> I would never attempt to deny that there is a systemic patriarchy in place
I would.
There are a couple of counter-arguments. One, claiming that there is a "patriarchy" sounds a whole lot like a conspiracy theory. Replace "patriarchy" with "zionism" in typical statements to see what I mean. This makes me very wary of any hand-waving claims of "patriarchy".
Women have in-group preference. Men don't. The assumption that there's a "patriarchal" preference by white men for other white men is projection. What do I mean by this?
Most people believe that other people think like them. "I'm a reasonable person. So if I did X, it would be for reason Y. Therefore if other people are doing X, it's for reason Y."
i.e. Rich white men prefer to support other rich white men.
That just isn't true. There is no evidence for "in-group" preference of men. There is plenty of evidence that no such preference exists.
There is evidence for preference of power. If you can make Bill Gates money, he'll help you so long as it's in his favor. The second you can't help him, he'll cut your throat (metaphorically speaking), and leave you for dead.
The men who have such behavior tend to get ahead of people who aren't that ruthless. This isn't "in-group men" preference. It's cut-throat back-stabbing competition.
> Making her displeasure known to conference organisers was absolutely within her remit but turning herself into some sort of 'crusader' for a vague idea of 'rights and justice' in a public forum is problematic for me.
I agree. That's the crux of the matter. I suspect if she had only complained to the conference organizers, none of the rest would have happened. But she was clearly operating outside of the bounds of the conference herself.
And from the other links posted here, that wasn't the first time she did something like this.
I hear what you are saying and I agree that the term patriarchy is a very loaded one. However what I am referring to is, as other commenters have pointed out, a systemic patriarchy. I am by no means implying some sort of conscious system of oppression but rather a centuries-old systemic dominance of men over women that has undeniably resulted in women feeling that they exist in a position of relative social weakness to men. I share your suspicion when people mention systems of 'control' while implying some sort of conspiracy. My use of the term patriarchy is closer connected to Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony, within a gender framework http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony. Granted this is changing but it is by no means over. I merely stated my position on women's rights and the patriarchy as a way to pre-empt any unfounded backlash to my comments along the lines that I somehow support the patriarchy. As you have pointed out the main point of my article was that her actions were justified to a point, and that the actions that went beyond that point were the catalyst for the unfortunate repercussions that ensued for both parties. Thank you though for highlighting this as it is an important distinction to be made.
> claiming that there is a "patriarchy" sounds a whole lot like a conspiracy theory. Replace "patriarchy" with "zionism" in typical statements to see what I mean.
That's a false analogy. Zionism and similar conspiracy theories are predicated upon the notion that there organizations and people consciously manipulating things behind the scenes.
When most people discuss the patriarchy, they're not referring to conscious, willful agents. They're talking about systemic sexism.
I would.
There are a couple of counter-arguments. One, claiming that there is a "patriarchy" sounds a whole lot like a conspiracy theory. Replace "patriarchy" with "zionism" in typical statements to see what I mean. This makes me very wary of any hand-waving claims of "patriarchy".
The second is this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
Women have in-group preference. Men don't. The assumption that there's a "patriarchal" preference by white men for other white men is projection. What do I mean by this?
Most people believe that other people think like them. "I'm a reasonable person. So if I did X, it would be for reason Y. Therefore if other people are doing X, it's for reason Y."
i.e. Rich white men prefer to support other rich white men.
That just isn't true. There is no evidence for "in-group" preference of men. There is plenty of evidence that no such preference exists.
There is evidence for preference of power. If you can make Bill Gates money, he'll help you so long as it's in his favor. The second you can't help him, he'll cut your throat (metaphorically speaking), and leave you for dead.
The men who have such behavior tend to get ahead of people who aren't that ruthless. This isn't "in-group men" preference. It's cut-throat back-stabbing competition.
> Making her displeasure known to conference organisers was absolutely within her remit but turning herself into some sort of 'crusader' for a vague idea of 'rights and justice' in a public forum is problematic for me.
I agree. That's the crux of the matter. I suspect if she had only complained to the conference organizers, none of the rest would have happened. But she was clearly operating outside of the bounds of the conference herself.
And from the other links posted here, that wasn't the first time she did something like this.