Hacker News Reader

Comment by ameister14 | Hacker News Reader

The thing is, though, that there used to be. White male landowners and business leaders continued to pass power down to their male descendants and controlled the vast majority of political, financial and military power in the United States while denying minorities and women opportunities to gain any control. That lasted around 200 years.

View on HN

White male landowners also passed great wealth and power down to their daughters. Female offspring weren't being abandoned, they were being raised in the same upper class environment as the males and retained much more power than the vast majority of men and women of lower classes who had essentially no power.

Patriarchy implies men hold some sort of privilege whereas it's really rich people that have the privilege. If all instances of "patriarchy" were replaced with "the upper class" I think we'd have much more accurate and fair representation of reality.

As it stands I don't think you'll ever get the millions upon millions of poor men out there to see themselves as part of the patriarchy, because they hold no power in society.

No, actually, men used to hold legal privileges that women did not. Legally, a poor man had more rights than a rich woman, and though he may have less power in society than a rich woman, he had far more power than his own wife or daughter.

Important note: that is no longer the case. It hasn't been for years. I'm just saying that this actually existed, the Patriarchy was a real thing.

I agree that there actually used to be a patriarchy. Only for a subset of society though. During much of this time period, males slaves couldn't vote or own property either for example.

Regardless, that's not how society works anymore. Trying to redefine patriarchy to "traditional gender roles" strikes me as disingenuous.

Dude, it's been 41 years since the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which guaranteed that women could have equal access to credit cards in the US. My mom would not have been admitted to Caltech when she applied for colleges because of her gender, no matter how much money she or her family would have had. My mom is not that old. I appreciate the attempt to bring class consciousness to the discussion but just 41 years ago restricted access to basic banking and (non-basic) higher education was based on your genitals and your skin color, as well as how much money you had.

I think there was a much stronger case for the patriarchy existing 41 years ago. I'm not saying it never existed, just that it doesn't exist now.

At the time the vast majority of men and women didn't have access to consumer credit or higher education. I think a common mistake made in these discussions is to generalize the perks some elite men had to all men. In reality most people (men and women) have always had it pretty rough.

"Banking on the Unbanked" (behind a paywall, sorry; by Stafford in 1983) says that in the 1970s 60% of Americans had a bank account. All the women in that group had to have a male family member sign for it, remember. 60% of the US population: a firm majority of the population did have access to banking by the 1960s and 1970s, contradicting your statement.

Easier to check [1]: in 1970, 55.2 percent of graduating high school men and 48.5 percent of graduating high school women enrolled in college. Again, for men a majority, and close to half for women.

A common mistake is to forget how fast (and how slow) history can move. Certainly most people have always had it pretty rough, but my life is easier now that I can get a bank account without my husband's permission. Even one generation ago that wasn't exactly the case.

[1] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d99/d99t187.asp

I was talking about credit, not banking accounts. According to this:

https://www.bostonfed.org/education/ledger/ledger04/sprsum/c...

> The use of consumer credit had become a fixture of everyday life. In 2000, more than 70 percent of U.S. households had at least one gener- al-purpose credit card — MasterCard, Visa, Optima, or Discover. Thirty years earlier, in 1970, the number was only 16 percent.

Your point is well taken about bank accounts though. What you say about history moving fast and slow is very interesting. In this case it seems to have moved very fast. Did you feel you had any trouble getting a bank account as a women in your generation? My wife set up most of our accounts so I can only assume it's not a problem. That is indeed a very large change for one generation.

The university enrollment data is very interesting. The data you linked to only goes to 1998 but still shows a 15% increase in enrollment.

Even more interesting how the gender ratio has changed:

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_306.10.a...

1976: 53% male, 47% female = 6% difference

2012: 43% male, 57% female = 14% difference

Women dominate higher education now much more than med did in 1976.

> White male landowners also passed great wealth [...] down to their daughters

No they didn't. The money went to the sons. The daughters were kept by their husbands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture

Those women were NOT living in poverty. They had access to the money, land and benefits of being upper class. They had servants and slaves. They didn't have to work or labor to survive.

While the law was clear that the men owned the money (I agree that this situation IS patriarchy btw), rich women enjoyed access to that money and power as well.

so it was a patriarchy and the men did have all the power and control of money and land and only passed those on to sons and...what exactly were you arguing against in this subthread again?

There existed women in rich households? I think that was pretty obvious.

> Patriarchy implies men hold some sort of privilege

There are plenty of things that men usually get to avoid because of their sex. The majority of sexual harassment, sexual violence, domestic abuse, pay discrepancies based on sex, the list goes on and on. All of that is even worse for lower class women and even worse then that for lower class women of color. What would you call those advantages besides privilege?

You list a lot of things that are definitely not proven. This very article is discussing the nature of the pay discrepancies based on sex.

Even if we take what you say as facts, there are many things women get to avoid because of their sex (warning, as speculative as your list): incarceration, violent crime, stressful manual labor, less representation in higher ed, weakened paternity rights...

I think it makes a lot of sense that differences between the sexes would offer different advantages and disadvantages. I don't see any one gender having a monopoly on advantage.

> pass power down to their male descendants

Because it makes sense. Passing money and power to a son will help him get a "better" bride. On the other hand, a daughter from a powerful family, even with no own money, will be able to marry a rich, powerful man and improve the overall family's power.

Power was far greater correlated with wealth than with being male. So while society was more of a patriarchy than a matriarchy, it really wasn't either.

You can have both a class system based on economics/birth and a gendered power dynamic. Society is complex.

Power dynamic is vastly dominated by wealth, one wonders why a disproportional focus is given on the vastly less influential gender dynamic.

Because it's better for the rich people if there's a war between men and women rather than a war between the rich and the poor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com