Patriarchy is a system in which men have all or most of the power and
importance in a society or group. The main cause of women's and children's
oppression is patriarchy. 2. countable noun. A patriarchy is a patriarchal
society.
The concept of Patriarchy itself is not a contribution of feminist
theories. Many social scientists in the nineteenth century wrote about it
as a more civilized or complex form of organization compared to the
primitive matriarchies. Engels referred to it as the earliest system of
domination establishing that Patriarchy is “the world historical defeat of
the female sex.” In this sense, it is said that Patriarchy was a form of
political organization that distributed power unequally between men and
women to the detriment of women. The Royal Academy of the Spanish Language
Dictionary defines Patriarchy as “A primitive social organization in which
authority is exercised by a male head of the family, extending this power
even to distant relatives of the same lineage.”
Feminist theories updated and expanded the understanding of Patriarchy
in the second half of the twentieth century. In fact, the social sciences
had left it behind precisely because it was considered only to apply to and
characterize ancient civilizations. But for many feminists, Patriarchy is
much more than civilizations that existed in the ancient past and goes
beyond “the unequal distribution of power between men and women in certain
aspects of our societies”, as many dictionaries still define it. On the
contrary, most forms of feminism characterize Patriarchy as a present day
unjust social system that subordinates, discriminates or is oppressive to
women.
Feminist theory typically characterizes Patriarchy as a social
construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing
its manifestations and institutions. Fixating on real and perceived
biological differences between the two recognized sexes5, men justify their
domination on the basis of an alleged biological inferiority of women.
Both feminist and non feminist thinkers recognize that Patriarchy has its
historical origins in the family, the leadership (legal and practical) of
which is exercised There is now evidence that the matriarchies these
scientists were talking about were not “matriarchies” in the strict sense
of the word but matrilineal or matrifocal forms of social organization.
While recognizing that there is considerable variation in the role that
gender plays in human societies, there are no known human examples of
strictly matriarchal cultures. There are a number of societies that have
been shown to be matrilineal, matrifocal, matrilocal or gynocentric,
especially among indigenous tribal groups.
Through this institution, men as a social category, individually and
collectively oppress all women as a social category, but also oppress women
individually in different ways, appropriating women’s reproductive and
productive force and controlling their bodies, minds, sexuality and
spirituality mainly through "peaceful" means such as the law and religion.
However, often these peaceful means are reinforced through the use of
physical, sexual, and/or psychological violence. Combining all of these
elements of Patriarchy, I define it as: "Patriarchy is a form of mental,
social, spiritual, economic and political organization/structuring of
society produced by the gradual institutionalization of sex-based political
relations created, maintained and reinforced by different institutions
linked closely together to achieve consensus on the lesser value of women
and their roles. These institutions interconnect not only with each other
to strengthen the structures of domination of men over women, but also with
other systems of exclusion, oppression and/or domination based on real or
perceived differences between humans, creating States that respond only to
the needs and interests of a few powerful men." By "gradual
institutionalization" I refer to a historical process that proves
Patriarchy is not natural, has not always existed, and is not identical in
all cultures and in all generations. This, in turn, means that although men
have power over women in all institutions considered important in each
society, it does not mean that women do not have any power or rights,
influence or resources, nor does it mean that all women have or exert the
same power. Moreover, as Patriarchy becomes more sophisticated, more women
of specific groups are allowed access to certain institutions, although
they are almost never the most powerful people within those institutions..
By "consensus", I also make reference to an ideology and its expression in
language that explicitly devalues women, assigning them, their roles, their
work, their products and their social environment less worth and/or power
than that assigned to men. By "patriarchal institutions", I refer to the
set of mechanisms, practices, beliefs, myths and relationships organizing
relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to the
distribution of resources, the reproduction of individuals, and the type of
societal structures within a given Patriarchy. These institutions are
closely linked with one another, creating, maintaining and transmitting
inequality from generation to generation.
Some aspects, elements or characteristics of modern Patriarchy are the
following:
1. Patriarchy had a beginning and therefore can have an end. Even if we
still do not know how exactly it came into being we do know it came about
after millenniums of different more egalitarian human organizing. The
earliest forms of Patriarchy only began at the most 6 millenniums ago.
2. We also know that there are different models of Patriarchy at different
times and in different cultures and places but the lower value given to
women and their roles as compared to men and their roles remains constant
in all models. In other words, Patriarchy co-exists with very different
forms of government and socio religious political organizing such as
empires, kingdoms, theocracies, republics, democracies, etc. and can
co-exist very well with capitalism, socialism, etc. However, due to the
globalization of neoliberal capitalism, almost all existing Patriarchies
today can be categorized as capitalist Patriarchies.
3. In all known Patriarchy negative meanings are attributed to women and
their activities through symbols and myths (not always explicitly
expressed). These symbols and myths are different in different cultures but
within each culture they attribute negative meanings to women or the
feminine.
4. Patriarchy is made up of structures or institutions that exclude women
from participation in, or contact with, spaces of higher power, or what are
believed to be the spaces of greatest power economically, politically,
culturally and religiously.
5. Despite the above, women are not treated identically in Patriarchy, nor
are all women excluded in the same way from spaces of power. In fact this
different treatment is a mechanism by which the lack of solidarity and
competitiveness among women is promoted. This lack of solidarity and
competitiveness among women sometimes escalate to outright contempt for
each other, thus ensuring their loyalty to men and male values.
6. Patriarchy is produced by and at the same time promotes, a mindset based
on dichotomous, hierarchical and sexualized thinking. This mindset divides
reality into two dichotomous categories placing all of perceived reality
either into things and acts associated with nature or things and acts
produced by culture. Furthermore, everything placed within the category
“culture” is overvalued while everything associated with nature is
undervalued. By situating men and the masculine under the higher category
of culture, and woman and the feminine under the less valued category of
nature, “man” and masculinity become the parameter, model or paradigm of
humanity, while the subordination of women is justified based on their
alleged inferior "natural roles".
7. In Patriarchy, gender roles and stereotypes may be different in each
social class, age and culture but through the mechanisms, structures and
institutions mentioned previously, it makes these roles and stereotypes
seem natural and universal.
8. In any given Patriarchy all men will not enjoy the same privileges or
have the same power. Indeed, the experience of domination of men over women
historically served for some men to extend that domination over other
groups of men, installing a hierarchy among men that is more or less the
same in every culture or region today. The male at the top of the
patriarchal hierarchy has great economic power; is an adult and almost
always ablebodied; possesses a well-defined, masculine gender identity and
a welldefined heterosexual identity, adding a few more features by region.
For example, in Latin America, for a man to be at the top of the
patriarchal hierarchy, that man has to be white and Christian, in addition
to the other characteristics shared with Patriarchy’s counterparts across
regions.
9. Across Patriarchy’s different models, women are exposed to different
degrees and types of violence, some common to all and others specific to
each cultural, religious or economic model adopted by the Patriarchy.
10. Patriarchy was the first structure of domination, subordination and
exclusion which is recognized as such by History with a capital H
(recognized patriarchal history) and still remains a basic system of
domination. Ironically, while being the most powerful and enduring system
of inequality, it is hardly ever perceived as such even by women
themselves. In fact, precisely because the invisibilization of Patriarchy
is one of its institutions, even some feminists deny its existence.
Now FM says,” patriarchy is an excuse that women use to cover
up their inefficiency, lack of readiness, and inability to be logical. This
was her response when she was asked to advise young Indian women on how
they can go forth and live their dreams in an authentic way.” IS THAT OF
THE FM IS ASINGLE STORY?
Freeedom of women from the vedic period:
According to me atleast 10000 years history; according to
west 3200 years.
BG9.32 मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य येऽपि स्यु: पापयोनय: |
स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति परां गतिम् || 32||
māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśhritya ye ’pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ
striyo vaiśhyās tathā śhūdrās te ’pi yānti parāṁ gatim
O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower
birth-women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]-can approach
the supreme destination.
BG 18.41 ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप |
कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणै: || 41||
brāhmaṇa-kṣhatriya-viśhāṁ śhūdrāṇāṁ cha parantapa
karmāṇi pravibhaktāni svabhāva-prabhavair guṇaiḥ
The duties of the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras—are
distributed according to their qualities, in accordance with their guṇas
BG 18.44 कृषिगौरक्ष्यवाणिज्यं वैश्यकर्म स्वभावजम् |
परिचर्यात्मकं कर्म शूद्रस्यापि स्वभावजम् || 44||
kṛiṣhi-gau-rakṣhya-vāṇijyaṁ vaiśhya-karma svabhāva-jam
paricharyātmakaṁ karma śhūdrasyāpi svabhāva-jam
Agriculture, dairy farming, and commerce are the natural works for those
with the qualities of Vaishyas. Serving through work is the natural duty
for those with the qualities of Shudras.
While Agriculture, dairy farming and Commerece is assigned to Vaish, *serving
other Varna* is assigned to Shudra.
Chapter 9: The Most Confidential Knowledge TEXT 32
mam hi partha vyapasritya ye 'pi syuh papa-yonayah
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras te 'pi yanti param gatim
O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower
birth-women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]-can approach
the supreme destination.
It is clearly declared here by the Supreme Lord that in devotional service
there is no distinction between the lower or higher classes of people. In
the material conception of life, there are such divisions, but for a person
engaged in transcendental devotional service to the Lord, there are not.
Everyone is eligible for the supreme destination. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam
it is stated that even the lowest, who are called candalas (dog-eaters),
can be elevated by association with a pure devotee. Therefore, devotional
service and guidance of a pure devotee are so strong that there is no
discrimination between the lower and higher classes of men; anyone can take
to it. The simplest man taking center of the pure devotee can be purified
by proper guidance. According to the different modes of material nature,
men are classified in the mode of goodness (brahmanas), the mode of passion
(ksatriyas, or administrators), the mixed modes of passion and ignorance
(vaisyas, or merchants), and the mode of ignorance (sudras, or workers).
Those lower than them are called candalas, and they are born in sinful
families. Generally, those who are born in sinful families are not accepted
by the higher classes. But the process of devotional service and the pure
devotee of the Supreme God are so strong that all the lower classes can
attain the highest perfection of life.
The Rig-Veda, the oldest Vedas, is filled with hymns on natural
events. Women’s Status is portrayed in Rigveda with tremendous reverence.
Usha (the goddess of Dawn) and Aditi, the mother of many Gods such as
Mitra, Varun, Rudra, and Aryaman, are depicted in the Rig-Veda. The goddess
Usha brings in the new day by dispelling the darkness and reawakening the
mortals. Rati, the Night, is Usha’s sister, and it is because of her
all-creatures rest after a day’s work, i.e. Usha and Rati are daughters of
Heaven. Goddesses such as Saraswati, Laxmi, and Mahashakti are given equal
honour and prominence. Women had religious liberty that allowed them to
conduct the rituals. She was entrusted with a significant role in the
sacrifice. In Brahmavidya, the ultimate knowledge, we see Gargi and
Maitreyi standing out.
In a sacrifice, Visvavara takes the place of a Rtvik. The wife had
full rights in the religious sphere and routinely joined her husband in
religious rituals. The husband and wife performed religious ceremonies and
sacrifices together. Women were even active participants in religious
debates. T he family was an important institution in the Rig-Vedic era.
Duhitri was the name given to the family’s daughter. Although society
appears to value the male child, allusions in Rigveda suggest that female
children were equally valued. In Vedic times, a parent did not want to
differentiate between his son and daughter. He treated them all the same.
Women were provided with excellent education to live their social
and personal lives to the fullest. Marriage was viewed as a sacred task in
the Vedic era. Daughters were allowed to choose their husbands in this
manner. On the other hand, unmarried daughters might stay at their father’s
houses. Because the girls were grown at the time of their marriage, there
is no record of child marriage in the Rigvedic period. One of the primary
responsibilities of women was to bear and raise children. In most
households, the mother was the mistress of the house. The women were to be
adequately cared for, with all feasible amenities given according to the
husband’s wealth. God would not accept the offering of a man who abuses his
wife. Thus, the wives were not to be used or mistreated. In ancient India,
women were regarded as ideal housewives. They can effortlessly handle even
the most difficult situations due to their exceptional mental tranquilly. T
he woman is the most important member of society. The Sabha and Vidatha
were the public meetings to which women came and spoke freely.
A newly married girl was privileged to be a member of the
Vidatha when she was sent to her husband’s household. Women were used as
messenger forms at the time. In those days, women received the same
military training as males. Vispala and Mudgalani were seen on their way to
the battlegrounds. That was possible because of the military education they
received earlier in life. The Rig Vedic women went to the battleground to
assist their men in political matters. To illustrate, Vispala lost one leg
in the fight and was cured by the Asvins with the addition of an iron leg.
Some sacrifices, such as Rajasuya, Vajapeya, Asvamedha, Purusamedha, and
Sarvamedha, are linked to social and political life. God Savita plays a
significant role in the Asvamedha sacrifice. The evidence suggests that
women’s political responsibilities were introduced and persisted in full
force during Rig Vedic times. Women were given high-ranking positions. It
is said that mature girls used to attend numerous festivals and public
gatherings to meet with potential husbands, and their mothers would also
let them do so. One of the essential responsibilities of Vedic women was to
nurse and tame their offspring. According to a Rig Vedic hymn, women should
make sacrifices, weave garments, irrigate plants, and fulfil the wants of
their family members. The Vedic women were economically independent. Some
of the ladies worked as teachers. Clothing spinning and weaving were done
at home. The place of manufacturing was at home. Women also assisted their
husbands in their agricultural endeavours. Personal property, such as
jewellery and clothing, was allowed for the women. When a lady dies, her
property is passed down to her daughters. Sometimes, if her husband died
without a son, the widow inherited his property. {IF SO, WHY IN TODAY’S
PAPER SC JUDGE CONVASSED THE IDEA THAT WIDOWS AND MOTHERS ARE LEFT OUT
UNDER THE HINDU LAW? WHERE IT IS SAID SO?}
The provision for Stridhana was quite restricted, extending only
to the wife’s rights to jewels, decorations, and gifts given to her at the
time of her marriage. Daughters who were not married had a share of their
father’s property. Without a boy, the daughter held exclusive legal rights
to her father’s possessions. Mother’s estate was split evenly among her
sons and unmarried daughters following her death. In The Rig Vedic period,
Women in India enjoyed high Status in society. T heir social condition was
good. In those days, women were allowed to attain high intellectual and
spiritual standards. As we know, there were many women Rishis during this
period. Women have had equal positions and been described as more than the
better half in the Rig Vedic period. Such women’s character and intellect
were glorified in the past, and old customs were revered. They were fully
equal to men regarding access to and capacity for the ultimate knowledge of
the Absolute. Women were regarded as mother goddesses (Shakti) in the Rig
Vedic Period So they held a respectable place in society.
Then where was that Patriarchy came about? Iot was there always
and it was also not there. AS A MATTER OF FACT, MORTE THAN MEN, WOMEN WANT
TO MARRY WHY? WOMEN IS ACEATION ENDOWED WITH A LOT OF WEALTH OPEN APART
FROM THE HIDDEN INTELLIGENCE AND SOME BIT OF BRAVERY. SO, THEY IN NATURE
(AS YOU OBSERVE NATURE ALL THAT BLOOMS NEED PROTECTION) WANTS TO BE LOVED,
CHERISHED AND PROTECTED AND LOVED. SHE NEEDS ONLY A MAN AND NOT BEATER; YET
MANY ADJUST LIVE SHOWING THEIR GRIT. When she is pregnant, she must
postpone; she can study at anytime; but cannot bear children as she plans
which modern girls are doing and failing miserably. FM is in saree and not
in west outfit because she likes to be a woman only. Nature is such and
system of the body is such. Men are not men and that alone is to be ashamed
of. Equality will never be there and it is subjective. Men will be boss in
some places and women in some others. Because she is awoman can she claim
equality qith the noss in office? So FM talk is aTED talk peppy but evil
and good are together and we have to walk along.
K Rajaram IRS 121124
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rangarajan T.N.C. <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 at 07:15
Subject: Fw: “The Danger of a Single Story"
To:
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/manisha-gupta-3537812?miniProfileUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_profile%3AACoAAAB4RK8BMc0XPTvUi07C9tRDaXdslaQLJGU>
Manisha GuptaManisha Gupta Founder and CEO Start Up!Founder and CEO Start
Up!
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/manisha-gupta-3537812?miniProfileUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_profile%3AACoAAAB4RK8BMc0XPTvUi07C9tRDaXdslaQLJGU>
The Union Corporate Affairs Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, has told college
students that patriarchy is an excuse that women use to cover up their
inefficiency, lack of readiness, and inability to be logical. This was her
response when she was asked to advise young Indian women on how they can go
forth and live their dreams in an authentic way.
Citing the example of ISRO, the minister said that no force can or has
stopped women from joining ISRO (20% of ISRO's scientists are women).
Mrs. Sitharaman went on to say that families across India have historically
provided unparalleled comfort, support, and safety to women who deliver
care work at home. This is why women in India are happier than the desolate
women of the West.
The Minister also believes that patriarchy is a fantastic leftist concept,
and it's about time the country challenged such narratives with bold,
substantive counter-narratives.
Does this mean we can now inform Indian women that the country's low female
workforce participation rate is due to their inefficiency and incapability?
Should I tell my mother that her inability to complete her law degree when
she got pregnant was her fault? That she was disallowed by her in-laws to
step out of her home and give her law exam because they loved her dearly
and prevented her from getting a degree for her own good. Or perhaps my
young mother could not argue her case logically with her powerful
father-in-law - in which case, there was no point in her being a lawyer in
the first place.
Can we also point to the laziness of lakhs of micro-women entrepreneurs as
a factor that blocks their mobility to do business beyond their village?
The Minister ended the interview by saying that people roll their eyes at
any talk of patriarchy and say, "Chal, let them talk nonsense while I get
on with my work." In that vein, we can roll our eyes too and say, "Another
minister just ran down the women of this country - never mind, let us get
back to my business."
But sometimes, you have to pause. Because the thing with narrative building
is the danger of a simple, single-story (reference: Chimamanda Ngozi).
A simple, single-story by a person in power has, in a moment, stripped 50%
of the country's citizens (women) of their dignity and absolved the
accountability of the other 50% - who are falling short of building
gender-responsive ecosystems in education and work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: “The Danger of a Single Story"
By Nirmeen Shumpert
4–5 minutes
------------------------------
| Academic Summary
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's "The Danger of a Single Story" Ted Talk, in July
2009, explores the negative influences that a “single story” can have and
identifies the root of these stories. Adichie argues that single stories
often originate from simple misunderstandings or one’s lack of knowledge of
others, but that these stories can also have a malicious intent to suppress
other groups of people due to prejudice (Adichie). People, especially in
their childhood, are “impressionable and vulnerable” when it comes to
single stories (Adichie 01:43). Adichie asserts that media and literature
available to the public often only tell one story, which causes people to
generalize and make assumptions about groups of people.
Adichie shares two primary examples to discuss why generalizations are
made. Reflecting on her everyday life, she recalls a time where her college
roommate had a “default position” of “well-meaning pity” towards her due
to the misconception that everyone from Africa comes from a poor,
struggling background (04:49). Adichie also clearly faults herself for also
being influenced by the “single story” epidemic, showing that she made the
same mistake as many others. Due to the strong media coverage on Mexican
immigration she “had bought into the single story”, automatically
associating all Mexicans with immigration (Adichie 08:53). These anecdotes
emphasize how stereotypes are formed due to incomplete information, but one
story should not define a group of people.
Adichie also tackles the effect of political and cultural power on
stories. Power not only spreads a story, but also makes its ideas persist.
Adichie states that power can be used for malintent, through controlling
“how [stories] are told, who tells them, when they're told, [and] how many
stories are told” (09:25). Using power to manipulate our understanding of
others can be evidenced by Adichie’s trip to Mexico, where she realized
Mexicans were not the harmful Americans Western media had portrayed them to
be. Additionally, influential western stories have caused people like
Adichie to have a limited idea of characters that appear in literature,
since foreigners were not part of them. This is why the first stories
Adichie had written included white characters playing in the snow rather
than things reflective of her life in Africa (Adichie 00:39). Adichie
explains how she became enlightened through “the discovery of African
writers”, which “saved [her] from having a single story of what books are”
and becoming another victim of a biased sample of literature (02:36).
Adichie puts her speech in a nutshell stating that “to create a single
story, show a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again,
and that is what they become” (09:25). Her conclusion responds to these
misconceptions by reiterating the importance of spreading diverse stories
in opposition to focusing on just one. She professes that the rejection of
the single story phenomenon allows one to “regain a kind of paradise” and
see people as more than just one incomplete idea (Adichie 18:17).
Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. “The Danger of a Single Story.” TEDGlobal, TED,
23 July
2009, Oxford, UK. Speech.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZopZyoVd8gUUxfpZ6NEydVwi0kChZ7biJ9RgLxmmpaN7%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.
