Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Men's Group
In reply to the discussion: 6 Sexist Things Women Say [View all]lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)25. This is interesting stuff. It has the ring of truth.
I hadn't heard this term before, and reading about it is very thought provoking. It is certainly better thought out and articulated than the concept of intersectionality.
Let me break this down for you. When people talk about patriarchy and then it divulges into a complex conversation about the shifting circles of privilege, power, and domination -- they're talking about kyriarchy. When you talk about power assertion of a White woman over a Brown man, that's kyriarchy. When you talk about a Black man dominating a Brown womyn, that's kyriarchy. It's about the human tendency for everyone trying to take the role of lord/master within a pyramid. At it best heights, studying kyriarchy displays that it's more than just rich, white Christian men at the tip top and, personally, they're not the ones I find most dangerous. There's a helluva lot more people a few levels down the pyramid who are more interested in keeping their place in the structure than to turning the pyramid upside down.
Who's at the bottom of the pyramid? Who do you think are at the bottom of the pyramid who are less likely to scheme and spend extravagant resources to further perpetuate oppression? I think of poor children with no roads out of hell, the mentally ill who are never "credible," un-gendered or non-gender identified people, farm workers, modern day slaves...But, the pyramid stratifies itself from top to bottom. And before you start making a checklist of who is at the top and bottom - here's my advice: don't bother. The pyramid shifts with context. The point is not to rank. The point is to learn.
It's about recognizing the power-over relationships that exist because of property, religion, security, economics, citizenship, and geography. Let's not pretend that just because there are not many propertied males mucking around the fem blogosphere, there aren't queen bees and wanna bees exercising the same kind of behavior. So when we talk about woman asserting power over other womyn, we're talking kyriarchy. When you witness woman trying to dominate, define, outline the "movement" or even what an ally should be - that's the kyriarchal ethos strong at work.
Who's at the bottom of the pyramid? Who do you think are at the bottom of the pyramid who are less likely to scheme and spend extravagant resources to further perpetuate oppression? I think of poor children with no roads out of hell, the mentally ill who are never "credible," un-gendered or non-gender identified people, farm workers, modern day slaves...But, the pyramid stratifies itself from top to bottom. And before you start making a checklist of who is at the top and bottom - here's my advice: don't bother. The pyramid shifts with context. The point is not to rank. The point is to learn.
It's about recognizing the power-over relationships that exist because of property, religion, security, economics, citizenship, and geography. Let's not pretend that just because there are not many propertied males mucking around the fem blogosphere, there aren't queen bees and wanna bees exercising the same kind of behavior. So when we talk about woman asserting power over other womyn, we're talking kyriarchy. When you witness woman trying to dominate, define, outline the "movement" or even what an ally should be - that's the kyriarchal ethos strong at work.
http://myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
27 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/726f9/726f9d2d1a621cd2ca5064510c33faeb32aa157f" alt=""
I can mostly agree with that. And while I may deplore the existence of a shallow, mindless culture
nomorenomore08
Oct 2013
#6
"Disproportionate share of harm"? Maybe not overall, but a great many men are being harmed greatly.
nomorenomore08
Oct 2013
#11
Do you think that men should be equally represented on college campuses?
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2013
#13
Do I? I suppose so, in theory. But why is that one particular number/statistic so important?
nomorenomore08
Oct 2013
#14
As I said, all the issues you've raised are real and legitimate, I just don't think they're
nomorenomore08
Oct 2013
#18
I'm not suggesting that those things represent misandry. I am suggesting that they represent bias.
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2013
#19
It is difficult to quantify, I admit. All I can tell you is that I don't feel disadvantaged, at all,
nomorenomore08
Oct 2013
#17
I agree that that kind of dickishness is unbecoming either way. Anyone who says things like that
nomorenomore08
Oct 2013
#8