I am really not strong on social theory.

Yes Su and it shows. It would be nice if you tried to understand what my assertions are in good faith rather than making over-simplistic proclamations re the deployment of power in our society coupled with comments that are both patronising and rude.
>
I have not in any way argued that “there is a simple hierarchy with the complex at the top”. I didn’t make any reference to this fallacy re evolution. I simply point out a fact there species apart from ours that organize into hierarchies. I put it to you that, as we are primates and primates tend to form hierarchies, the hierarchies of our society have developed from ‘natural’ hierarchies. Humans tend to contemplate and even resist and modify ‘natural’ circumstance. Feminism, democracy, socialism can be conceieved as movements that do just that. And I’ve read Stephen Jay Gould too. Most stimulating.
>
You ask me to define “‘merit’ in a way that is free of the operations of patriarchy?”. This is quite simple. You are a graphic designer. You work at a firm with other graphic designers. The Art Director’s position comes up. You’re the best, the most talented, the hardest working. You get the gig. Oh and you’re a woman. But your gender was irrellevant in the selection process. Ta-dah!
>
Your notions about the relative values of a street sweeper and a company executive are questions of class. The relationship between patriarchy - the political rule of men, and class society - the socio-economic stratification of civilization are too complex for a comment but I don’t think one is intrinsically part of the other. So long as society operates along hierarchies and has streets and has company executives there will be this hierarchy. A street sweeper is not, in my view, worth less than a company exec. In fact they are more essential. But we live in a market economy, what can you do?
>
My point re patriarchy, do we live in one, was not a declaration that feminism is now irrellevant. Nor was it an observation that women as a group are equal to men. Nor was I saying that sexual discrimination and/or misogyny are not problems. If I were saying so I would be talking nonsense. What I mean is that political rule of men over women is a thing of the past. That our society can no longer be regarded as one that systematically excludes and represses people on the basis of sex. In fact our society has many legal mechanisms that do the opposite. Have women achieved social equality? No. We are, I believe, transforming from one state of affairs to another.
>
Now perhaps I’m being too optimistic. I am a man and as such I simply don’t see the shit a lot of women have to put up with. I do see a lot of it. I don’t think it’s all progress. If I had to guess I’d say misogyny has been enjoying a revival in the culture over the last little while. But overall, over the long term there has been progress. Progress to the extent that I don’t believe our society can be regarded as a patriarchy in the strict sense of the word. Is it still sexist? Yes. Is there still a way to go? Yes. Patriarchy? I don’t think so.
>
You may disagree but if you do so I’d suggest acquiring a more sophisticated understanding of matters social. Learning to read well enough not make such foolish assumptions about what I’m writing. And refrain from making snide allusions to my mother. That’s simply rude and unnecessary.

Please don’t change.

(As if change were possible.)

Well that goes down with, among others,your propositions on the benign British policies towards the Irish in the 19th and 20th centuries, South Korea’s trade policy vis-a-vis Japan and the political legitimacy of the Castro regime, in which you introduced the gloriously risible interpretive tool of Ideational Flexibility. We thank you for that treasure.

My actual issue was with the notion that hierarchies were “inherently” patriarchal.

As it takes only one counter-example to disprove the contention, you’ve done all the hard work for me.

That’s the form of division of labour I support whole-heartedly.

You name one and I’ll show you how it inherited its characteristics from a pre-existing patriarchal system.

Katz

The Minangkabau, who practise that famously anti-patriarchal religion — Islam?

The Minangkabau were a matriarchal society before they adopted Islam, Katz.

So tell us all you know about their pre-existing patriarchal system.

Do try to keep up.

Jus’ wonderin’

Where are the “inherently” anti-patriarchal hierarchies?

You name one and I’ll show you how it inherited its characteristics from a pre-existing patriarchal system.

The Minangkabau?

Just wondering.