It looks like satire to me, only, I know they're actually serious. They will probably end up covering a guy identifying as a woman anyway. What could be possibly be more inspiring to young girls than that?
There are ancestral issues that run in our family. I'm sure every family has them to varying degrees. I guess that's the hereditary part, but also the learned/environmental part. In other words, you are predisposed to like/dislike/act/think in a certain way based on your genetics BUT you are also affected by your environment.
You like classical music? You were probably genetically wired for that.
You like the same sports that your Mum & maternal grandmother liked? Probably wired for it again. Not only that, you probably inherited genes that made you good at these sports, too.
However, back to the patriarchal thing.
Now, on my Mum's side, I have observed that there's a history of men pushing women down (not letting them study, not giving them opportunities, limiting/taking away their inheritance in favour of the male heirs etc). Multiple generations of this has led to women not achieving what they could. I've delved through it all and it's almost fascinating if it weren't so sad. On my Dad's side, though, there's a history of the women SAVING the men, literally, from the jaws of death. So each family has their own ancestral 'thing', I suppose. At least in my case this is true. But perhaps this DOES happen to everyone - if they would only open their minds to things a bit more.
HOWEVER, I don't think 'feminism' has helped me to heal. 'Feminism' has meant women try to pretend they've got 'a set' and drink the men under the table and try to forget they're women whilst they battle for the same role as men. It's all a bit distorted. I don't want to pretend I have 'a set' or to try to drink men under the table. I am very aware of the biological/psychological differences between men & women. I LIKE being a female! I have my strengths and I play to them.
Nevertheless, I have observed even women in my maternal side trying to do the same things the men have done, in keeping women under the thumb. Hardly patriarchal as such, and sounds like it's more genetic if anything. And understanding all this hasn't healed me of my anxiety, nor has it really been the driver of my anxiety - at least I don't think so.
I have just been acutely aware of my family's 'ancestral sin' (and perhaps I mean that in the epigenetic way as well?!) and I have done what I can to alleviate that during my lifetime (and yes, that includes atoning for other's sins), and to make sure I do NOT carry on the burden/limitation. Really, it's just self-awareness - and making necessary changes as you see fit, including lifestyle choices, communication, parenting skills; anything, really. Feminism has nothing to do with it. Genetics has more to do with it than 'patriarchy' from what I can see, given the same miserable traits end up in some females as well as males.
However, I kind of get what this women's magazine feature story is meant to be about.
I understand your argument, but I still think the author of this call-out is trying to have it both ways.
On the supposed patriarchy front, as I wrote to Vegan Warrior, not once in my life have I ever felt victimised, oppressed or held back in any other way by 'the patriarchy'. Like you, I have observed plenty of women who manipulate both the men and the women in their lives, and plenty of men who do the same. The notion that men control society for the benefit of other men, and the detriment of women, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A small group of individuals - historically, mostly but not always men - have attempted to control the remainder of society, for their own benefit, for all of recorded history and no doubt before that. Most men are disadvantaged by the current oligarchical arrangement, as they always were.
And if you're a man it's difficult to avoid the impression they think men are not just hogging the cake, they're humping it as well, because, you know, men...
Possibly the types of women who the author was aiming for were those from a generation or two back, not women under 50 or so.
When I grew up, women had a voice. Women worked. There were even women bosses. No doubt you saw the same thing. However, most bosses were men, and mostly it was men who were in positions of authority, and it was almost always the women who stayed home to look after the kids. Men working P/T wasn't really a 'thing' back in the 80s or 90s! Yet plenty of women did P/T work whilst they juggled home & family. And still do.
So I have to agree with vegan warrior below: for the most part, we still DO live in a patriarchal society.
Perhaps you have never felt oppressed by any patriarchy, and I'm glad to hear it, Robyn! But most women HAVE been oppressed - and often by the societal patriarchy. As an example closer to home, if things were more equal, then surely as a Dr of Chiropractic, with much study, knowledge and work behind me, it shouldn't have cost me tens of thousands of dollars to have each of my 3 children (paying Associates who wouldn't accept lesser rates, admin staff etc) and even once I lost my business because NO-ONE in the world put their hand up for my job whilst I was on maternity leave after the Associate quit when my son was 6 days old! I might as well have had IVF for all the money I've lost having kids!
All that time out of the workforce doing what only a WOMAN can do (grow & birth kids & breastfeed them!) and I was financially penalised for it - big time. Through no fault of my own other than being born a female. So yeah, there's oppression there. If I had a cushy public service desk job, then I'd get plenty of Mat Leave. But if I strike out on my own with my own business? It's all on MY head. And look, that worked fine for me - up until I couldn't physically do my job due to being a beautiful whale, birthing or breastfeeding a newborn.
Things are nowhere near equal, and it is painfully obvious. And no-one is doing enough to make it more equal. But the truth is that it cannot ever be equal because women are not men, and men are not women. But society could at least try to make trade-offs more equal, yet they don't. Men don't want to work extra or take pay cuts so that women can have a year or two of paid maternity leave. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They STILL get paid more than women across the board (in general) and yet it's the women who have to have the time off. Now, are these men earning more/being paid more SPECIFICALLY so they can provide for their families whilst wifey is on Mat Leave? No, they are not. They're just being paid more because can turn up each work day and not have to leave mid-way through a job to look after a kid.
I know my mother, who's in her mid-70s, would unhesitatingly say that we live in a patriarchal society. Perhaps I've heard this too much in my life, but trust me when I say that I have lived through some VERY backward times that quite frankly, in this day and age, shouldn't occur.
I just don't think men earn more so women can have kids. Men earn more because they don't have to take time off for kids, like women have to, and society has done next to nothing, at least in Australia, to rectify this. Some European countries are ahead here, which is good, but I have felt the oppression well and truly.
But the tables have also turned, because now I am a stay-at-home mother, and my hubby is earning enough to keep everything afloat. And he's cool with me not working at present. But again, the govt isn't helping. My husband is. So society is not helping. My hubby is.
I think you just destroyed your own argument by acknowledging that if you were in the public service - the only employment sector that the government has direct control over - you would have received a generous maternity leave package. There couldn't be any more decisive proof of the absence of 'the patriarchy' - which, I stress again, is a power structure run by men, for the benefit of men. If we truly did live in a patriarchy, the government wouldn't employ women at all (except in the most menial jobs), let alone pay them to stay home to look after their babies.
I faced the exact same situation as you did, when I had children. It was not possible to hire anyone to substitute for me in my practice, so I had to cut back severely on my working hours and as a consequence, my income shrank. I don't blame this on the government, or anyone else. These are the choices that women make, because nature/biology/whatever force it is that runs the universe, put us in the position where we are the only ones who can bear children, and we are the ones who are physically equipped to breastfeed infants and (generally speaking) also best psychologically equipped to provide them with care and nurture.
I would not want to live in a European country which offers generous maternity leave, but at the cost of sky-high taxation and excessive government intrusion into every area of life.
In short, you and I are not 'oppressed' by the patriarchy, or society, or anything else. We just live with the reality that all adults have to face - you can't have everything you want.
I understand what you're saying here, and we don't live in a 'true' patriarchal society, no. But I'm sure plenty of women have 'societal stress disorder' and some would definitely have 'patriarchal stress disorder'! I don't think the author has thought this through as well as we would like, but I think the author is also onto something.
Perhaps the women being targeted here are the baby boomers, because they certainly suffered under men.
But I think many men would jump on the Patriarchy bandwagon if they thought they could get away with it. We may have a society, not a patriarchy, but there's Patriarchy brewing in the ranks alright. The amount of older men who have looked down upon me as just a 'woman', even though I'm way smarter, nicer and talented than them, has grossed me out, quite frankly. And we in society just have to nod and smile, or make a joke out of it, when the underlying thought processes by these men is that women should do women's work and let men get on with the real work, and that a woman can't really do a man's work. I can reverse park better than most people I know and understand technicalities and philosophical ideas very well. I've also done a physical job most of my life - and well. I can even change a lightbulb and I'm helping my hubby build a house! So I find it derogatory when these men, who come from older times, think like this, and like to comment on it. Honestly, I want to deck them sometimes!
Not only that, SO MANY men of varying ages have looked at me as a piece of meat in my life. I understand biology alright, but I think we are masquerading as a Society when in fact the underlying vibe is of a Patriarchy. The major players in this world are MEN, not women. And the women who are higher up work to the men's agenda. They like to (have to?) pretend they have a set to fit in. Our society is SO FAR from equality it's laughable.
So yeah, I still think lots of women are 'oppressed' by society, and the underlying patriarchy. I know I have been.
Is it also reasonable to expect women to have to not just stop climbing the income ladder, but fall down it a bit, and stay down for a long while, all so they can do their biological thing and have (and raise) kids? I think we are still asked to carry too much of the societal burden. Of course, most women just hand over their kids to the govt: get the jabs, take the $, dump them in daycare from an early age, send them to school (& after/before school care), so the Mum can still work. But who RAISES the kids (the next generation in this case)? They are indoctrinated by the institutions they attend (daycare, school etc), so these kids are not their own. They belong to the govt.
Now I don't LIKE our government. They do almost nothing good these days and a lot bad. But if there IS a govt - in any country - I expect them to try to help their people. Losing half your family income when you have kids (and it's just awful how people try to cope when they have a family break-up after having kids!) and only being helped financially if you hand over your kids to the govt so they can indoctrinate them is a really high price to pay.
So as a mother, do you struggle financially and do it yourself, maintaining relative autonomy, or not struggle as much financially and hand them over to the govt, losing autonomy? You and I took the first choice here. But most women take the second choice these days.
If govts really cared about the kids, they'd give them the BEST start:
1. choice of birthplace (eg homebirth, not just medicalised hospital births) for ALL Australians, and not just if you happen to live near the tiny handful of hospitals in Australia that still do outreach programs for homebirths. They could expand these places - but they don't. They restrict them.
2. 1-year F/T followed by 1-yr P/T Maternity leave payments at a minimum. For bigger companies, the companies can foot the bills. Otherwise the govt foots this bill. But the govt didn't even want to give women 16 weeks Mat leave. They reluctantly gave that - years ago - and have not increased it and will not increase it no matter how much lobbying happens!
3. No requirement for vaccination to attend daycare/school/preschool. Yet govts have actively done the No Jab No Pay, then No Jab No Play and it's STUCK.
I could go on and on about this broken govt. There doesn't need to be massive govt intrusion to provide a basic good start to life, with at least few decent options for people. But no, they try to crush every baby before it's even born, make people adhere to their crazy ideologies whilst being intrusive into many areas of your life anyway (you don't want to get on the wrong side of Centrelink or FACS. They make your life a living hell from what I've heard many times over!).
So we still have the govt intrusion like European countries, but we have worse birthing options, worse roads and low-moderate taxes (which they don't use for good, anyway, just evil!).
And I think we are all still oppressed by society, the underlying patriarchy and then some. Perhaps most don't know it, and don't think too deeply about this, but it's there, it's been there for thousands of years, and until we become aware of it and fight it back, it's not going away.
Men are physically bigger and stronger than women. They will become the natural 'leaders' from a physical perspective, but they are also meant to temper this with decency (eg no rapes). You see this in many animal herds. But there are very few human males in the world who, given ultimate power, would not be corrupted absolutely by it.
Would the same happen if a woman was given ultimate power? What's that old joke? Who would know - it's never happened! Although people like Margaret Thatcher and Elizabeth the 1st come to mind, but there were MANY men in their entourages and these women had to appease the men before they could make their decisions. Yet men often just trample on the women around them and make the decisions they want to, anyway.
I think we may have to agree to disagree here. This topic is a very deep one, and encompasses much more than what it at first seems.
I don't think Boomer women are the target at all. Based on the phrasing of the call-out, I read this as squarely aimed at Millennial and Zoomer women, who have grown up in a culture which exalts victimhood rather than triumphing over obstacles as the path to personal growth. Aside from the handful of batshit-crazy feminist academics who infiltrated academic institutions in order to induct students into this cult of victimhood, all the Gen X and Boomer women that I know just got on with their lives.
As we've clearly seen in the last 4 years, asking government to take responsibility for anything is inviting complete tyranny, so I don't want government to come up with any solution to the problem of how women can juggle their career aspirations with their mothering desires. I sure as hell don't want to see taxes raised to pay for parental leave.
As for the question of how women would behave if they were given ultimate power, the answer is - abominably. No human being can be trusted with power to rule over others, as Lord Acton observed: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There's nothing in 'female nature' that would render women immune to this corruption. They might just manifest it in somewhat different ways to men, since female antisocial behaviour manifests more in malicious gossip and reputational destruction than in physical violence. Let's not forget that the pre-Hebrew Semitic cultures were matriarchal, and practised child sacrifice (e.g. see https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/474349). So I don't find any evidence for the contention that societies in which women wield more power than men, are any better for the majority of people who live in them.
A govt that actually takes responsibility for things?! Well, that'd almost be a new thing, wouldn't it?! But seriously, I think govts can do a lot more than what they're doing, ours especially, to help women in their time of need - because let's be honest, most women aren't feeling flash once they hit 8+ months pregnant, and they need quite a few weeks to get into the swing of things once they've got a newborn in tow. Then there are the MANY months needed to bond properly with their baby. Being at work half the time doesn't really cut it at that point.
But govts don't need to tax the population more to give more for Mat Leave - they just need to redirect things in the budget! The money's there. It just needs to be properly directed. Maybe less for Defence and other areas like that. If they DO want to tax more somewhere, they could try taxing the corporate multinationals correctly! Then lo and behold, there's a whole pile of extra $! Magic.
I don't think either of us truly knows what the target audience - if any - was. It may just be ANY women that feel societal/patriarchal stress that the author is after. That's kind of what was stated, so my guess is that it would be age ranges across the board. But yes, I see your point about the younger generation playing victim more easily. Nevertheless, my Boomer Mum has been a blamer all of her life, and I have had to work hard at not being a blamer, growing up in that household! Can't say I always manage it, but I do try not to blame.
That link you put in by Professor Lewis Bayles Paton PhD was interesting. Thanks. However, jars with infant bones less than a week old does not mean the babies weren't stillborn, or didn't die soon after birth, which I'm sure happened back then, just like it still does today. In fact, with more erratic food supply and lack of variety back then, I'd say most women would've lost a minimum of 1-2 children at/before birth within their life, giving plenty of infants for the jars. And none of them would've had to have been murdered. It is insane to think a society could expand when the parents (or people of the Law) deliberately killed the firstborns. There'd be uprisings over that. I know no-one would be taking my firstborn! And I'm pretty sure you'd not let someone take yours, either! We are warrior women!
Anyway, how are we to know those infants in jars weren't stolen from another nearby tribe, or from the lower castes? I'm quite sure most higher class people refused to get rid of their firstborns! It is not sane or conducive to any society to slay one's firstborn.
Yes, I know human sacrifices were a 'thing' for many tribes in the past, but sacrifice generally works better for those involved when it's not THEIR kid that's being slain! So who knows if women in charge would be as haphazard as men in charge. Probably. But in different ways.
Anyway, I think the one thing we'll be able to agree on is that it is HUMANS in general who are the problem here!! :-D
Maybe I'm in a bad mood today or maybe you just pushed too many of my buttons but here are my thoughts on your matter. There is so much whining in your post it is tough to know where to start. But let me get this straight, you are an educated woman, a Dr. running your own practice, married to a man who loves, respects and cares about you AND you get to directly and intimately participate in the propagation of humanity (multiple times) like no man ever could and YOU are oppressed (societal patriarchy). Where are your priorities? You couldn't find anyone to run your practice (the associate who quit was a man wasn't he?) while you are out on PAID maternity leave for 1 to 2 years (times 3 children equal 3 to 6 years not of practice) and you turn that into an argument against men in general and about earned money. And if I understand your comments correctly, you will rather have a government (like the EU) step in and take care of you and your baby rather than subject your husband to doing that...because why should he when a government can force everyone to pay your way??? Government intrusion makes you feel good, doesn't it? Of course, it does as long as it benefits you personally.
"Men earn more because they don't have to take time off for kids, like women have to, and society has done next to nothing, at least in Australia, to rectify this."
You WANT government to control your culture as well as everything else. Well, IMO, that is just making it worse. Another step closer to slavery by government.
Yes, men typically spend more of their lives on the paying job than women who have babies and yes businesses exist to make money not to fund 1 to 2 year sabbaticals because a person is a women and not a man. I guess you don't think a man would want to have 1 to 2 years to get to know the baby and establish the father/child bond. Well, this dad and most dads know that if they don't step up and do what is necessary the mother will seek government help and replace him and any chance for a real connection with his offspring. No this was not my situation at all. Maybe find out where your husband stands on this long term in case you need to act on it (though based on your comments he probably is already aware of the tightrope he walks..
Maybe better planning on your part could have alleviated the whole patriarchy/money thing for you all together and then you wouldn't be on Substack crying and begging for a government to come "help". Just a thought.
Ha ha! Yes, I think you were in a bad mood! But yes, I can also see how you think I was whining.
Hubby & I CHOSE to have kids, true. However, my point was that in Australia, you get 16 weeks paid Mat Leave at miserable rates (far less than I was earning) and then what?
Doing a physical job, I had to take about 2 months off before the end of each pregnancy, and of course there's no earned money then. Just gotta hope you've got savings. Trying to find an Associate in a country town was nigh impossible, and the ones I found did a fairly so-so/crappy job of it anyway. One Associate broke a patient's rib - and didn't tell me (that was the one who left when my baby was 6 days old, and for the record, I couldn't care less whether it was a male (but also for the record, it was) or a female, the main problem was the Associate didn't do the job properly!), one caused me a disc bulge because she jammed my back (she was a shit adjuster) and one wanted to be paid way too much so I lost lots of $ in the process. This is what's it's often like in Country Australia. You do the job yourself because no-one else is going to do the job half as well as yourself, and will demand twice as much as you think they should be paid if they do it! So perhaps 'societal oppression' is more apt here than 'patriarchal oppression'.
I was moreso commenting (whining) about the lack of support when females go off to have babies. Last time I checked there was no other way to grow a population without women having babies.
And I also went back to work THREE MONTHS after I had both my girls. I had to. Financially. Hubby came to work and brought the baby in for feeds, or I shortened my hours sometimes, but that's what you have to do when you have your own business.
Government is not coming to save us - and I know you think it seemed like I wanted Govt to swoop in and save us BUT I don't want government to 'save' me. However, I DO want governments to try to look after their population better. If they're going to tax people, why not use the $ properly, like keeping roads in good order, better education and better Mat Leave?! Instead, they piss it up the wall and tabulate 'misinformation' bills that are heinous. They could use OUR money more wisely, that's for sure.
FYI, I also know women who went back to working as a Chiropractor the same day they had the baby because otherwise their business would've gone under. Think of the problems this may cause in the next generation, with the babies being separated, albeit for only hours at a time, from their mother from a very young age, let alone the stress of the mother trying to juggle so much when she has a newborn.
Perhaps in this 'modern' day and age, a physical job is NOT the best one for a female who wishes to breed. Maybe things WERE right to some degree 100 years ago. Maybe I've suffered all these problems (and trust me, it IS traumatic watching your business go under that you've poured blood,. sweat and tears into for years and years) not because the govt can't manage money properly (ie not enough left over in the budget for Mat Leave), but because there's too much lip-service and not enough practical change. No-one CARES to increase Mat Leave, yet it's a very important part of our life. Babies NEED us home to begin with and we NEED to bond with them. Sure, the baby can have the father, too, but Daddy doesn't FEED the babies from the breast - and expressed milk is not how Nature intended it.
My husband is awesome. He has been super helpful. I would NEVER choose the govt over him. Never!! I would walk over burning coals for him. He's been more 'there' for me than any person in my life. And he's a wonderful father who spends lot of time with the kids! So no, he does not walk a tightrope. And yes, he tells me when I'm bugging him! And yes, I listen.
My point is that societal oppression (or even patriarchal oppression) is a very real thing. And it doesn't matter how 'smart' you are, or how much planning you do, if you don't have enough MONEY, you cannot have many kids, if any, if you're a female, and expect to keep living the lifestyle you are accustomed to. You have to work super hard to save up heaps so you can support yourself whilst off on Mat Leave if you're the breadwinner who's female (and even then, with good planning, you'd still probably only manage to have the 1 kid) or if your hubby, however, is the breadwinner, it's not such a big problem. But if your mortgage requires good incomes from both parents, how is anyone financially meant to cope without selling up and moving to the country - and hoping you've got a job you can still do out there?! And then there's the childcare and/or grandparents, and given our grandparents aren't around us, and we didn't vaccinate our kids, each child got less and less daycare and more and more Mummy/Daddy/Family time. Of course this meant we both worked P/T and were earning far less than we were capable of. We took a massive financial hit so we could have our kids and raise them ourselves, and yes, we even moved to the country to keep it all afloat. We are two well-credentialled professionals who give a shit and right now we are building a house together on my 'sabbatical'. It NEVER stops. We, like most parents these days, are constantly busy. It's go go go but you know what? At the end of the day we can look back and say "Wow! Look at what we accomplished together!" because WE did it - not our parents, not the govt. US. So yeah, I'm having a whinge now, but we've worked bloody hard to get to this stage, and I KNOW most people wouldn't have done what we have done in life, because they're not tough or sensible enough nor self-believing enough to make it happen.
I would just like a govt to actually HELP their constituents in practical ways - and if they're not, get rid of them!!! So by my reasoning, most govts should therefore cease to exist. I can't see how we'd be worse off!
I appreciate Robyn S's take on it, but my first reaction was, 'Oh God,' what next! I never got into the whole feminist movement, even though I'm 72 and was basically ripe for being 'in the thick of it.' Let's face it. Pretty much ALL WOMEN live in a patriarchal society. I've just stood up for myself and called bullshit when necessary and gotten on with life.
I'm really not at all convinced that we currently live in a patriarchal society, if what is meant by that is that men dominate society for the benefit of men. Not only are the vast majority of men disadvantaged by the current power arrangements, but women have been granted many advantages that men don't have. For example, women are free to enter professions and occupations that were traditionally male-dominated, but they overwhelmingly choose NOT to do dangerous and dirty occupations. They are also exempt from conscription from military service (except in Ukraine!!!). I have never in my life felt 'oppressed by the patriarchy'. I think this is a sad, sick cult of victimhood that has been sold to women as 'feminism'.
I do agree with you that these days it does feel like men are oppressed by the whole 'woke' culture. I had to break some ground in the 70s and 80s, being the 'first woman' in a number of jobs in the outdoor industry. And there was plenty of subtle prejudice against a woman in some of the more male traditional roles. (bush pilot, hunting guide, carpenter, wilderness guide, etc.) Truly, I wouldn't care to be a white male today. But where the patriarchy still feels entrenched is in the higher level of politics. Anyway, I would have nothing to contribute to that little writing project.
I don't doubt for a moment that sexism exists, and that it was way worse in the 70s. But sexism is NOT 'the patriarchy'. It's just stereotyped beliefs about what men can and can't do well, and what women can and can't do well. I have observed that about as many women hold terribly sexist beliefs about men, as men who hold sexist beliefs about women. Once women demonstrated their competence in formerly male-dominated occupations, by showing they could be just as good at being a pilot, or a doctor, or a lawyer as men, these occupations opened up to them. If 'the patriarchy' was a real thing, that wouldn't have happened.
As for politics, those who reach the highest levels of politics are statistically more likely to be psychopaths, and male psychopaths outnumber female psychopaths by about 3 to 1. I think this is a more likely explanation for the greater number of males in positions of power than female, than 'the patriarchy'.
Okay; I'm with you now. Definition of patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. WE DON'T HAVE THAT.
What do you call a patriarchal authoritarian society?
A dicktatorship.
Bahahaha!
That would have been back when secretaries were employed to take dicktation.
Bahahaha! It appears, from my reading of the biographies of famous men, that some of those secretaries were quite happy to do so.
It looks like satire to me, only, I know they're actually serious. They will probably end up covering a guy identifying as a woman anyway. What could be possibly be more inspiring to young girls than that?
That would be the ultimate - a man who identifies as a woman, complaining that s/he is being oppressed by the patriarchy LOL!
Actually, I get this.
There are ancestral issues that run in our family. I'm sure every family has them to varying degrees. I guess that's the hereditary part, but also the learned/environmental part. In other words, you are predisposed to like/dislike/act/think in a certain way based on your genetics BUT you are also affected by your environment.
You like classical music? You were probably genetically wired for that.
You like the same sports that your Mum & maternal grandmother liked? Probably wired for it again. Not only that, you probably inherited genes that made you good at these sports, too.
However, back to the patriarchal thing.
Now, on my Mum's side, I have observed that there's a history of men pushing women down (not letting them study, not giving them opportunities, limiting/taking away their inheritance in favour of the male heirs etc). Multiple generations of this has led to women not achieving what they could. I've delved through it all and it's almost fascinating if it weren't so sad. On my Dad's side, though, there's a history of the women SAVING the men, literally, from the jaws of death. So each family has their own ancestral 'thing', I suppose. At least in my case this is true. But perhaps this DOES happen to everyone - if they would only open their minds to things a bit more.
HOWEVER, I don't think 'feminism' has helped me to heal. 'Feminism' has meant women try to pretend they've got 'a set' and drink the men under the table and try to forget they're women whilst they battle for the same role as men. It's all a bit distorted. I don't want to pretend I have 'a set' or to try to drink men under the table. I am very aware of the biological/psychological differences between men & women. I LIKE being a female! I have my strengths and I play to them.
Nevertheless, I have observed even women in my maternal side trying to do the same things the men have done, in keeping women under the thumb. Hardly patriarchal as such, and sounds like it's more genetic if anything. And understanding all this hasn't healed me of my anxiety, nor has it really been the driver of my anxiety - at least I don't think so.
I have just been acutely aware of my family's 'ancestral sin' (and perhaps I mean that in the epigenetic way as well?!) and I have done what I can to alleviate that during my lifetime (and yes, that includes atoning for other's sins), and to make sure I do NOT carry on the burden/limitation. Really, it's just self-awareness - and making necessary changes as you see fit, including lifestyle choices, communication, parenting skills; anything, really. Feminism has nothing to do with it. Genetics has more to do with it than 'patriarchy' from what I can see, given the same miserable traits end up in some females as well as males.
However, I kind of get what this women's magazine feature story is meant to be about.
I understand your argument, but I still think the author of this call-out is trying to have it both ways.
On the supposed patriarchy front, as I wrote to Vegan Warrior, not once in my life have I ever felt victimised, oppressed or held back in any other way by 'the patriarchy'. Like you, I have observed plenty of women who manipulate both the men and the women in their lives, and plenty of men who do the same. The notion that men control society for the benefit of other men, and the detriment of women, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A small group of individuals - historically, mostly but not always men - have attempted to control the remainder of society, for their own benefit, for all of recorded history and no doubt before that. Most men are disadvantaged by the current oligarchical arrangement, as they always were.
Feminists have always tried to have their cake and eat it too.
And yet no matter how much of it they eat, they still complain that the men are hogging the cake ;-).
And if you're a man it's difficult to avoid the impression they think men are not just hogging the cake, they're humping it as well, because, you know, men...
Now you've left me with a psychologically scarring visual image!!!! How dare you oppress me like this!
Possibly the types of women who the author was aiming for were those from a generation or two back, not women under 50 or so.
When I grew up, women had a voice. Women worked. There were even women bosses. No doubt you saw the same thing. However, most bosses were men, and mostly it was men who were in positions of authority, and it was almost always the women who stayed home to look after the kids. Men working P/T wasn't really a 'thing' back in the 80s or 90s! Yet plenty of women did P/T work whilst they juggled home & family. And still do.
So I have to agree with vegan warrior below: for the most part, we still DO live in a patriarchal society.
Perhaps you have never felt oppressed by any patriarchy, and I'm glad to hear it, Robyn! But most women HAVE been oppressed - and often by the societal patriarchy. As an example closer to home, if things were more equal, then surely as a Dr of Chiropractic, with much study, knowledge and work behind me, it shouldn't have cost me tens of thousands of dollars to have each of my 3 children (paying Associates who wouldn't accept lesser rates, admin staff etc) and even once I lost my business because NO-ONE in the world put their hand up for my job whilst I was on maternity leave after the Associate quit when my son was 6 days old! I might as well have had IVF for all the money I've lost having kids!
All that time out of the workforce doing what only a WOMAN can do (grow & birth kids & breastfeed them!) and I was financially penalised for it - big time. Through no fault of my own other than being born a female. So yeah, there's oppression there. If I had a cushy public service desk job, then I'd get plenty of Mat Leave. But if I strike out on my own with my own business? It's all on MY head. And look, that worked fine for me - up until I couldn't physically do my job due to being a beautiful whale, birthing or breastfeeding a newborn.
Things are nowhere near equal, and it is painfully obvious. And no-one is doing enough to make it more equal. But the truth is that it cannot ever be equal because women are not men, and men are not women. But society could at least try to make trade-offs more equal, yet they don't. Men don't want to work extra or take pay cuts so that women can have a year or two of paid maternity leave. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They STILL get paid more than women across the board (in general) and yet it's the women who have to have the time off. Now, are these men earning more/being paid more SPECIFICALLY so they can provide for their families whilst wifey is on Mat Leave? No, they are not. They're just being paid more because can turn up each work day and not have to leave mid-way through a job to look after a kid.
I know my mother, who's in her mid-70s, would unhesitatingly say that we live in a patriarchal society. Perhaps I've heard this too much in my life, but trust me when I say that I have lived through some VERY backward times that quite frankly, in this day and age, shouldn't occur.
I just don't think men earn more so women can have kids. Men earn more because they don't have to take time off for kids, like women have to, and society has done next to nothing, at least in Australia, to rectify this. Some European countries are ahead here, which is good, but I have felt the oppression well and truly.
But the tables have also turned, because now I am a stay-at-home mother, and my hubby is earning enough to keep everything afloat. And he's cool with me not working at present. But again, the govt isn't helping. My husband is. So society is not helping. My hubby is.
I think you just destroyed your own argument by acknowledging that if you were in the public service - the only employment sector that the government has direct control over - you would have received a generous maternity leave package. There couldn't be any more decisive proof of the absence of 'the patriarchy' - which, I stress again, is a power structure run by men, for the benefit of men. If we truly did live in a patriarchy, the government wouldn't employ women at all (except in the most menial jobs), let alone pay them to stay home to look after their babies.
I faced the exact same situation as you did, when I had children. It was not possible to hire anyone to substitute for me in my practice, so I had to cut back severely on my working hours and as a consequence, my income shrank. I don't blame this on the government, or anyone else. These are the choices that women make, because nature/biology/whatever force it is that runs the universe, put us in the position where we are the only ones who can bear children, and we are the ones who are physically equipped to breastfeed infants and (generally speaking) also best psychologically equipped to provide them with care and nurture.
I would not want to live in a European country which offers generous maternity leave, but at the cost of sky-high taxation and excessive government intrusion into every area of life.
In short, you and I are not 'oppressed' by the patriarchy, or society, or anything else. We just live with the reality that all adults have to face - you can't have everything you want.
I understand what you're saying here, and we don't live in a 'true' patriarchal society, no. But I'm sure plenty of women have 'societal stress disorder' and some would definitely have 'patriarchal stress disorder'! I don't think the author has thought this through as well as we would like, but I think the author is also onto something.
Perhaps the women being targeted here are the baby boomers, because they certainly suffered under men.
But I think many men would jump on the Patriarchy bandwagon if they thought they could get away with it. We may have a society, not a patriarchy, but there's Patriarchy brewing in the ranks alright. The amount of older men who have looked down upon me as just a 'woman', even though I'm way smarter, nicer and talented than them, has grossed me out, quite frankly. And we in society just have to nod and smile, or make a joke out of it, when the underlying thought processes by these men is that women should do women's work and let men get on with the real work, and that a woman can't really do a man's work. I can reverse park better than most people I know and understand technicalities and philosophical ideas very well. I've also done a physical job most of my life - and well. I can even change a lightbulb and I'm helping my hubby build a house! So I find it derogatory when these men, who come from older times, think like this, and like to comment on it. Honestly, I want to deck them sometimes!
Not only that, SO MANY men of varying ages have looked at me as a piece of meat in my life. I understand biology alright, but I think we are masquerading as a Society when in fact the underlying vibe is of a Patriarchy. The major players in this world are MEN, not women. And the women who are higher up work to the men's agenda. They like to (have to?) pretend they have a set to fit in. Our society is SO FAR from equality it's laughable.
So yeah, I still think lots of women are 'oppressed' by society, and the underlying patriarchy. I know I have been.
Is it also reasonable to expect women to have to not just stop climbing the income ladder, but fall down it a bit, and stay down for a long while, all so they can do their biological thing and have (and raise) kids? I think we are still asked to carry too much of the societal burden. Of course, most women just hand over their kids to the govt: get the jabs, take the $, dump them in daycare from an early age, send them to school (& after/before school care), so the Mum can still work. But who RAISES the kids (the next generation in this case)? They are indoctrinated by the institutions they attend (daycare, school etc), so these kids are not their own. They belong to the govt.
Now I don't LIKE our government. They do almost nothing good these days and a lot bad. But if there IS a govt - in any country - I expect them to try to help their people. Losing half your family income when you have kids (and it's just awful how people try to cope when they have a family break-up after having kids!) and only being helped financially if you hand over your kids to the govt so they can indoctrinate them is a really high price to pay.
So as a mother, do you struggle financially and do it yourself, maintaining relative autonomy, or not struggle as much financially and hand them over to the govt, losing autonomy? You and I took the first choice here. But most women take the second choice these days.
If govts really cared about the kids, they'd give them the BEST start:
1. choice of birthplace (eg homebirth, not just medicalised hospital births) for ALL Australians, and not just if you happen to live near the tiny handful of hospitals in Australia that still do outreach programs for homebirths. They could expand these places - but they don't. They restrict them.
2. 1-year F/T followed by 1-yr P/T Maternity leave payments at a minimum. For bigger companies, the companies can foot the bills. Otherwise the govt foots this bill. But the govt didn't even want to give women 16 weeks Mat leave. They reluctantly gave that - years ago - and have not increased it and will not increase it no matter how much lobbying happens!
3. No requirement for vaccination to attend daycare/school/preschool. Yet govts have actively done the No Jab No Pay, then No Jab No Play and it's STUCK.
I could go on and on about this broken govt. There doesn't need to be massive govt intrusion to provide a basic good start to life, with at least few decent options for people. But no, they try to crush every baby before it's even born, make people adhere to their crazy ideologies whilst being intrusive into many areas of your life anyway (you don't want to get on the wrong side of Centrelink or FACS. They make your life a living hell from what I've heard many times over!).
So we still have the govt intrusion like European countries, but we have worse birthing options, worse roads and low-moderate taxes (which they don't use for good, anyway, just evil!).
And I think we are all still oppressed by society, the underlying patriarchy and then some. Perhaps most don't know it, and don't think too deeply about this, but it's there, it's been there for thousands of years, and until we become aware of it and fight it back, it's not going away.
Men are physically bigger and stronger than women. They will become the natural 'leaders' from a physical perspective, but they are also meant to temper this with decency (eg no rapes). You see this in many animal herds. But there are very few human males in the world who, given ultimate power, would not be corrupted absolutely by it.
Would the same happen if a woman was given ultimate power? What's that old joke? Who would know - it's never happened! Although people like Margaret Thatcher and Elizabeth the 1st come to mind, but there were MANY men in their entourages and these women had to appease the men before they could make their decisions. Yet men often just trample on the women around them and make the decisions they want to, anyway.
I think we may have to agree to disagree here. This topic is a very deep one, and encompasses much more than what it at first seems.
I don't think Boomer women are the target at all. Based on the phrasing of the call-out, I read this as squarely aimed at Millennial and Zoomer women, who have grown up in a culture which exalts victimhood rather than triumphing over obstacles as the path to personal growth. Aside from the handful of batshit-crazy feminist academics who infiltrated academic institutions in order to induct students into this cult of victimhood, all the Gen X and Boomer women that I know just got on with their lives.
As we've clearly seen in the last 4 years, asking government to take responsibility for anything is inviting complete tyranny, so I don't want government to come up with any solution to the problem of how women can juggle their career aspirations with their mothering desires. I sure as hell don't want to see taxes raised to pay for parental leave.
As for the question of how women would behave if they were given ultimate power, the answer is - abominably. No human being can be trusted with power to rule over others, as Lord Acton observed: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There's nothing in 'female nature' that would render women immune to this corruption. They might just manifest it in somewhat different ways to men, since female antisocial behaviour manifests more in malicious gossip and reputational destruction than in physical violence. Let's not forget that the pre-Hebrew Semitic cultures were matriarchal, and practised child sacrifice (e.g. see https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/474349). So I don't find any evidence for the contention that societies in which women wield more power than men, are any better for the majority of people who live in them.
A govt that actually takes responsibility for things?! Well, that'd almost be a new thing, wouldn't it?! But seriously, I think govts can do a lot more than what they're doing, ours especially, to help women in their time of need - because let's be honest, most women aren't feeling flash once they hit 8+ months pregnant, and they need quite a few weeks to get into the swing of things once they've got a newborn in tow. Then there are the MANY months needed to bond properly with their baby. Being at work half the time doesn't really cut it at that point.
But govts don't need to tax the population more to give more for Mat Leave - they just need to redirect things in the budget! The money's there. It just needs to be properly directed. Maybe less for Defence and other areas like that. If they DO want to tax more somewhere, they could try taxing the corporate multinationals correctly! Then lo and behold, there's a whole pile of extra $! Magic.
I don't think either of us truly knows what the target audience - if any - was. It may just be ANY women that feel societal/patriarchal stress that the author is after. That's kind of what was stated, so my guess is that it would be age ranges across the board. But yes, I see your point about the younger generation playing victim more easily. Nevertheless, my Boomer Mum has been a blamer all of her life, and I have had to work hard at not being a blamer, growing up in that household! Can't say I always manage it, but I do try not to blame.
That link you put in by Professor Lewis Bayles Paton PhD was interesting. Thanks. However, jars with infant bones less than a week old does not mean the babies weren't stillborn, or didn't die soon after birth, which I'm sure happened back then, just like it still does today. In fact, with more erratic food supply and lack of variety back then, I'd say most women would've lost a minimum of 1-2 children at/before birth within their life, giving plenty of infants for the jars. And none of them would've had to have been murdered. It is insane to think a society could expand when the parents (or people of the Law) deliberately killed the firstborns. There'd be uprisings over that. I know no-one would be taking my firstborn! And I'm pretty sure you'd not let someone take yours, either! We are warrior women!
Anyway, how are we to know those infants in jars weren't stolen from another nearby tribe, or from the lower castes? I'm quite sure most higher class people refused to get rid of their firstborns! It is not sane or conducive to any society to slay one's firstborn.
Yes, I know human sacrifices were a 'thing' for many tribes in the past, but sacrifice generally works better for those involved when it's not THEIR kid that's being slain! So who knows if women in charge would be as haphazard as men in charge. Probably. But in different ways.
Anyway, I think the one thing we'll be able to agree on is that it is HUMANS in general who are the problem here!! :-D
Maybe I'm in a bad mood today or maybe you just pushed too many of my buttons but here are my thoughts on your matter. There is so much whining in your post it is tough to know where to start. But let me get this straight, you are an educated woman, a Dr. running your own practice, married to a man who loves, respects and cares about you AND you get to directly and intimately participate in the propagation of humanity (multiple times) like no man ever could and YOU are oppressed (societal patriarchy). Where are your priorities? You couldn't find anyone to run your practice (the associate who quit was a man wasn't he?) while you are out on PAID maternity leave for 1 to 2 years (times 3 children equal 3 to 6 years not of practice) and you turn that into an argument against men in general and about earned money. And if I understand your comments correctly, you will rather have a government (like the EU) step in and take care of you and your baby rather than subject your husband to doing that...because why should he when a government can force everyone to pay your way??? Government intrusion makes you feel good, doesn't it? Of course, it does as long as it benefits you personally.
"Men earn more because they don't have to take time off for kids, like women have to, and society has done next to nothing, at least in Australia, to rectify this."
You WANT government to control your culture as well as everything else. Well, IMO, that is just making it worse. Another step closer to slavery by government.
Yes, men typically spend more of their lives on the paying job than women who have babies and yes businesses exist to make money not to fund 1 to 2 year sabbaticals because a person is a women and not a man. I guess you don't think a man would want to have 1 to 2 years to get to know the baby and establish the father/child bond. Well, this dad and most dads know that if they don't step up and do what is necessary the mother will seek government help and replace him and any chance for a real connection with his offspring. No this was not my situation at all. Maybe find out where your husband stands on this long term in case you need to act on it (though based on your comments he probably is already aware of the tightrope he walks..
Maybe better planning on your part could have alleviated the whole patriarchy/money thing for you all together and then you wouldn't be on Substack crying and begging for a government to come "help". Just a thought.
Ha ha! Yes, I think you were in a bad mood! But yes, I can also see how you think I was whining.
Hubby & I CHOSE to have kids, true. However, my point was that in Australia, you get 16 weeks paid Mat Leave at miserable rates (far less than I was earning) and then what?
Doing a physical job, I had to take about 2 months off before the end of each pregnancy, and of course there's no earned money then. Just gotta hope you've got savings. Trying to find an Associate in a country town was nigh impossible, and the ones I found did a fairly so-so/crappy job of it anyway. One Associate broke a patient's rib - and didn't tell me (that was the one who left when my baby was 6 days old, and for the record, I couldn't care less whether it was a male (but also for the record, it was) or a female, the main problem was the Associate didn't do the job properly!), one caused me a disc bulge because she jammed my back (she was a shit adjuster) and one wanted to be paid way too much so I lost lots of $ in the process. This is what's it's often like in Country Australia. You do the job yourself because no-one else is going to do the job half as well as yourself, and will demand twice as much as you think they should be paid if they do it! So perhaps 'societal oppression' is more apt here than 'patriarchal oppression'.
I was moreso commenting (whining) about the lack of support when females go off to have babies. Last time I checked there was no other way to grow a population without women having babies.
And I also went back to work THREE MONTHS after I had both my girls. I had to. Financially. Hubby came to work and brought the baby in for feeds, or I shortened my hours sometimes, but that's what you have to do when you have your own business.
Government is not coming to save us - and I know you think it seemed like I wanted Govt to swoop in and save us BUT I don't want government to 'save' me. However, I DO want governments to try to look after their population better. If they're going to tax people, why not use the $ properly, like keeping roads in good order, better education and better Mat Leave?! Instead, they piss it up the wall and tabulate 'misinformation' bills that are heinous. They could use OUR money more wisely, that's for sure.
FYI, I also know women who went back to working as a Chiropractor the same day they had the baby because otherwise their business would've gone under. Think of the problems this may cause in the next generation, with the babies being separated, albeit for only hours at a time, from their mother from a very young age, let alone the stress of the mother trying to juggle so much when she has a newborn.
Perhaps in this 'modern' day and age, a physical job is NOT the best one for a female who wishes to breed. Maybe things WERE right to some degree 100 years ago. Maybe I've suffered all these problems (and trust me, it IS traumatic watching your business go under that you've poured blood,. sweat and tears into for years and years) not because the govt can't manage money properly (ie not enough left over in the budget for Mat Leave), but because there's too much lip-service and not enough practical change. No-one CARES to increase Mat Leave, yet it's a very important part of our life. Babies NEED us home to begin with and we NEED to bond with them. Sure, the baby can have the father, too, but Daddy doesn't FEED the babies from the breast - and expressed milk is not how Nature intended it.
My husband is awesome. He has been super helpful. I would NEVER choose the govt over him. Never!! I would walk over burning coals for him. He's been more 'there' for me than any person in my life. And he's a wonderful father who spends lot of time with the kids! So no, he does not walk a tightrope. And yes, he tells me when I'm bugging him! And yes, I listen.
My point is that societal oppression (or even patriarchal oppression) is a very real thing. And it doesn't matter how 'smart' you are, or how much planning you do, if you don't have enough MONEY, you cannot have many kids, if any, if you're a female, and expect to keep living the lifestyle you are accustomed to. You have to work super hard to save up heaps so you can support yourself whilst off on Mat Leave if you're the breadwinner who's female (and even then, with good planning, you'd still probably only manage to have the 1 kid) or if your hubby, however, is the breadwinner, it's not such a big problem. But if your mortgage requires good incomes from both parents, how is anyone financially meant to cope without selling up and moving to the country - and hoping you've got a job you can still do out there?! And then there's the childcare and/or grandparents, and given our grandparents aren't around us, and we didn't vaccinate our kids, each child got less and less daycare and more and more Mummy/Daddy/Family time. Of course this meant we both worked P/T and were earning far less than we were capable of. We took a massive financial hit so we could have our kids and raise them ourselves, and yes, we even moved to the country to keep it all afloat. We are two well-credentialled professionals who give a shit and right now we are building a house together on my 'sabbatical'. It NEVER stops. We, like most parents these days, are constantly busy. It's go go go but you know what? At the end of the day we can look back and say "Wow! Look at what we accomplished together!" because WE did it - not our parents, not the govt. US. So yeah, I'm having a whinge now, but we've worked bloody hard to get to this stage, and I KNOW most people wouldn't have done what we have done in life, because they're not tough or sensible enough nor self-believing enough to make it happen.
I would just like a govt to actually HELP their constituents in practical ways - and if they're not, get rid of them!!! So by my reasoning, most govts should therefore cease to exist. I can't see how we'd be worse off!
OK, rant over.
I appreciate Robyn S's take on it, but my first reaction was, 'Oh God,' what next! I never got into the whole feminist movement, even though I'm 72 and was basically ripe for being 'in the thick of it.' Let's face it. Pretty much ALL WOMEN live in a patriarchal society. I've just stood up for myself and called bullshit when necessary and gotten on with life.
I'm really not at all convinced that we currently live in a patriarchal society, if what is meant by that is that men dominate society for the benefit of men. Not only are the vast majority of men disadvantaged by the current power arrangements, but women have been granted many advantages that men don't have. For example, women are free to enter professions and occupations that were traditionally male-dominated, but they overwhelmingly choose NOT to do dangerous and dirty occupations. They are also exempt from conscription from military service (except in Ukraine!!!). I have never in my life felt 'oppressed by the patriarchy'. I think this is a sad, sick cult of victimhood that has been sold to women as 'feminism'.
I do agree with you that these days it does feel like men are oppressed by the whole 'woke' culture. I had to break some ground in the 70s and 80s, being the 'first woman' in a number of jobs in the outdoor industry. And there was plenty of subtle prejudice against a woman in some of the more male traditional roles. (bush pilot, hunting guide, carpenter, wilderness guide, etc.) Truly, I wouldn't care to be a white male today. But where the patriarchy still feels entrenched is in the higher level of politics. Anyway, I would have nothing to contribute to that little writing project.
I don't doubt for a moment that sexism exists, and that it was way worse in the 70s. But sexism is NOT 'the patriarchy'. It's just stereotyped beliefs about what men can and can't do well, and what women can and can't do well. I have observed that about as many women hold terribly sexist beliefs about men, as men who hold sexist beliefs about women. Once women demonstrated their competence in formerly male-dominated occupations, by showing they could be just as good at being a pilot, or a doctor, or a lawyer as men, these occupations opened up to them. If 'the patriarchy' was a real thing, that wouldn't have happened.
As for politics, those who reach the highest levels of politics are statistically more likely to be psychopaths, and male psychopaths outnumber female psychopaths by about 3 to 1. I think this is a more likely explanation for the greater number of males in positions of power than female, than 'the patriarchy'.
Okay; I'm with you now. Definition of patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. WE DON'T HAVE THAT.
Ah, clever dick.