Americastan.....Patriarchy Or Matriarchy?

[Revoltingest]

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.

Well, I'm not arguing that anyone is arguing that.
You're not arguing that I'm arguing that anyone is arguing that, are you?
If so I'd argue with your arguing that I'm arguing that.....you know.

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.

Ahah!
This is exactly what I wanted posters to address.

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.

It doesn't matter if she does.
I cited her because I found merit in her work....albeit based upon an interview on NPR.
(Other books take greater priority.)

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?

Haven't read it.

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)
​

​

Isn't it great that a feminist who might not agree with me on everything can have some common ground with me?
She struck me as a "power positive" feminist.
But my greatest compliment is that she's interesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm somewhat amused that you cite Clinton as a candidate discussing war over any of the Republicans.

This comes up in the context of evaluating leading Democratic candidates.
I don't care for hawks in any party.
(Non-aggressionist here, you know.)

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.

I'd oppose even a gender neutral draft.

 

[lovemuffin]

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.

No social scientist, political scientist, anthropologist, or other expert on culture would agree that you can adequately consider this kind of complex topic while ignoring history.

You call my approach "simplistic" but your approach wants to eliminate any consideration of history while also reducing measures of political power to simple demographic variables. Between the two of us, it seems to me that your approach is quite obviously the simpler of the two.

Beyond that, much of the data I cited is not historical. The percentage of men holding positions of power in government is not historical, but current. Information on the wage gap is current. Data about custody cases is not ancient history. I could also supply citations that look at influence in media, also current. Or sexual assault and "rape culture." It's not reasonable to characterize my responses as primarily dealing with history.

 

[lovemuffin]

Isn't it great that a feminist who might not agree with me on everything can have some common ground with me?
She struck me as a "power positive" feminist.
But my greatest compliment is that she's interesting.

I read quite a bit of her work on politics in 2008. I'm a fan. I just don't think you can plausibly cite her work as supporting your position on this subject.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a tremendous amount of research that supports the usefulness of statistical research methods.

I'm a big fan of statistics.
But I also find that some are rife with error, usually in matching goals to the populations & situations studied.
Once though, I found a math error in a Scientific Americastanian article.....it utterly ruined the conclusion.

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

When statistical claims don't match experience in an area of familiarity, this raises my skepticism level.

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.

And I explained why the statistics might not reflect the reality claimed.
Again, if a father knows he's at a legal disadvantage, this affects what he claims.
(When one is in a poor bargaining position, one scales back one's claims.)
As with wage disparity, custody disparity is not so simple.

 

[Revoltingest]

I read quite a bit of her work on politics in 2008. I'm a fan. I just don't think you can plausibly cite her work as supporting your position on this subject.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that.

 

[Revoltingest]

No social scientist, political scientist, anthropologist, or other expert on culture would agree that you can adequately consider this kind of complex topic while ignoring history.

Silly analogy time.
If I ask you how tall you are, it does me not good to tell me that you were 4'7" when you were 8 years old.
I know your history is important, but I'm talking about something else.

You call my approach "simplistic"......

No....I spoke of what "some might say".
Since you hadn't addressed the current state much yet, I spoke of what is commonly said by some feminists.
And this was the inspiration for the thread.
Don't take things so personally when they aren't.
(I'm typically not that sly.....or skilled.)

The rest of your post is already covered....except for the "rape culture" remark, which I find dramatic.

 

[lovemuffin]

Since you hadn't addressed the current state much yet

This is false, and quite obviously so. I'd like to reiterate that I've shown a tremendous amount of respect for you by taking as much time as I have to provide you thoughtful and well documented arguments. The least you could do is take this more seriously. Again, wage gap data is the current state. The gender of members of congressional, judicial, and state legislative bodies are current. We're discussing as modern of custody stats as possible. The draft discussion is in the present. The arguments about patriarchy as cultural hegemony are all arguments about the present.

Essentially none of what I've said is merely historical. The historical was only a backdrop. In fact, all the historical claims I made were rebutting points you brought up, i.e that women voters were responsible for the welfare state.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is false, and quite obviously so.

It isn't so obvious to me.
I've been wondering where you stand, & I really don't know to what extent you'd say we currently have a patriarchy.
20%? 50%? 100%?
I don't know if you even accept the perspective of seeing mixed political power with a component of matriarchy.

I'd like to reiterate that I've shown a tremendous amount of respect for you by taking as much time as I have to provide you thoughtful and well documented arguments.

Yes, you've been very much about the issues this evening.

The least you could do is take this more seriously.

I've been serious.
These posts are what it looks like when I'm completely serious.

Again, wage gap data is the current state. The gender of members of congressional, judicial, and state legislative bodies are current. We're discussing as modern of custody stats as possible. The draft discussion is in the present. The arguments about patriarchy as cultural hegemony are all arguments about the present.
Essentially none of what I've said is merely historical. The historical was only a backdrop. In fact, all the historical claims I made were rebutting points you brought up, i.e that women voters were responsible for the welfare state.

This is covering already well trampled ground.

 

[lovemuffin]

I don't find it particularly meaningful or worthwhile to try to attach a percentage to Patriarchy. It doesn't make sense to me to quantify. It's just not suitable to that sort of treatment, because it is not really possible to define it with anything like that sort of precision.

That said, if someone said they thought we were halfway to a reasonable goal, by some sort of rough approximation, I guess I wouldn't argue that strenuously about it, but it's clear to me that halfway is still a long way to go.

As far as "well-trampled" ground, you have made the claim several times that I'm only dealing with history. As long as you keep repeating the claim it's hard for me to rebut it except by describing what I've actually talked about and the fact that it involves present considerations. I'm not sure how this could be clearer.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't find it particularly meaningful or worthwhile to try to attach a percentage to Patriarchy. It doesn't make sense to me to quantify. It's just not suitable to that sort of treatment, because it is not really possible to define it with anything like that sort of precision.

There's where we don't share a perspective.
I tend to see some phenomena as having components which make up the whole,
eg, partial pressures in gases. Power can be seen to function the same way.

That said, if someone said they thought we were halfway to a reasonable goal, by some sort of rough approximation, I guess I wouldn't argue that strenuously about it, but it's clear to me that halfway is still a long way to go.
As far as "well-trampled" ground, you have made the claim several times that I'm only dealing with history. As long as you keep repeating the claim it's hard for me to rebut it except by describing what I've actually talked about and the fact that it involves present considerations. I'm not sure how this could be clearer.

There are times when it's best to agree to disagree.
This way we avoid repeating ourselves fruitlessly.

Huh.....only just now did I notice that you're staff.
Did you do one of those introductory threads?

 

[lovemuffin]

Huh.....only just now did I notice that you're staff.

You didn't like it when I pointed out that you weren't reading my posts, but I told you I was staff many posts ago.

 

[Revoltingest]

You didn't like it when I pointed out that you weren't reading my posts, but I told you I was staff many posts ago.

There are many things to remember here.
I forget things. I miss things.
It might happen again.

Btw, I did skip some of your posts for reasons covered earlier.
That's why I requested addressing them anew.

 

[Thana]

I'm not a fan of seeing things as 100% this or that.

It isn't so obvious to me.
I've been wondering where you stand, & I really don't know to what extent you'd say we currently have a patriarchy.
20%? 50%? 100%?

You seem to be very conflicted, You're changing your mind throughout this thread constantly. You want us to give a good argument for the existence of a current patriarchy and when we do you shoot down our statistics and facts in favour of your anecdotes. That's not a very reasonable position.

 

[Revoltingest]

You seem to be very conflicted, You're changing your mind throughout this thread constantly. You want us to give a good argument for the existence of a current patriarchy and when we do you shoot down our statistics and facts in favour of your anecdotes. That's not a very reasonable position.

I haven't changed my mind at all.
No one has presented a cogent argument to convince me that we aren't a society in which both
males & females exercise great power, & that each functions as a somewhat separate voting block.
This is more about interpretation of statistics & facts, so to cite some is not to win an argument.
I recommend approaching this as I intended, ie, a conversation, not as an argument to win.
The problem with trying to win a debate is that it so often results in defending a position, while finding no merit in the others.

I've left the door open as to where the balance between male & female power lies.
So far, it seems there's much argument that we're simply...."patriarchy".
That's disappointingly unnuanced (neologism intended).

 

[lovemuffin]

There's a difference between leaving room for nuance and presenting information in quantitative form. It is quite possible to have nuance with qualitative concepts. In fact, it is generally easier to allow room for nuance with qualitative concepts than with quantitative ones.

 

[lovemuffin]

Also, despite my reticence, I did in fact give you an answer that was more than "simply... patriarchy". I said 50% as a very rough approximation. You say you want a conversation but you seem to take every opportunity to avoid having one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, despite my reticence, I did in fact give you an answer that was more than "simply... patriarchy". I said 50% as a very rough approximation. You say you want a conversation but you seem to take every opportunity to avoid having one.

Geeze....relax.
Stop trying so hard to 'win'.
You'll be a better conversationalist if you do.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How I miss labor, and heaven help me, Julia Gillard.

Bah...Julia was supposed to help all the important minority groups in politics...
(women, atheists and ginger-heads)
But she was unfortunately underwhelming in her performance (although personally I think she was capable enough, but for whatever reason struggled to translate it to leadership)

 

[Thana]

I haven't changed my mind at all.
No one has presented a cogent argument to convince me that we aren't a society in which both
males & females exercise great power, & that each functions as a somewhat separate voting block.
This is more about interpretation of statistics & facts, so to cite some is not to win an argument.
I recommend approaching this as I intended, ie, a conversation, not as an argument to win.
The problem with trying to win a debate is that it so often results in defending a position, while finding no merit in the others.

I've left the door open as to where the balance between male & female power lies.
So far, it seems there's much argument that we're simply...."patriarchy".
That's disappointingly unnuanced (neologism intended).

We've all agreed that women are not completely powerless, and that the term patriarchy is for general use only.

I understand your position, I really do. You're trying to show that women aren't as powerless as we may think, but we know that. It's just that it's not good enough. Men still dominate, and that is what makes it a patriarchy.