Dear Vicky,



Sure, "the patriarchy, and therefore misogyny" may be "deeply entrenched in all systems".  So, at a minimum we should inspect all systems, new and old, to determine if there are negative features in the system that we could well do without.



If we look at a traditional patriarchal area, such as the education of young children, we can determine that historically, the education of all babies and young children was done by women. This division of labour was based, one can suggest, on the patriarchal understanding that men would do the hunting while women did the gathering. Gathering, it might seem, is more conducive to education of young children, especially if they are on the breast for an extended period (as part of birth control and uses of resources). Men, in this system, would take over the education of boys when the boys were old enough to participate in the hunt.



This may not have been equally true in family craft-based societies. The family of weavers might hand out the education to all members of the family according to their understanding of the usefulness of the family member. Grandpa might teach the child to walk and talk and weave just as well as grandma might do the same. This kind of understanding exists inside families - but, it does not transfer to public education in pre-schools and infants schools and now, more and more, to primary schools.



In industrialized society, we seemed to have reverted to the model that women are the teachers of little children while men do the work of providing for the family.



In our current Western societies, with many women working and providing equally if not better than men, why then are women still almost exclusively, responsible for the early education of children?



We can suggest that women have a particular aptitude for this task just as men might have the physical ability to kill a large animal. Women, for example, have high level language skills more so than men. Since language is a key element of education, then women might be seen as best able to undertake this task. These would be biological arguments and hence they are NOT examples of patriarchy which is a social construct. 



Do we do this because it produces the best outcome for our culture, our economy and our society? Well, pragmatically, let's keep doing this?



But is this the case? Have we possibly reinvented and reinforced patriarchy in education? If we have, why have we done this? Why are pre-schools an all-female domain? And, if they are a female domain, how does this amount to a patriarchal system? Surely any area that women control to the exclusion of men must be an example of feminism and non-patriarchy? 



While there are men in the world, can there be such a thing as non-patriarchy?



I am well pleased with everything I learned at my mother's breast and at her knee. But, as a child, in infants school, I deeply resented almost all of my teachers, all of whom were female. Reflecting, a life-time later, I can see that they seemed to be imposing on me a system of instruction designed to make me comply. Why should I comply? So that I could become a useful citizen in a patriarchal society? Because the male-dominated society needed me to serve according to its understandings? Why were women complicit in this process? 



Currently, in Australia, we are having arguments about children being taught ideas of fluid identity in their early childhood education. Presumably, it is the patriarchy that is complaining that children are not being taught to comply with binary notions of identity. So, is this an example of the eradication of patriarchal ideas from early childhood education? Or, is it an example of the Catholic understanding of "give me a child until they are seven and I will show you the man (adult)"? That is, new boss same as the old boss - won't get fooled again (thanks Pete). Is compliance itself the source of evil?



When we speak, we comply. Is this the patriarchy at work? Inasmuch as the logos is identified with the male in our Western culture then we are all enthralled by a patriarchy. We cannot speak without abiding.



keith













>>>>>>>>>>

On 2/5/18, 3:35 AM, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design on behalf of Vicky Zeamer" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:



    I view the patriarchy, and therefore misogyny, as deeply entrenched in all the systems of which we operate within, but malleable, to a certain extent (naively, I must admit). Design is intervention and mediation. Understanding the players and their inner dialogues is helpful for understanding the blueprints and subsequent tangling that result







-----------------------------------------------------------------

PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>

Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design

Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design

-----------------------------------------------------------------