Read Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale

"'...general production of life, or subsistence production - mainly performed through the non-wage labour of women and other non-wage labourers as slaves, contract workers and peasants in the colonies - constitutes the perennial basis upon which 'capitalist productive labour' can be built up and exploited.'

Who does the work? Who gets the benefits? Who is socialised to accept their (crappy) lot as just the way things are?

Also try reading Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federico about the rise of capitalism. It began when feudalism was waning. There were enormous peasant revolts all over Europe. Often led by heretics (many of whom were women). The aim was often for more equality like existed in the brotherhood of the early Christians. Instead they were ruthlessly repressed with some battlefields having 100,000 dead.

The promise of capitalism to the newly 'enclosed' men was you can now 'enclose' women. Thus the church etc made abortion and contraception a crime. Previously women had more freedom to chose to leave relationships, find paid work and decide on the size of their families. Common land was also enclosed and all was accomplished with lashings of violence. Hence 300 years of burning people: 90% women and mostly poor but also some men and powerful women. So nice to get hold of their assets.

It amazes me that the centuries long violence used to destroy a social and economic order is brushed over. The book ends with a very interesting comment that when the resources of a community are taken over then the most vulnerable are burnt as witches. Note the resource grabs going on by mining and landgrabbing western countries and ponder the witch burnings in PNG and Africa.

Look also at the lunar right. What do they oppose? Women being treated as independent people with the right to respect and the ability to control their bodies and lives. Witchfinder Generals are all over the 'Christian" right wing. Patterns depressingly repeat until we name and change them

The 'woman as witch' stereotype, lillian. The parallel is the feminist stereotyping of men and boys as violent and worse, demonic, right?

Squeers, lillian, I definitely identify with lillian’s analysis. Structural inequality has been naturalised over millennia into invisibility; it is literally hidden in plain view. If I had to put a label on my own conceptual position, it would be a critical-intersectional-feminist biocultural-dialectics. Social constructionism and structuralism are too narrowly focused; Foucault's analysis is brilliant, but his history of sexuality is a history of the male, and women figure only as objects.

In addition, a theorisation of patriarchy as a specific, historical, socially and temporally constructed phenomenon cannot properly described as universalising. Systems of law, whether monarchy, oligarchy, patriarchy, and so forth, are produced by specific historical circumstances. And while ‘patriarchy’ (literally, the rule of the fathers) names a category, the membership of that category is irreducibly complex, ranging in style from bearded Taliban to Fortune 500. In India, for example, specifically brahminical, tribal, and dalit patriarchies, as well as regional and religious variations.

When the complex criteria typical of scholarly enquiry is applied to the notion of patriarchy, patriarchy is shown to be socially constructed and reconstructed in numerous specific forms, locations, and circumstances. There are multiple patriarchies with similarities to and differences from each other just as there are multiple resistances, agencies, and dialectical relationships among all of these.

PS Squeers, it doesn’t seem to me that an author’s theoretical stance can properly be assessed on the strength of quotations from sources they refer to. I’ve also referred to Freud, but I’m far from a Freudian

imho,
on your PS, certainly let's take it as read that I haven't presumed to make any such glib assessment. As a matter of fact I went looking for your books, but I'm afraid the prices put me off. Shall try the library.
I have three daughters and three sons but so far no feminists, much to my disappointment. You didn't answer my question btw, "To what extent, I wonder, is patriarchy the villain because you're a feminist?"
I'd like to read more about patriarchy, but dismantling it seems as improbable as dismantling capitalism. Both seem to call for grass roots rebellion but there's precious little sign of that.

Social constructionism, incidentally, is not limited to Freud but arguably includes Vico, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty,Heidegger, Gadamer, Marxism, Wittgenstein, Judith Butler and many many others.

I shall read up on your critical position, which I think I can surmise except for the dialectic aspect.

Thank you (and Lillian) for elaborating these points.

Thanks, Squeers,
Re biocultural dialectics: http://bioculturalevolution.net/; Leatherman, Building a New Biocultural...

Re intersectional feminism (which basically holds that racism, classism, genderism, etc. are intersecting systems of oppression): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10572435/Intersectional-feminism.-What-the-hell-is-it-And-why-you-should-care.html; http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/perspectives_magazine/women_perspectives_Spring2004CrenshawPSP.authcheckdam.pdf

Re capitalism, which, under the above theorisations, can be seen as simply a patriarchal-style economic modus operandi, along with what we have already seen in modern communism, fascism, etc. The evidence suggests that patriarchy (as a temporally and culturally constructed system of law) began around 3500 BCE and was completed by 600 BCE (see Lerner (1986) 'The Creation of Patriarchy', etc). In other words the establishment of patriarchy went unrecorded (writing had not been invented), and the early canon, e.g. Hesiod, Aeschylus, the biblical authors, etc. depicted it as natural. It was naturalised into invisibility more than two millennia ago, which is why most people simply don't see it. Fish do not ask, where is the sea?

So, to return to your question, "To what extent, I wonder, is patriarchy the villain because you're a feminist?" patriarchy, like all other 'archies,' is simply a brute fact of history. Just as knowing about the development of monarchy, has only a distal connection to one's political stance (one is monarchist, republican, etc. regardless), ditto re patriarchy. And as one who hopes for the best but prepares for the worst, I have to agree with you that the chances of dismantling patriarchy are indeed slim, and that even if capitalism was dismantled, patriarchy might remain untouched. I guess Orwell's 1984 is the most likely scenario re patriarchy.

Yes, I agree about GV hardback price; there are second-hand copies about and, yes, it's also in libraries.

In mentioning Freud, my intention was nothing more than to provide an example of how one can't read an author's position from their reporting of certain theorists or certain research findings, etc. In effect, Freud was a biological determinist, an anti-feminist, and very demeaning of women, particularly compared with the views of his more enlightened psychoanalytic colleagues, such as Adler, Rank, Jung, Ferenczi, etc.
Thanks again for your thoughts.

Hi onthebeach
I am continually impressed that saying anything on this subject automatically means people like you assume all sorts of stuff that wasn't said. If you read "Caliban and the Witch" you will see the creation of capitalism rigidly restructured society including gender and sexuality. Previously non-heterosexual relationships and the type of family children were conceived and grew up in was more fluid. During the forced introduction of capitalism contraception was outlawed, you could be prosecuted for having a miscarriage (a witch killing babies) and all couples should merely have sex for procreation. This has had huge ramifications for men, boys, women and girls.

Have you never wondered why the systemic killing of people over 300 years in Europe has been ignored? Imagine a 300 year killing spree where men were the focus. Where boys were encouraged to inform on their fathers and then watch them burn at the stake. Then imagine that women, that run society, just dismissing any discussion of this as stereotyping and harassment of women and girls. Is your imagination strong enough to do this? It is reported that in one area of Germany after the witch burners went through there were 3 women left alive. The "Caliban" of the title is the Shakespearian character who represents the wild and natural man. Therefore the whole book is about how this period of history not only ruined life for women but also repressed men.

Another really interesting book is Kathleen Barry's Unmaking War, Remaking Men. There are also veterans (who Kathleen reports on ) are challenging the myths that encourage them to war and discard them when they come home needing healing.

The issue is not men vs women, it is oppression versus us all. Where does it come from, why do we support it, how do we transform into a respectful and fair society. Men sitting on the sidelines refusing to enter the discussion apart from to say there is nothing to discuss as feminists have ruined everything is rather feeble and self-destructive.