"Patriarchy"

[Alceste]

i ve put in bold the parts that dont have anything to do with an "archy" concept.

In a monarchy, kings fdont go to wars (the,selves) to demonstrate their toughness. Or at least they are not forced to.

Given this, there is no reason to think this attitude comes from patriarchy itself, and furerre there is no reason to think it is not the other way around: for as much as we know, patriarchy is the result of an unequal perception of the genders, and the things that are attributed to patriarchy really are what caused patriachy not the other way around.

Nobody in government ever fights wars themselves. You are missing the point. Patriarchy means a society where women are excluded from economic and political power. It doesn't mean ALL men rule. It only means that whoever happens to hold power probably also has a penis. So when you are sent to war, it's other men doing the sending, not women.

 

[Me Myself]

Nobody in government ever fights wars themselves. You are missing the point. Patriarchy means a society where women are excluded from economic and political power. It doesn't mean ALL men rule. It only means that whoever happens to hold power probably also has a penis. So when you are sent to war, it's other men doing the sending, not women.

I dont know why people keep thinking I believe patriarchy means all men having power.

First of all: when I talk about the draft I am not saying it is CONTRADICTORY to the meaning of patriarchy, I am saying it is NOT INHERENT to the meaining of patriarchy. I do think I hae been clear about that, I ve said it plenty of times.

My problem is when feminism conceptually equates "patriarchy" with "men are percieved as tough" . This are not the same. Those are two different things, that while can coexist and do not need to contradict each other, do not support each other either.

Being percieved as tough and good for physical endeavors does not equate being percieved as good leaders. The gender can be percieved to be both, but bothh perceptions are not the same, amd I making myself clear on that?

Thus, I say, why do you pretend patriarchy = all gender discrminations when it doesnt? Patriarchy is a SPECIFIC form of gender discrimination in which a men is the only one able to hold a position of leadership (or is at least preferable). "Men being tough on wars" is not part of that concept.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

S you want me to pretend masculinism talks about matriarchy even when it doesnt? Is this art of the asumptions you want me to make? Why?

I already told you. There exist patriarchy, as the paradigm of men being leaders. I have never suggested matriarchy, I am not sure what you are talking about when you talk about that. I have talked about female privilege, but I ve never said propensity to take leader positions was one of them.

So yeah, if your question is whether patriarchism exists or not I have said loooooooooong ago that it does. Why are you talking about that? You seemed to have understood the thread was about you using the term for things besides male leadership, and not whther male leadership exists or not.

Because I wanted to steer you away from complaining about how "patriarchy" means male=bad and feminism means female=good simply because of the language used. That was the point of your OP, which has been brought up again and again and again as a pretty silly argument. You have been complaining that boys and men don't get enough attention, and that it's because we use terms like "patriarchy" which puts in people's heads the nonsense that we've been trying to correct in this thread.

I'm getting the idea that somewhere, somehow, Alceste and I used terminology that got your panties in a twist. That the focus of our arguments against patriarchy perhaps were taken by you that we just don't really care enough about the discrimination that the men in our lives face. And my point all along has been you're arguing against a position that simply doesn't exist.

You've even gone so far to say that I personally ignore discrimination against men. When I've given you ample evidence to the contrary. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that your accusations against my concerns are false. In the meantime, you STILL refuse to educate yourself on feminism because you think it's "all black and white."

You're so far from understanding feminist positions, and yet in spite of repeated attempts to steer you in the right direction, you continue to cling to the silliest notions about women like me and Alceste just not caring enough about boys like you.

 

[Alceste]

I dont know why people keep thinking I believe patriarchy means all men having power.

First of all: when I talk about the draft I am not saying it is CONTRADICTORY to the meaning of patriarchy, I am saying it is NOT INHERENT to the meaining of patriarchy. I do think I hae been clear about that, I ve said it plenty of times.

My problem is when feminism conceptually equates "patriarchy" with "men are percieved as tough" . This are not the same. Those are two different things, that while can coexist and do not need to contradict each other, do not support each other either.

Being percieved as tough and good for physical endeavors does not equate being percieved as good leaders. The gender can be percieved to be both, but bothh perceptions are not the same, amd I making myself clear on that?

Thus, I say, why do you pretend patriarchy = all gender discrminations when it doesnt? Patriarchy is a SPECIFIC form of gender discrimination in which a men is the only one able to hold a position of leadership (or is at least preferable). "Men being tough on wars" is not part of that concept.

What are the unique qualities men are thought to possess that make them more suitable for positions of leadership?

What at the unique qualities women are thought to possess that make them more suitable to be the primary caregivers for children?

 

[Me Myself]

Because I wanted to steer you away from complaining about how "patriarchy" means male=bad and feminism means female=good simply because of the language used.

.... So you were trying to change the subject of the thread? Well that explains A LOT! I thought you didnt understood the point of the OP not that you were deliberately trying to derail the thread.

I'm getting the idea that somewhere, somehow, Alceste and I used terminology that got your panties in a twist. That the focus of our arguments against patriarchy perhaps were taken by you that we just don't really care enough about the discrimination that the men in our lives face. And my point all along has been you're arguing against a position that simply doesn't exist.

I am sure you would care in a personal level if it was right in front of you and you would call it "the product of patriarchy". I dont have any reason to believe you purposefully want to perpetuate discrimination against men, nor have I ever said such a thing.

Frther more, I am informing you: calling patriarchy things that have nothing to do with "male in positions of leaders" ( like the non importance given to female on male rape, the domestic abuse cases, and others) gives a bad connotation to the gender. It may not be purposefull, but it is there. You can hear it and read it.

That is my argument. This other things you are inventing are not.

You've even gone so far to say that I personally ignore discrimination against men. When I've given you ample evidence to the contrary. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that your accusations against my concerns are false. In the meantime, you STILL refuse to educate yourself on feminism because you think it's "all black and white."

No, what I ve said is that you pretend it is all a product of patriarchy... Which you could see by theame of this thread... And the argument is at it is not. Patriarchy is the product of gender roles, not the other way around.

And I dont have money to spend on books on the subject. i am discussing the ideas you put forth while saying that are feminism. I read the whole wilipedia thing and I ve seen more than one feminist posture with which I disagree a lot.

This thread is about e specific feminist tendency of saying patriarchy is something apart from "male being favored for positions of leaders". At is what this thread is about. You ve said feminism pretends that all gender roles come from patriarchism. That is what I am arguing against. All else has come through caricaturisations and misconceptions of what You think I am saying.

You're so far from understanding feminist positions, and yet in spite of repeated attempts to steer you in the right direction, you continue to cling to the silliest notions about women like me and Alceste just not caring enough about boys like you.

I will go by your first statement and assume this is another insidious attempt to derail the actual subject of the thread.

 

[Me Myself]

What are the unique qualities men are thought to possess that make them more suitable for positions of leadership?

What at the unique qualities women are thought to possess that make them more suitable to be the primary caregivers for children?

You are putting the horse behind the chariot. As I have said, patriarchy is the result of gender discrimination. ONE result.

So the discriminatory ideas you talk about are likely to be the ones that spawned patriarchy. My problem is naming the parent after the son.

Do notice I say "parent" not "father". This is because for those notions to prosper, they must have been had by both women and men, and that PRIOR to spawning patriarchy.

 

[Alceste]

I find it astonishing, Me Myself, that you are so hellbent on Mystic and I accepting you as an authority on what patriarchy does or doesn't mean and what feminism does or doesn't say. You've clearly never read a single book on the subject, attended any class or lecture, or pursued any independent avenue of exploration. To be honest, I don't even know why you are arguing with us. Even after all this time, your comprehension of what a patriarchal paradigm implies is still shallow and misguided. You are still defending completely ludicrous positions, such as arguing that men's superior access to economic and political power is unrelated to the myth of superior male physical, intellectual and emotional strength.

I just don't know what to do with you. It's like talking to a creationist or global warming denialist.

 

[Alceste]

You are putting the horse behind the chariot. As I have said, patriarchy is the result of gender discrimination. ONE result.

So the discriminatory ideas you talk about are likely to be the ones that spawned patriarchy. My problem is naming the parent after the son.

Do notice I say "parent" not "father". This is because for those notions to prosper, they must have been had by both women and men, and that PRIOR to spawning patriarchy.

Please just answer the questions.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

.... So you were trying to change the subject of the thread? Well that explains A LOT! I thought you didnt understood the point of the OP not that you were deliberately trying to derail the thread.

No, I was not trying to change the subject of the thread. I was wanting you to see your entire argument is posturing.

I am sure you would care in a personal level if it was right in front of you and you would call it "the product of patriarchy". I dont have any reason to believe you purposefully want to perpetuate discrimination against men, nor have I ever said such a thing.

You stated unequivocally that I didn't care and asked why I was ignoring all the specific discriminations that men face. Would you like to take back these false accusations, or would you like to stand with those accusations, or would like me to bring them up again to show you if you deny them?

Frther more, I am informing you: calling patriarchy things that have nothing to do with "male in positions of leaders" ( like the non importance given to female on male rape, the domestic abuse cases, and others) gives a bad connotation to the gender. It may not be purposefull, but it is there. You can hear it and read it.

That is my argument. This other things you are inventing are not.

LOL no invention needed. Your argument is based on all kinds of false assumptions and needs no help in refuting. That has been my response all along too.

No, what I ve said is that you pretend it is all a product of patriarchy... Which you could see by theame of this thread... And the argument is at it is not. Patriarchy is the product of gender roles, not the other way around.

Father headship and rule began with clearly defined gender roles? That these gender roles are what created patriarchy? What do you base this off of? Your years of study?

And I dont have money to spend on books on the subject. i am discussing the ideas you put forth while saying that are feminism. I read the whole wilipedia thing and I ve seen more than one feminist posture with which I disagree a lot.

You know, this fascination over what I myself alone specifically has said about feminism and your assumption that all feminists are exactly like me is getting weirder and weirder. I've mentioned repeatedly that feminism is a rich tapestry of thought and movements. I have my views. I disagree on issues that my PhD friend discusses surrounding feminism. This is why I suggested doing your own research instead of seeing Mystic as the "voice of feminism." I have my views because of my experience and my years of independent study....no....decades of independent study. But it's not dependent on what any one single feminist says.

It's not fair to me OR to you to think that way. Saying you don't have a lot of money to spend on the subject doesn't mean anything. I'd love to read more about A_E offered as resources on women in Hellenistic society after he researched it, but I don't have the time right now. However, I am not making the mistake that I know enough about the subject to say what I agree with and what I disagree with.

This thread is about e specific feminist tendency of saying patriarchy is something apart from "male being favored for positions of leaders". At is what this thread is about. You ve said feminism pretends that all gender roles come from patriarchism. That is what I am arguing against. All else has come through caricaturisations and misconceptions of what You think I am saying.

It isn't just me, MM. Listen to what everybody else is saying to you, too.

I will go by your first statement and assume this is another insidious attempt to derail the actual subject of the thread.

:biglaugh:

 

[Me Myself]

I find it astonishing, Me Myself, that you are so hellbent on Mystic and I accepting you as an authority on what patriarchy does or doesn't mean and what feminism does or doesn't say. You've clearly never read a single book on the subject, attended any class or lecture, or pursued any independent avenue of exploration. To be honest, I don't even know why you are arguing with us. Even after all this time, your comprehension of what a patriarchal paradigm implies is still shallow and misguided. You are still defending completely ludicrous positions, such as arguing that men's superior access to economic and political power is unrelated to the myth of superior male physical, intellectual and emotional strength.

I just don't know what to do with you. It's like talking to a creationist or global warming denialist.

Oh my word? No, not at all, take oxford by all means:

Definition of patriarchy in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

That is what patriarchy actually means. Everything else is an elaboration from feminist sources that end up giving a male attribute to the very existence of gender inequality when it simply doesnt have to be that way.

 

[sandandfoam]

Everything else is an elaboration from feminist sources that end up giving a male attribute to the very existence of gender inequality when it simply doesnt have to be that way.

Any man worthy of his testicles is a feminist.

 

[Me Myself]

No, I was not trying to change the subject of the thread. I was wanting you to see your entire argument is posturing.



You stated unequivocally that I didn't care and asked why I was ignoring all the specific discriminations that men face. Would you like to take back these false accusations, or would you like to stand with those accusations, or would like me to bring them up again to show you if you deny them?



LOL no invention needed. Your argument is based on all kinds of false assumptions and needs no help in refuting. That has been my response all along too.



Father headship and rule began with clearly defined gender roles? That these gender roles are what created patriarchy? What do you base this off of? Your years of study?



You know, this fascination over what I myself alone specifically has said about feminism and your assumption that all feminists are exactly like me is getting weirder and weirder. I've mentioned repeatedly that feminism is a rich tapestry of thought and movements. I have my views. I disagree on issues that my PhD friend discusses surrounding feminism. This is why I suggested doing your own research instead of seeing Mystic as the "voice of feminism." I have my views because of my experience and my years of independent study....no....decades of independent study. But it's not dependent on what any one single feminist says.

It's not fair to me OR to you to think that way. Saying you don't have a lot of money to spend on the subject doesn't mean anything. I'd love to read more about A_E offered as resources on women in Hellenistic society after he researched it, but I don't have the time right now. However, I am not making the mistake that I know enough about the subject to say what I agree with and what I disagree with.



It isn't just me, MM. Listen to what everybody else is saying to you, too.



:biglaugh:

I dont understand why you keep putting letters in my posts. I have never said all feminists are like you. When I said you ignored the men's part I was talking about your participation in the thread and your arguments in the thread, I will not take responsibiility for you choosing to think I was talking about you ijn your life which I simply dont pretend to know. I was talking about your arguments and the focus you have given in this discussion.

About the years of study, by all means, show me what exactly has anyone done to show that patriarchy existed before any gender roles being made? I am reading.

 

[Me Myself]

Any man worthy of his testicles is a feminist.

Then any woman worthy of her ovaries is a masculinist too

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I find it astonishing, Me Myself, that you are so hellbent on Mystic and I accepting you as an authority on what patriarchy does or doesn't mean and what feminism does or doesn't say. You've clearly never read a single book on the subject, attended any class or lecture, or pursued any independent avenue of exploration. To be honest, I don't even know why you are arguing with us. Even after all this time, your comprehension of what a patriarchal paradigm implies is still shallow and misguided. You are still defending completely ludicrous positions, such as arguing that men's superior access to economic and political power is unrelated to the myth of superior male physical, intellectual and emotional strength.

I just don't know what to do with you. It's like talking to a creationist or global warming denialist.

There are times when talking with MM has a special place in my heart. Like hearing from my teenaged kids that my husband and I are out of touch with reality and have no idea what it's like going through some things they are going through.

I attribute it to hormones and lack of life experience.

 

[sandandfoam]

Then any woman worthy of her ovaries is a masculinist too

That would be true if men were oppressed. Men are not oppressed.

 

[crossfire]

I find it astonishing, Me Myself, that you are so hellbent on Mystic and I accepting you as an authority on what patriarchy does or doesn't mean and what feminism does or doesn't say. You've clearly never read a single book on the subject, attended any class or lecture, or pursued any independent avenue of exploration. To be honest, I don't even know why you are arguing with us. Even after all this time, your comprehension of what a patriarchal paradigm implies is still shallow and misguided. You are still defending completely ludicrous positions, such as arguing that men's superior access to economic and political power is unrelated to the myth of superior male physical, intellectual and emotional strength.

I just don't know what to do with you. It's like talking to a creationist or global warming denialist.

Oh my word? No, not at all, take oxford by all means:

Definition of patriarchy in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

That is what patriarchy actually means. Everything else is an elaboration from feminist sources that end up giving a male attribute to the very existence of gender inequality when it simply doesnt have to be that way.

Are you saying that you are officially excusing yourself from learning about feminism because you already know what it is all about based upon your own reasoning?

 

[Revoltingest]

That would be true if men were oppressed. Men are not oppressed.

Some men are, simply because they're men. For one group to have a perceived power advantage does not
mean that each in the group benefits, nor that the other group lacks power. Women outvote men in the USA,
so they wield great power, even if they're dissatisfied with the results of exercising it.

 

[sandandfoam]

Some men are, simply because they're men. For one group to have a perceived power advantage does not
mean that each in the group benefits, nor that the other group lacks power. Women outvote men in the USA,
so they wield great power, even if they complain about the results of exercising it.

And then you gallop over here :run:

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I dont understand why you keep putting letters in my posts. I have never said all feminists are like you. When I said you ignored the men's part I was talking about your participation in the thread and your arguments in the thread, I will not take responsibiility for you choosing to think I was talking about you ijn your life which I simply dont pretend to know. I was talking about your arguments and the focus you have given in this discussion.

About the years of study, by all means, show me what exactly has anyone done to show that patriarchy existed before any gender roles being made? I am reading.

You cherry picked an Oxford dictionary entry online. Here, I can lazily do the same for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

Anthropological evidence suggests that most prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies were relatively egalitarian, and that patriarchal social structures did not develop until many years after the end of the Pleistocene era, following social and technological innovations such as agriculture and domestication.[12][13][14] However, according to Robert M. Strozier, historical research has not yet found a specific "initiating event".[15] Some scholars point to about six thousand years ago (4000 BCE), when the concept of fatherhood took root, as the beginning of the spread of patriarchy.[16][17]

Oh goodness gracious me, wiki is all-powerful and all-knowing. Or at least a starting point to the many anthropologists that make it their life's work to study cultures around the world and how they developed. Apparently all they had to do was look at MeMyself on the internet in a single post discovered the very essence of what patriarchy is, what it isn't, how it developed, and why we should cry foul over it's use by feminists around the world.

 

[Me Myself]

Are you saying that you are officially excusing yourself from learning about feminism because you already know what it is all about based upon your own reasoning?

Not at all, I ve read wiki and I am reading everything you post on it. If you want to share any. Link about it, I 'll happily check it.

I am debating the specific feminist concept of patriarchy as held by mystic and alceste. I have no idea how widespread it is, but my very limited exposure to feminist sources seem to confirm the existence of such concept anyways.