Fugitivus Discussion Forum

I'll admit, I enjoy the universality of "kyriarchy", but it has some detractors. And they have good points, too.

What do y'all think?

Hmm, I'm not a huge fan of the word "kyriarchy" one way or another, but I also didn't agree with either of those blog posts for a few reasons. I want to come back to this more when I have more time, and time to think, but anyway, a few thoughts:

From Why no one should use that word: Kyriarchy instead of Patriarchy

I... don't agree with that at all, I mean, in my life I'm oppressed for being a woman sure, but I'm also oppressed for other things, that in my life are more significant to me (which isn't to say sexism can't play a bigger role in other peoples lives). There just seems to be this idea that sexism is somehow the most important, or the root of all evil or something, instead of being equally important to other things. (for example you could replace patriarchy in that quote with ableism, and argue that we should use that term, and the argument would be equally valid).

The post also argues that kyriarchy isn't all encompassing, and correctly points out that patriarchy isn't either, but at the same time seems to give patriarchy a pass when used as a general sort of descriptor; it says we should use patriarchy because there are so many men who disavow it's existence, while ignoring the fact that you could make that argument of many oppressions.

It could be a good post for using other umbrella terms like intersectionality instead of kyriarchy, but patriarchy isn't an umbrella term (nor is feminism, despite the articles claims; a particular persons feminism might be, but as a popular movement it does not fight for all oppressed people). So it's like comparing apples and oranges, and a different type of orange, and saying one type of orange isn't orangey enough so we should eat apples. Or something like that, my thoughts are kinda jumbled.

And the other article Why I Dislike the Term “Kyriarchy” well...
I'm not a feminist, I don't have any problems with anyone who is, I'm not going to claim anyone doesn't get it for using language I don't use, but it's not like feminism (again talking about the movement as a whole, not any individual or particular group of feminists) is free of it's issues, not by a long shot, not in the present and certainly not in the past.

Despite my qualms, using the word kyriarchy is not an attack on feminism, nor is it rude, nor is it a slap in the face, nor is it denying or ignoring the very real efforts and advances of feminists past. but their ideas weren't perfect, and it's okay to think new ideas, or use new words.

As for the second part of that article, I'm unsure where I stand on it. I do like using more specific words when talking specifics, but I think it's ok to talk generalities sometimes too.

I'd like to bring Lisa Factora-Borchers's post "Truthout About Kyriarchy: An Open Letter to “Feminist” Writers, Bloggers, and Journalists" into the discussion. Lisa describes how she brought "kyriarchy" into internet discourse and discusses one instance of co-optation.

I thought of that post because the co-optation she describes makes me think. Kyriarchy is probably easier to misuse in this way: that since it describes "all of it," people feel comfortable using it for stuff that is really a perversion of liberation. It's a word that it's easy to feel one has access too, so that a privileged person may basically use it to describe their experiences and nothing else. But then "patriarchy" also has a problem: that people are expected to accept that the term describes "all of it" even though it's specifically about sexist oppression. That's easier to do for women who experience sexism as their primary axis of oppression, like Princess Backpack described.

Looking at Alderson Warm-Fork's "Why I Dislike the Term Patriarchy"...here's a line that seems sort of bizarre:


Oh jeez. So, what, we should only be allowed to come up with new terms if we've "done more" than the people who use current terms? Frankly I find the injunction that we should all be grateful for what feminists have done for us to be kind of gross. Some people who call themselves feminists did a hell of a lot against liberation, and they did it in the name of feminism. (Mary Daly? Amanda Marcotte?)

It's not as though trying to come up with new words for, or augmentations to, "patriarchy" is very new. bell hooks consistently uses the phrase "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" (and she IDs as a feminist.) I suppose SHE has done less for liberation than everyone who prefers the term patriarchy? Some women have found the word insufficient for their needs for a long time.

As for the second article, "Why no one should use that word kyriarchy instead of patriarchy", I think the author and I come from...uh...different schools of feminism. For example, she takes for granted that a) religion is inherently oppressive, and b) someone writing a Christian text must not be aware of power structures in religion. I got that from this passage:


I hardly think the fact that someone writes about religion makes it "likely" they don't consider repressive structures within religion. As for the class omission, I have no idea where she's getting that:

In Lisa's post introducing "kyriarchy" to the internets, she explicitly talks about class as something the word "kyriarchy" considers, so in my opinion, class considerations are present in the origins of the term as we use it.

Um, so, I guess I see a lot of problems with both of these articles. And as for the term itself, like I said, I don't think there's anything wrong with, or new about, trying to come up with new terms. I really like what Princess Backpack said about it being okay to think new ideas. Kyriarchy works for me specifically...but I'm sure it doesn't work for everyone. (Non-english speakers for example!)

One reason I like kyriarchy is that any attempt to actually list everything out is doomed to failure or nigh-unusability.

Yeah. As I discovered in my blog post on Het Cis Able McWhitepants, it's not possible to list all the axes of privilege. You just can't do it. Kyriarchy, to me, says "look! A power structure!" without being limited to only one kind thereof. And that's a good word to have kicking around. Intersectionality is a word for how different power structures interact, and it's also a good word, but it's not by any means the same word.

It's like, you can have a word for tabby and a word for calico and a word for Russian blue, but your discussion still isn't going to get very far without a word for cat.

It looks to me like both those posts are saying "Some people misuse the word 'kyriarchy'; therefore, you shouldn't use it at all."

I really don't even understand the point of putting in this paragraph:



at all. It is like the author is getting pissy at people criticizing feminism and is therefore responding by being like, "well look, black/anti-racist people suck MORE/suck HARDER, at least we aren't like those VIOLENT PEOPLE so why the need to distance ourselves from those terms?"

I think that author is just looking at things from a very, very limited point of view.

Prism, I didn't get that message from that paragraph at all. What I understood her to say was "We don't hold such a powerful magnifying glass to other anti-oppression movements, so why is feminism getting such harsh criticism when other movements get a pass for their nasty shit?" She doesn't want people to distance themselves from anti-racism just because of the misogyny in its past, and she also doesn't want people to distance themselves from feminism just because of the classism, racism, and cissexism in its past.

The point of kyriarchy vs. patriarchy isn't "feminism sucks, let's get away from it", so she's kind of missing the point there, which makes it pretty off-topic and telling to bring up how much the black people also suck.

ETA: Also, it's hardly as if anti-racism and other movements don't come under loads of criticism, so it's a strawman argument anyway.

I agree with Prism. I'd like to know what metric the writer of that post is using for the claim that other movements don't come under as much scrutiny. There's a long history of black women and poor blacks being critical of the civil rights movement. Angela Davis is just coming out with a critical edition of Frederick Douglass's autobiography in which she examines masculine narratives of freedom in the abolitionist movement. There's a lot of critique by trans people, poor and working class people, and people of color over the mainstream LGBT movement--and if we look further back, in the 60s, there was a some very strong rejection of the homophile (assimilationist) movement by more radical gays. Even post-Stonewall there was a lot of very vigorous argument, people being forced out, etc. (Sylvia Rivera comes to mind.) And as for anarchists, I'm not as familiar, but I'm under the impression that women have been very strongly critical of that movement as well. In short, I think an argument based on the premise people are being extra mean to feminism is faulty.

ETA: But Prism is ultimately ALSO right in that it's kind of off-topic anyway; the idea that coming up with a new word for patriarchy is just another sign that people are harder on feminists than they are on anyone else, and what about that black guy that did this or that, is...yeah, telling.

I thought the fallacy was thinking that "kyriarchy" was supposed to be a replacement for "patriarchy" at all. Don't they refer to two different (though overlapping) things? I can totally still say "patriarchy" if I'm only talking about that bit of the equation. In other words, what Hex said.