Patriarchy in Western Civilization

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,030
Since most of marriage history the man was nearly literally buying the woman from her family the fact that the pressure is on men to propose is just a cultural artefact that will fade as women's earning power is sustained thru a couple generations. There is some interesting evidence on the long term effects of birth control on women's ideas about security/relationships but that only touches secondarily on marriage.

Anecdotally I know several marriages where it was the woman who proposed but most often in my social circle marriage is rather mutually agreed upon. I can only think of a single couple where the man actually surprised the woman with a proposal and they are fairly religious so in all honesty I think it was about needing marriage for sex to be permissible.

You haven't yet answered why you think men are taking a bigger risk than women going into a marriage. There are so many studies showing women are happier after a marriage has ended compared to men and as I already noted women get married during their most desirable years and while men have a much longer window of time to have children. It seems you are only very narrowly defining the benefits of marriage to a few years of monetary compensation. If that was all that men got out of it there would be far more men only seeking prostitutes. Most men are happier in a household with a woman. The converse is not true.
in my social circle marriage is rather mutually agreed upon

More often than not it is the man giving up after months or years of nagging (why are we not married yet, all my friend are married, this relationship is going nowhere, I want kids, I dont know what my status is I cannot live like that etc....)....

I do not know if men are taking a bigger risk, they are certainly taking a bigger liability.... Compare a relationship where the couple is living together, doing all the same stuff married people do and a marriage... The different is that if the couple breaks up in the first case, the man has no liability... In the case of a marriage he has to support his ex for life....
 

Peter Graham

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,658
Westmorland
You seem to be saying that women are paid less than men for the same work which is not supported by your link:
The link was there to challenge Tomar's argument that there is no gender pay gap. He provided links to (inter alia) two interviews on content- and intellect-lite daytime chat shows as 'evidence' that there is no gender pay gap in the UK. I simply linked to the official government data which makes it clear that there is.

Specific allegations that women are paid less than men are brought in the Employment Tribunal as Equal Pay claims under the Equality Act 2010. A woman can bring such a claim if she is paid less than a named male comparator for doing like work (basically the same job), work rated as equivalent (where there has been a job evaluation study which puts the two roles at the same level but the woman is still paid less) and work of equivalent value (where the jobs are different, but of equal value to the employer). You can get the Tribunal data online if you really want to look at it, but over the last few years there have been lots of successful equal pay claims, often 'multiple' claims involving local authorities.

We can pretend that there isn't a problem if our preconceived ideas require there not to be a problem, or if we want to feel all injured about how men are put upon or about how there is some politically correct government conspiracy designed to flush all that was once great and good about our country down the pan. Alternatively, we can accept that although things are getting better, we still do not live in an equal society and, as the group who have historically gained most from that inequality, white males are inevitably going to feel the pinch more than any other group.

Pregnancy should also be factored in as IIRC there's a pay gap between women with children and women without.
Unless you are saying that it is OK for women who have children to be paid less, why should it be factored in? Men also tend to be involved in the creation of children and the decisions to bring them into the world. Why should women suffer as regards pay just because biology dictates they are the ones who have to do the childbearing?

But in any case it's far more complex than "women are paid less for the same work".
It is, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there are still plenty of cases where women are paid less for the same work. As the Employment Tribunal judgements show, for anyone who is minded to access them and read them.
 
Jan 2019
173
Finland
Unless you are saying that it is OK for women who have children to be paid less, why should it be factored in? Men also tend to be involved in the creation of children and the decisions to bring them into the world. Why should women suffer as regards pay just because biology dictates they are the ones who have to do the childbearing?
Saying "pay gap" was my mistake as I've seen people use "earnings gap" and "pay gap" interchangeably, or starting with the pay gap and then switch to talking about earnings gap if pay gap can't be demonstrated or isn't big enough.

It is, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there are still plenty of cases where women are paid less for the same work. As the Employment Tribunal judgements show, for anyone who is minded to access them and read them.
As per your link the pay gap is generated by comparing all men and all women who work comparable hours, not men of a specific line of work who work a certain amount of hours vs women who do the same. If the latter was compared then there would still be a pay gap but it would be much smaller than with the former. This to me seems like misrepresentation in order to inflate the issue.
 
May 2017
222
Monterrey
I really do not see HOW it is "circular logic"..... You are aware that humans generally do something when it is favorable to them, and dont do it if it is not.... (granted there are a few exceptions)... I really do not understand why you keep challenging something that is so self evident
Likewise it's self-evident to me that you don't know what you are talking about.

we cannot however make historical comparisons, (before 1900) because previously divorce was either impossible or extremely difficult... it is only in the 20th century that it became widespread....... also before the 20th century the overwhelming majority of the population barely survived, there was not much to be gained in a divorce (getting half your husband assets when his assets are 0 is not a great deal, nor an incentive)
So, you are arguing that patriarchy is not a thing, but you're only counting from the point where it has had the least possible influence on anything, and outright dismiss any evidence to the contrary?
 
Nov 2019
5
Europe
Until the Neolithic (starting from ca. 10,000 BCE) Paleolithic humans lived in matrifocal communities without fixed partner relationship (in the sense of marriage). When a female lived with a male, she did not move to his family household but he to her family household, that is, the household of the matrifocal community, centered around a matrilineal line. There were no fathers because paternity was most probably unknown until the advent of livestock at the beginning of the Neolithic. When a couple separated the male went back to his original family. When paternity was discovered (in the context of livestock around 8,000 BCE) among the males the desire arose to exactly know who were their sons for the purpose of inheriting their property to them. The precondition for that was the binding of the female to the male and the prohibiton of female relationships to other males. However the total institutionalisation of marriage took a long time and was established in the Ancient East probably not before the 4th millennium BCE.
How does anyone even know that? It just sounds like a guess.

The san bushmen are monogamous.
 

Peter Graham

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,658
Westmorland
As per your link the pay gap is generated by comparing all men and all women who work comparable hours, not men of a specific line of work who work a certain amount of hours vs women who do the same. If the latter was compared then there would still be a pay gap but it would be much smaller than with the former. This to me seems like misrepresentation in order to inflate the issue.
It isn't a misrepresentation. The ONS data is necessarily high level and has to be read alongside the Employment Tribunal statistics for individual equal pay claims in the UK. The ONS methodology is proactive (they seek to collate data to inform their conclusions) whereas Tribunal data is reactive (they simply record the outcomes of claims which individuals have brought).

There have been some very high profile class actions in recent years, generally in the public sector (a 'class action' is when there are lots of claims all on the same point). This is on top of the usual run of individual equal pay claims.

Whichever way you cut the cake, it is clear that there is both a gender pay gap and good evidence for inequality of pay in individual cases where the work of men and women is comparable.

The better news is that although there are aberrant years, the general picture is that the pay gap is shrinking. It perhaps isn't happening quickly enough, but at least it is happening.