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
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.