You are part of it.

I've been trying to tell women what it means for decades, but they just clutch their Bibles, and wait for a man to open the door.

EDIT:

I have never believed all Feminists hates men. And in my journey through life I have made it a point to point that out to people who were under that assumption.

It's those who distort feminism for their own purposes, like they distort homosexuality for their own purposes that would like both groups to believe it.

I happen to be in both groups, and it is infuriating to see outside people play off of each other.

This is very interesting and educational! Appreciate it!

Out of curiosity, where does wealth fit into all of this?

those with more money have more privileges. It is most definitely part of the kyriarchy.

that "Kyriarchy" replaces Patriarchy?

I agree with the definition (as I understand it) and think most if not all of what ails us is rooted in class issues, but welcome correction if I am misunderstanding.

although I'm sure others see it differently, the way I see it is that the patriarchy is a part of the kyriarchy, but only one part. The domination by racial groups, religious groups, etc. are separate, although the forces do seem to pretty much combine at times.

Look at our President. Here's a high-status man. Well educated, affluent, powerful. But due to the color of his skin, he is treated differently.

His wealth can no more eliminate the unfair way he is treated due to his skin color than the wealthiest or most powerful woman's status or skin color can make up for he fact that she is female. Just as no poor white redneck's skin color will make up for the fact that he is poor, when he is being discriminated against on the basis of his lack of wealth.

The different ways people are oppressed, mocked, insulted, dismissed, etc. due to whatever facets of their individuality are ways that are intertwined but still distinct... the separate but intersecting heirarchies involved are reinforced by the efforts of those who participate in whatever particular form of oppression/domination is at play at any given time or in whatever context.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it. Light bulb just went off.

it's one of my favorite topics after all.

I hope we all share that all over the internet today to demonstrate to others who just don't get it what we are talking about and to remind those who do.

I've already sent to to my e mail list and will post to facebook and twitter as well...

Hope you all spread it as well

Anyone who questions whether this ridiculous birth control flap is an assault on women and their rights only needs to take a look at this photograph. How DARE anyone claim this isn't misogyny in action.

5 men. Meh. Progress...not much.

And only 3 women in those two front rows. So it's 12 men and 3 women.

Which begs the question: Why in the hell are people so afraid to let women speak?

They don't want to hear what women have to say. It is sad really, we seem to be walking backwards. And did any of those 3 women get to speak in front of the panel? That picture tells me that the men are in control over a woman's body...there is no doubt. They want control over a person's body and choice and women are an easy target to pick on imo.

One more reason I cannot stand Congress, just another Good O' Boys club.

and Colbert receive this photo and broadcast it nationwide. Maybe then people would start to wake up to the GOP war on women.

Thank you for posting it. I hardly ever go to the front page so I hadn't seen it on DU.

And very informative for people who may not be familiar with these concepts.

I had never heard the term Kyriarchy before, though I'm far enough down the ladder that I've certainly felt the unfairness of living in one. I appreciate the definition.

scatterplot, where people cluster in different places along a bunch of axes, and all the clusters have complex relations to each other.



The problem I always feel with terms like these however, is the tendency to apply them to specific individuals rather than general conditions. This article even does it ("A Patriarch is a man...&quot and I feel like that weakens and muddies the argument - the power dimensions are rarely so clear cut, every specific example has a counter, and every individual can find a way to excuse himself from the continuum. But as a description of the system, the concept has power - it's about the tide, not the water molecule...

nor is its effect on power complex. I think there is one dominant class/cohort in terms of priviledge, and everyone else does not enjoy priviledge.

To my way of thinking, in our society, straight-white-christian-males hold the priviledge. No one else has it.

To me, it does not make sense to say that a straight African American Christian woman has straight priviledge, for instance. Women of color are among the most discriminated against cohorts in the world. It does not make sense to me to say that a gay white christian male has male priviledge, or white priviledge. The discrimination that gay males endure is also pretty severe.

If you are not a straight-white-christian-male, you do not have priviledge. There are differences in terms of how much oppression you experience and how severe your particular cohort affects your ability to succeed occupationally/economically, but I wouldn't call that "a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression." It's really pretty simple. You are a straight-white-christian-male, or you aren't.

I say this as a straight male raised Jewish with both African American and Latino ancestry. You can see what I look like from my photo. I'm ethnic looking. I can't hide it. It has been clear at times throughout my life that various groups of 'straight-white-christian-males' have considered me 'the other'. Some of those situations I laughed off, some werent so funny. I found it hard to be amused when a kid in my neighborhood when I was growing up asked my girlfriend "why are you dating that black guy?". I also recognize that my position hasn't been nearly as bad as that of for instance, women of color or a member of the LGBT community, but I am also clearly not in 'the club'.

launching nations into wars and wafting floods of money back and forth; there are day-to-day expressions of 'power' that add up to significant impacts on individual lives. You said: "I also recognize that my position hasn't been nearly as bad as that of for instance, women of color or a member of the LGBT community" - doesn't that recognize that there's a continuum (on many dimensions) rather than a bare in/out of the club?

For what is presented as Kyriarchy to be accurate, the various non-straight-white-christian-male groups would have to in turn be discriminating against other groups and having mini-power and priviledge schemes among themselves. We really dont see that. Most people who belong to discriminated against groups are less likely to be discriminatory themselves. When an issue does erupt, like there apparently was with the prop one vote in California where the statistics seemed to suggest African Americans were voting against gay rights, there is/was a pretty public outcry. Those situations are unusual.

I think everyone measures their level of equality and opportunity against that of straight-christian-white-males, not versus other, what I would call, non-priviledged groups.

"I think everyone measures their level of equality and opportunity against that of straight-christian-white-males". I don't think that's the case. I think everyone measures their level of equality and opportunity against everyone else.

I am a straight-atheist-white-female, if I'm to choose a "cohort". I've been discriminated against because of my lack of religion and because I'm female (and in the past because I was poor). I DO have more opportunities and privileges than a straight-atheist-african american-female or a gay-atheist-white-female, and on and on. If I were to change just one thing about my cohort, there is VAST differences in the way I'm treated vs others that fall into that other cohort, opening up privileges and opportunities for me that others do not have.

If you add "poor" to any of these cohorts, it's then different yet again. A straight-atheist-white-middle class-female has A LOT more privilege and opportunity than a straight-atheist-white-poor-female. And I'm pretty sure that the straight-atheist-white-poor-female measures that level of opportunity against the straight-atheist-white-middle class-female AS WELL as the straight-christian-white-male.

As far as the AA voting against gay rights, that was not isolated to California. It was proven again in Florida where a large population (>70%) of AA voted for Obama while, in the same election, the same number voted to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" in our state constitution. I'm pretty sure that the homosexuals in the state were not looking at straight-white-Christian-males as their chief enemy at that point.

"a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression."

The only potential example we've been able to come up with of this is the dynamic between the African American community and the LGBT community in certain circumstances.

You note, correctly I think, that various groups are farther away from the priviledged cohort than others, but that does not satisfy the definition IMHO.

I dont think the preponderance of any other group outside of the straight, white, christian, males has dynamics with each other that involve ruling and oppression.

This is especially true amongst the first generation for some groups like immigrants from some Islamic countries. In my home area, Hmong are very Patriarchal. I can't think of any American minority group that is very gender egalitarian really.

I work in a supervisory position. I am a working stiff making about $21,000 a year.

The only "leadership" position is in my job. We have female supervisors as well, so this is not a gender exclusive position, but due to my abilities and seniority, I am considered the lead supervisor.

I don't attempt to control any aspect of people's lives outside of giving them directions to fulfill their job.

Serious question: Am I, as at least one person in my life suggested, still part of the patriarchy because I have a penis and tell people what to do for a living?

Mostly just a lurker, but this is an excellent topic, thanks for posting. (On my way out the door right now, but will come back & read all the replies later)

"The patriarchy is the enemy, but this is not the same thing as saying that men are the enemy."
I think that this is one of the things that is so misunderstood. I was thinking about some of the other threads that accuse some feminists of extremism and hating men. Although I don't completely agree with Dworkin and some others called "extreme man haters", I think that it is important that they criticized Patriarchy to the extent that they did just as I think that it is important that Marx and other Marxists have criticized Capitalism to the extent that they did even though I don't completely agree with them. When Kyriarchy has been held sacred for so long, practical, polite solutions are either ignored or seen as the most that we ever want to achieve. The problem is that men seem to get offended when Patriarchy just as some business owners seem to get offended when Capitalism is criticized.
As a Christian, I used to be offended when atheists criticizing religion. I have come to realize that, for the most part, what they are attacking is the privleged role of organized religion, especially Christianity, in U.S. society and government rather than what any individual may believe. I suppose that is part of Kyriarchy too.

"Not all men are Patriarchs. A Patriarch is a man who has special power and influence over not just his family but also in society, due to privileges gathered through intersections of age, wealth, achievement, lineage, patronage and the exploitation of others as these attributes add to his place in the elite social hierarchy. "

In other words, a patriarch is what Marx called the bourgoise . . . This power relationship is much more easily seen and explained as Marx did, as class struggle. By framing this issue in gender terms for the last three decades instead of class, people without power, i.e., money are confused with the examples of wealthy women like Paris Hilton held up as victims of partiarchy, when in fact they are among its biggest beneficiaries.

love learning things.