Americastan.....Patriarchy Or Matriarchy?

[lovemuffin]

It is not a personal attack to point out that you failed to support your assertions with data. Just as one example, you claimed that New Deal and Great Society programs were passed with a disproportionate level of support of women voters. This is false, and I cited data that demonstrates it. This is what I mean when I say you didn't support your arguments.

Also, in the interest of full disclosure since you don't seem to be aware, I am an RF moderator. Not that I'm acting in that capacity in this thread, of course. I am aware of the rules.

Let me be as clear as possible. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to debate you. In a debate, arguments, reasons, and data are important. From my perspective, I've shown a great deal of respect for you by taking several hours to rebut your arguments in a thorough and well-supported way, rather than just telling you that you're wrong.

You ask for more civility, and to that I say, OK. I apologize for my musings about the honesty with which you offered the arguments you made. They were not intended to be mean-spirited. However, I don't think it's necessary for me to copy and paste the data and arguments I just made again, because their actual substance is not in any way insulting. If you want, I'll edit the original posts and remove the sentences in question.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is not a personal attack to point out that you failed to support your assertions with data.

Now, you know I was speaking of something else when I made this a meta-conversation.

 

[lovemuffin]

You object to the word "bother"? As polemics go this is pretty mild I think.

I'm interested enough in the actual debate to try to resolve the meta-conversation and meet your demands in that regard, but I'd like to point something out because I think it's germane to the topic, rather than because I'm trying to insult you: Your framing of the original question is highly insulting to feminist women, when you essentially blame them for whatever ills they perceive in US society by accusing them of already having the power to enact whatever policies they like, given that they are a majority of voters. Maybe you don't understand why this would be insulting, but it trivializes the efforts of millions of people and the difficulties they face. It's an astoundingly uncharitable interpretation, as I already pointed out.

On the other hand, you appear to be unwilling to engage in direct debate unless treated with the utmost of respect. There's a disconnect there that, in my opinion, speaks to the whole idea of patriarchy. And I'm not insinuating any conscious misogyny or sexism on your part. I'm not accusing you of any conscious ill-will. But there is a name for this phenomena. It's called tone-policing. It may be beyond the scope of this thread, but I think it's worth pointing out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One may have a large degree of control or influence, without it being total.
Examples of privilege for either men or women exist, but they are peripheral
to the large scale evidence I offered in the OP.

You also claimed the shift went to fighting communism, but the earlier waves of feminism were some of the first outside of communist to adopt Marxist philosophy. But we can trace the anti-communism back to the end of WWII, when America had to separate itself from Russia, and it's more typical for women to build relations rather than divide and destroy them.

 

[Revoltingest]

....you appear to be unwilling to engage in direct debate unless treated with the utmost of respect.

I don't demand the utmost....only minimal.
To be more direct....
I specified the conditions of the thread.
If you won't honor them, then I'll not converse as you wish.
And this thread is about conversation, not something as conflict oriented as "debate".

 

[lovemuffin]

I'm not sure we're making progress here. How would you like me to proceed? My goal is to have a conversation about the points I raised in response to the OP and subsequent posts. What should I do?

 

[Revoltingest]

You also claimed the shift went to fighting communism, but the earlier waves of feminism were some of the first outside of communist to adopt Marxist philosophy. But we can trace the anti-communism back to the end of WWII, when America had to separate itself from Russia, and it's more typical for women to build relations rather than divide and destroy them.

I see fighting communism as more a relic of patriarchy (military adventurism without nation building).
But the how & the results of the fighting differ from prior ages.
In the past, we acquired land &/or assets thru war.
Now, we only spend money & lives, without material gain.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure we're making progress here. How would you like me to proceed? My goal is to have a conversation about the points I raised in response to the OP and subsequent posts. What should I do?

Avoid making it personal.
And as a matter of style, it helps to make multiple points over multiple posts.
It's easier to respond to such.

 

[lovemuffin]

OK. With apologies to everyone for repetition, I'll begin with some of the shorter claims

The modern social safety net owes to FDR and LBJ more than anyone else, and there is no evidence that they were motivated by feminist concerns. One doesn't have to be opposed to patriarchy to support those programs.

Their election was the result of women being a powerful voting block.

This is unsupported, and appears to be false:

"Attention to women faded in the election of 1932, dominated as it was by the Depression, and fewer observations were recorded. However, when Gallup surveyed expected voters in 1936, he asked those who had voted in 1932 to declare their choice. Of those who said they had voted, 63 % of the men were for FDR, but only 57 % of the women. Only 35 % of the men said they voted for Hoover, compared to 41 % of the women. (AIPO (Gallup) Poll #53). This differential voting pattern faded to less than two percent in Presidential elections until 1952...

In 1964 as in 1960 the gender gap of 2 to 3 % was too small to be significant, but it was notable because, for the first time, women were more likely than men to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate."
​

From Gender Gaps in Presidential Elections (emphasis mine)

 

[lovemuffin]

The wage gap is real, but there are factors over & above gender discrimination.
One cannot dismiss gender related differences in choices which affect career, & consequently pay.

Research and data demonstrate clearly that a gendered wage gap persists even when these factors are taken into account. I provide two sources of evidence.

1) Studies cited by the AAUW

"In part, these pay gaps do reflect men’s and women’s choices, especially the choice of college major and the type of job pursued after graduation. For example, women are more likely than men to go into teaching, and this contributes to the pay gap because teachers tend to be paid less than other college graduates.10 Economists often consider this portion of the pay gap to be explained, regardless of whether teachers’ wages are considered fair.

Yet not all of the gap can be “explained away.” After accounting for college major, occupation, economic sector, hours worked, months unemployed since graduation, GPA, type of undergraduate institution, institution selectivity, age, geographical region, and marital status, Graduating to a Pay Gap found that a 7 percent difference in the earnings of male and female college graduates one year after graduation was still unexplained.

Similarly, Behind the Pay Gap found a 12 percent unexplained difference in earnings among full-time workers 10 years after college graduation. Other researchers have also found that the gender pay gap is not fully accounted for by women’s and men’s choices."
​

2) BLS wage data by occupation

When we compare average salaries between men and women who are all lawyers, financial managers, educational managers, or within any other single field, the effect of career choice is eliminated. Now, it is true that the BLS data by itself can't tell us about more subtle factors like years of experience, but when the overwhelming majority of occupations show a gendered pay gap in favor of men, it's very difficult to account for that effect without taking into account discrimination.

Further, I cited this NY Times article which illustrates, through the example of PriceWaterhouseCooper in Britain, how these gaps can arise without requiring conscious discrimination or misogyny.
​

I also argued that dismissing the social and cultural forces which explain some of the career choices you are referring to begs the question, since patriarchy refers to those very same forces. Individual choices are constrained by cultural hegemony. In the interest of space I won't repeat the argument.

 

[lovemuffin]

I think most of us expect that the draft is vestigial at this point, unlikely to ever be invoked.

It is nonetheless a female (& trans-gender) privilege.

A theoretical privilege with no practical benefit, and which is unlikely to become relevant in the future.

 

[lovemuffin]

I've mentioned that men dominate in politics.
But the fact that women elect them is significant.

Reading the OP, you'll see that power is not about the gender of the tool (eg, the prez), but about the hand wielding the tool (mostly women). With women driving the evolution & implementation of public policy by their votes

I've already cited data disputing the idea that the major public policy changes that you referred to were driven by the votes of women, but there are other problems with your analysis. I'm afraid I'm not capable of dealing with them succinctly, but I'll summarize my previous posts

1) The Argument from Patriarchy as Cultural Hegemony

The social and political force of patriarchy can't be adequately measured by simple voter demographics because the exercise of political power is more complex:​

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin

Who gets to vote surely does matter. Suffrage of women is an important event in US history. But the socio-cultural forces of patriarchy are also felt in the social institutions that decide who runs for office, from political parties to donors and fundraisers, and various other political groups. Appealing to national census data is insufficient to capture these effects. Women do not vote as a monolithic block, nor do men. Patriarchical attitudes are not restricted to men, nor feminist attitudes to women. Population numbers do not capture this either.
​

2) The Argument from Representative Democracy

Here I made the analogy between your argument and attempts to understand political power by looking at partisian affiliation. This analogy is useful in part because you cited women as being a majority of the most powerful political party.

While there have been more Democrats than Republicans for 70 years, we have had plenty of Republican presidents and Republican-controlled congresses. This illustrates how simple demographic data like partisan affiliation doesn't tell the whole story. In the same way, demographic data on gender also fails to capture much that is real. The wide difference between the number of female voters and the number of women in office, the judiciary, and in other important social institutions demonstrates this.
​

3) "Proving Too much" is a logical fallacy.

In this case it something like a reductio ad absurdum. If political power is adequately measured by simple demographic numbers, than data from the 1920 census suggests that there was no patriarchy in 1920, a seemingly absurd conclusion. The direct argument is based on the fact that in the 1920 census women were already very close to 50% of the population, and is strengthened by the fact that male domination in population was concentrated in western states with smaller numbers of representatives and electoral college votes. Cf. page 6 of the census data.​

 

[lovemuffin]

I know a great many men & women who've had custody battles.
My observation is overwhelming favoritism for the mother.

Here is statistical data on the desires of parents in divorce cases where custody must be decided. It is slightly older than I'd like, but it's the best I've been able to find with the data available online. Essentially the takeaway is that fathers take custody less often, but that this is primarily because they seek custody less often. 90+% of custody cases are decided by settlement of the parents without court involvement. There isn't evidence to support the claim that courts are discriminatory against men when they decide custody cases, once you take into account the actual desires of fathers.

Rather, the evidence supports the thesis that gendered norms about parenthood are a result of cultural patriarchy, which assumes (as you did in your OP) that women are more naturally suited to be caregivers or nurturers. Custody outcomes reflect that widespread belief, not because of systemic discrimination but because both fathers and mothers, on average, hold this belief and act accordingly. However, there is no basis for this belief, and there are numerous studies which contradict it.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Attention to women faded in the election of 1932, dominated as it was by the Depression, and fewer observations were recorded. However, when Gallup surveyed expected voters in 1936, he asked those who had voted in 1932 to declare their choice. Of those who said they had voted, 63 % of the men were for FDR, but only 57 % of the women. Only 35 % of the men said they voted for Hoover, compared to 41 % of the women. (AIPO (Gallup) Poll #53). This differential voting pattern faded to less than two percent in Presidential elections until 1952...

Ref: Jay Newton-Small (Time Magazine Washington Correspondent, & author of
Broad Influence: How Women Are Changing The Way America Works)...
She cites only a 20% to 30% a "critical mass" of women to gain significant influence.
I concur with her, but to be cautious, I'm citing the much higher threshold of 50+%.
Your example above further illustrates both my point & Newton-Small's.

In 1964 as in 1960 the gender gap of 2 to 3 % was too small to be significant, but it was notable because, for the first time, women were more likely than men to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate."
From Gender Gaps in Presidential Elections (emphasis mine)

A small gender gap is far from insignificant. Consider that elections are won & lost by far smaller margins (eg, Bush v Gore).
But the gap is the wrong focus. Instead, it should be the size & power of the voting block to which politicians pay attention.
This is where women wield great power.

 

[Revoltingest]

A theoretical privilege with no practical benefit, and which is unlikely to become relevant in the future.

It is only theoretical until it isn't.
As one who planned to move to Canuckistan until Nixon cancelled the draft, it loomed very real.
(My draft lottery# was always high...until the one which counted. Wouldn't ya know it would be 34 !)
I regularly hear calls to reactivate the draft for social integration purposes (eg, Chas Rangel),
& with some presidential candidates beating war drums (eg, Hillary), there is a risk of it coming back.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've already cited data disputing the idea that the major public policy changes that you referred to were driven by the votes of women, but there are other problems with your analysis. I'm afraid I'm not capable of dealing with them succinctly, but I'll summarize my previous posts

Data alone do not an argument make.
We see largely the same data, & reach different conclusions,
although I'm not clear on how much power you think women have.

1) The Argument from Patriarchy as Cultural Hegemony

The social and political force of patriarchy can't be adequately measured by simple voter demographics because the exercise of political power is more complex:​

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin

Who gets to vote surely does matter. Suffrage of women is an important event in US history. But the socio-cultural forces of patriarchy are also felt in the social institutions that decide who runs for office, from political parties to donors and fundraisers, and various other political groups. Appealing to national census data is insufficient to capture these effects. Women do not vote as a monolithic block, nor do men. Patriarchical attitudes are not restricted to men, nor feminist attitudes to women. Population numbers do not capture this either.
​

2) The Argument from Representative Democracy

Here I made the analogy between your argument and attempts to understand political power by looking at partisian affiliation. This analogy is useful in part because you cited women as being a majority of the most powerful political party.

While there have been more Democrats than Republicans for 70 years, we have had plenty of Republican presidents and Republican-controlled congresses. This illustrates how simple demographic data like partisan affiliation doesn't tell the whole story. In the same way, demographic data on gender also fails to capture much that is real. The wide difference between the number of female voters and the number of women in office, the judiciary, and in other important social institutions demonstrates this.
​

3) "Proving Too much" is a logical fallacy.

In this case it something like a reductio ad absurdum. If political power is adequately measured by simple demographic numbers, than data from the 1920 census suggests that there was no patriarchy in 1920, a seemingly absurd conclusion. The direct argument is based on the fact that in the 1920 census women were already very close to 50% of the population, and is strengthened by the fact that male domination in population was concentrated in western states with smaller numbers of representatives and electoral college votes. Cf. page 6 of the census data.​

You're dealing a great deal with history, while I'm focusing on the current state of Americastanian government & society.
I'd venture that the patriarchy v matriarchy balance shifted greatly in the direction of the latter since 1920.
Some might say it was a patriarchy then, & it still is now.
I find that to paint a simplistic & inaccurate picture because it fails to address change & current status.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is statistical data on the desires of parents in divorce cases where custody must be decided. It is slightly older than I'd like, but it's the best I've been able to find with the data available online. Essentially the takeaway is that fathers take custody less often, but that this is primarily because they seek custody less often. 90+% of custody cases are decided by settlement of the parents without court involvement. There isn't evidence to support the claim that courts are discriminatory against men when they decide custody cases, once you take into account the actual desires of fathers.

Rather, the evidence supports the thesis that gendered norms about parenthood are a result of cultural patriarchy, which assumes (as you did in your OP) that women are more naturally suited to be caregivers or nurturers. Custody outcomes reflect that widespread belief, not because of systemic discrimination but because both fathers and mothers, on average, hold this belief and act accordingly. However, there is no basis for this belief, and there are numerous studies which contradict it.

I'm skeptical of statistical data which runs counter to real world observations.
To say fathers don't want custody conflicts with a great number of acquaintances.
Those fathers who wanted custody seldom got it.
(I know of 2 cases, one voluntary by the mother, & the other fought tooth & nail.)
Some have not sought custody because they knew they could't get it.
Where you might see no governmental discrimination against fathers, & favoring mothers,
I've observed the contrary.

If the wage gap is a sign of discrimination against women because of statistical disparate
effect, then this same standard should apply to fathers in child custody cases.
Consider a feminist source debunking the claim of discrimination against fathers....
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/bias-against-fathers/
This article claims that mothers gain custody 83% of the time.
I don't think this is due to paternal preferences.
Btw, I acknowledge complexities on both sides of this analogy.

 

[lovemuffin]

Ref: Jay Newton-Small (Time Magazine Washington Correspondent, & author of
Broad Influence: How Women Are Changing The Way America Works)...
She cites only a 20% to 30% a "critical mass" of women to gain significant influence.
I concur with her, but to be cautious, I'm citing the much higher threshold of 50+%.
Your example above further illustrates both my point & Newton-Small's.

Two points. First, I think you're changing the subject. No one is arguing that women don't have more influence than they did 100 years ago. The argument is rather that society is still closer to being a patriarchy than a matriarchy, and that there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support that claim.

Secondly, while I don't have this book, it does not appear to me to be very likely that the author would actually agree with your claims. I note that in the table of contents the final chapters are called "Electoral challenges", "Cultural challenges", and an epilogue called "Towards Parity". What do those chapters say about this question? Have you read the book?

In this NFWL profile of the book, which I found through Newton-Small's twitter, they begin with a quote:

"My whole life, I always thought I'd never live to see parity; turns out women dont need to get to parity to be heard to make a difference..."
​

This does not appear to be someone arguing that we have ended patriarchy or that women now have more power than men. This is someone arguing that we haven't reached parity in power terms but that we don't need to in order to make a difference. That's a far narrower claim and not one I would be at all inclined to dispute. One can celebrate the successes of feminism without thinking the job is finished or that we're now becoming a matriarchy.

Beyond that, tweets like this, or this conversation, don't seem to indicate support for your argument:

"Love your book @JNSmall. You see how gender is the fault-line running beneath almost every issue & how everything will improve as women rise
(Ron Susskind, Jan 8)

"@RonSusskind Thank you!! Indeed, I took a lot on gender from your great book and built on that."
(Jay Newton Small, Jan 8)
​

 

[lovemuffin]

It is only theoretical until it isn't.

I'm somewhat amused that you cite Clinton as a candidate discussing war over any of the Republicans. You aren't really disagreeing with me though. I'll tell you what, if at any point in the future there is any real talk about reinstating the draft, I will be right beside you arguing that it should either be abolished or made gender neutral.

 

[lovemuffin]

I'm skeptical of statistical data which runs counter to real world observations.

There is a tremendous amount of research that supports the usefulness of statistical research methods. If we really want to discuss that I can do so, but from my perspective this is a very weak rebuttal. It's the fallacy of incredulity

If the wage gap is a sign of discrimination against women because of statistical disparate
effect, then this same standard should apply to fathers in child custody cases.
Consider a feminist source debunking the claim of discrimination against fathers....
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/bias-against-fathers/
This article claims that mothers gain custody 83% of the time.
I don't think this is due to paternal preferences.
Btw, I acknowledge complexities on both sides of this analogy.

It happens to be the case that I've read this blog entry. It cites much of the same data I did. It doesn't support your original argument. The author makes the same kinds of counter-arguments and draws the same conclusions which I did.

Here is her conclusion:

"Patriarchy hurts everyone. Marriage and divorce are a perfect example of that.

Patriarchy tells us that fathers should be disconnected from the home. It tells us that mothers must leave their careers no matter how fulfilling. It tells us that fathers do not nurture, and mothers cannot have careers. And it affects how custody battles are eventually ruled – and not because the court is particularly in favor of women.

So if we want to change the role of fathers in divorce, we must first address the roles of fathers in the home.​

In other words, we're not disagreeing about there being a gendered difference in custody outcomes. That's a fact. You argued that it was evidence of an advantage held by women. I argued that it's actually evidence of cultural patriarchy. She is making the same argument.