations and a fundamental imbalance.

t. I still think “patriarchal” is a valid adjective though and has application outside of feminism — NOS4A2

You are free to call a car a porcupine, but it's not super useful in conversation.

I think Paglia's statement is stupid. To suggest that patriarchy produced birth control pills seems tantamount to saying that all science is patriarchal. — uncanni

I think you are focusing on the wrong part of the sentence

“Patriarchy, routinely blamed for everything, produced the birth control pill which did more to free contemporary women than feminism itself.” — NOS4A2

The significant point is that birth control pills, were liberating for women, and were invented by several men. So, big deal. Background: The research was paid for and sponsored by Planned Parenthood (founded by Margaret Sanger), and funded by a Sanger associate, Catherine McCormick, who inherited the international Harvester fortune.

Some feminists do seem to blame the entirely symbolic "patriarchy" for everything from economic oppression to bad hair days. These same people exaggerate the accomplishments of feminism. The mills of the economy grind away without consulting ideologies.

Is science patriarchal? One would think that it was from reading some feminists. But "patriarchy isn't real (IMHO). Science and technology are dominated by men, which doesn't make these fields patriarchal, any more than fields which are dominated by women are matriarchal.

I still think “patriarchal” is a valid adjective though and has application outside of feminism. — NOS4A2

I still think "patriarchy" is a noun naming a non-existent phenomenon which is the Number One imaginary Bogeyman of feminists.

The way men have tried to "protect" women has historically included keeping them in the house, telling them whom they can be friends with, what jobs they can do, not allowing them to vote, not allowing them property, and beating them when they get rebellious. If that's not disadvantaged, I dunno what definition you're working with. — Artemis

Such a shallow viewpoint. Some men? Sure. Not the admirable ones.

You realize how fallacious this is? You realize what it has in common with many racist thoughts? Identity politics? Etc.

The mills of the economy grind away without consulting ideologies. — Bitter Crank

The economy is the most concrete form there is of how ideology is operating in a given society. I don't know about feminists "blaming" patriarchy; the ones I've read describe its operations in a given social realm or institution.

You'd think that after the plethora of false indications within the last sixty years, that these sorts of events would be less prominent, rather than more. But I guess there's always a school of stray guppies ready to bite the shiny hook.

Such a shallow viewpoint. Some men? Sure. Not the admirable ones.

You realize how fallacious this is? You realize what it has in common with many racist thoughts? Identity politics? Etc — creativesoul

Some, compared to the vast majority over history, yes.

And it's not at all like racism, because I did not say anything about men being inherently anything. I'm just pointing to the facts of their historical actions to explain what patriarchy is and how it operates.