Because it, in the large majority of the cases, it means men do better. Sure, men get caught on the wrong side of things too, but on average, men do better.
If we're talking childrearing, or primary school teaching (I broke off a friendship with a girl over that one - 'male primary teachers just aren't natural'), or paternity leave, not so much. If we're talking those roles even being valued, then not so much.
That's why 'patriarchy' is a harmful term. It obscures who's penalised.
Originally (when I was 15), I assumed it meant men in charge, and the mythical boardroom. How awful, sure don't want to be one of those villains. Later, I learned it was more general and described male dominance - how awful, I'll try not to be one of them either. But when I read arguments about how there's a patriarchy dominating, say, a woman-run charity, I lose track of what problem is being described.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-06-22 12:01 pm
no subject
no subject
Because if we're talking average salaries, sure.
If we're talking childrearing, or primary school teaching (I broke off a friendship with a girl over that one - 'male primary teachers just aren't natural'), or paternity leave, not so much. If we're talking those roles even being valued, then not so much.
That's why 'patriarchy' is a harmful term. It obscures who's penalised.
no subject
Because I basically agree with you. I know _why_ it has the name it has, but I don't find the general phrasing of it very useful.
no subject
Originally (when I was 15), I assumed it meant men in charge, and the mythical boardroom. How awful, sure don't want to be one of those villains. Later, I learned it was more general and described male dominance - how awful, I'll try not to be one of them either. But when I read arguments about how there's a patriarchy dominating, say, a woman-run charity, I lose track of what problem is being described.