"Patriarchy"

[Revoltingest]

Sure there is diversity within all movements. I don't deny that. However, if sexism against men is increasing, I'm curious where that is true. Are women in power denying men more protection simply because they are men? Are women who are in power speaking and writing about how it's time that men need to get out of leadership positions because they are men? Are women in power making edicts, claims, and laws in books that insist men are not capable, not intelligent enough, or are too burdened to receive an education, get a job, or care for children? Are women in religious leadership telling men they need to stop complaining about abuse they might be receiving at home and submit to their wives to save their marriages?
Are rates of single fathers getting custody of minor children increasing or decreasing?
Are discussions about men suffering at the hands of women (abuse and rape included) being blacklisted, gag-ordered, or threatened with jail time?
Are boys being more targeted with threats of violence if they wish to get an education?
Are men being told what they have rights to regarding their reproductive systems in their own bodies?
I get the feeling that "sexism increasing against men" is a buzz phrase for men finding some of their privileges revoked in society, and seeing positions that once were freely handed to them not being freely handed to them anymore. I could be wrong, however, but I've yet to see a coherent argument that sexism is, indeed, increasing against men as a whole in society.

I don't even look at increasing or decreasing problems related to gender. If something is wrong, then it's wrong & worth correcting.
But be careful wielding the "buzzword" criticism, lest thou be hoist by thine own petard. A disputed claim is better countered than labeled.

 

[Alceste]

Sure there is diversity within all movements. I don't deny that. However, if sexism against men is increasing, I'm curious where that is true. Are women in power denying men more protection simply because they are men? Are women who are in power speaking and writing about how it's time that men need to get out of leadership positions because they are men? Are women in power making edicts, claims, and laws in books that insist men are not capable, not intelligent enough, or are too burdened to receive an education, get a job, or care for children? Are women in religious leadership telling men they need to stop complaining about abuse they might be receiving at home and submit to their wives to save their marriages?

Are rates of single fathers getting custody of minor children increasing or decreasing?

Are discussions about men suffering at the hands of women (abuse and rape included) being blacklisted, gag-ordered, or threatened with jail time?

Are boys being more targeted with threats of violence if they wish to get an education?

Are men being told what they have rights to regarding their reproductive systems in their own bodies?

I get the feeling that "sexism increasing against men" is a buzz phrase for men finding some of their privileges revoked in society, and seeing positions that once were freely handed to them not being freely handed to them anymore. I could be wrong, however, but I've yet to see a coherent argument that sexism is, indeed, increasing against men as a whole in society.

You notice it when you are applying for jobs and the listing says "we are an equal opportunity employer and welcome applications from women and minorities".

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I don't even look at increasing or decreasing problems related to gender. If something is wrong, then it's wrong & worth correcting.
But be careful wielding the "buzzword" criticism, lest thou be hoist by thine own petard. A disputed claim is better countered than labeled.

I mentioned that I could be wrong, eh?

 

[Revoltingest]

I mentioned that I could be wrong, eh?

You could?
Uh oh....that suggests that I could be wrong on occasion!

 

[Me Myself]

That's a nonsensical question. Gender inequality is an aspect of patriarchy. It's not a separate thing at all. It isn't a question of before and after. The presence of gender inequality is how we assess whether or not we are living in a patriarchy.

No, the way we seee whether or not we are living in a patriarchy is if there is the SPECIFIC gender inequality that you mention here:

T
Do women lack proportional access to political and economic power? If your answer is YES, then you are living in a patriarchy.

That is the only thing that indicates whether it is a patriarchy or not. If there is equal opportunity for both genders to be in power yet other forms of discrimination exist, then it wouldnt be called a patriarchy, because the only thing that patriarchy talks about is about WHO CAN BE LEADER.

Thats it. The arguments each specific patriarchy uses are not important. A chair is a chair whether it was made of wood, cotton or steel or stone. Eliminating all chairs wont eliminate steel nor stone nor cotton.

Eliminating patriarchy is desirable, but it is not the same to eliminate the system in which men are more likely to be leaders than to eliminate the fact that most people on extreme poverty are males, or that female on male rape is not considered rape in many countries. This things are not related to whether or not female have good access to leadership. Patriarchy is related to only men having access to leadership.

When you, a girl, attempt to go to school to learn how to read and write, do grown men throw acid into your face or shoot you in the head? If your answer is YES, then you are living in an extreme patriarchy.

Sure, but also there are OTHER extreme problems with that society apart from that. One thing is to say women cant be leaders. Another thing is to say women cannot have education and even ANOTHER thing is to say it is okay to throw acid on a women or girls face. All of these these are wrong, but are not the same thing.

If we didn't see gender inequality everywhere we look, we would have no reason to believe we are living in a social system where one gender has greater access to political and economic power than the other.

I have no idea why you keep debating this. We have already established we both agree that when it comes to political leadership, women are less prone to rise. We agree about that. That is not what we are arguing.

Te subject is that it is not the same to say "men are the only ones that must be able to be leaders" than "female on male rape is not rape" and "most people living in extreme poverty in x country are male". This things are not the same. Yes, they are not MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, but they are not THE SAME.

 

[Me Myself]

Masculism/masculinism has two main aspects (note: even though the link is to answers.com, the material is originally from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):


Source: Masculism: Information from Answers.com

So... there's one segment of the masculism/masculinism movement that's invested in traditional gender roles and another segment that's not. In my experience, the net effect seems to be that the movement as a whole is more about perpetuating gender roles than tearing them down, but of course there's going to be variation from person to person and from group to group.

Google Warren Faller and you might get a healthy surprise. He is a masculist who worked with feminism before and ended up getting out of it. He supports feminist attempts to finish injustice towards women and you 'll find he is very open to completely atypical roles in a couple when he says something like "if the woman is very succesfull and job oriented and she wants a family, she will generally be better with a man who would be willing to take the roll of "house husband" and raise the kids and support her. "

Look him up on youtube, you ll hear a lot of really interesting things.

 

[Koldo]

That's a nonsensical question. Gender inequality is an aspect of patriarchy. It's not a separate thing at all. It isn't a question of before and after. The presence of gender inequality is how we assess whether or not we are living in a patriarchy.

I am probably just going to do some nitpicking, but the presence of gender inequality doesn't entail necessarily patriarchy. As it happens to be case that matriarchy could also lead to gender inequality.

 

[Me Myself]

I am probably just going to do some nitpicking, but the presence of gender inequality doesn't entail necessarily patriarchy. As it happens to be case that matriarchy could also lead to gender inequality.

Exactly. Although I dont personally know of any place where a matriarchy could be said to exist, but yes, that would be a good example of a gender inequality that ( most obviously ) doesnt have anything to do with patriarchy.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I am probably just going to do some nitpicking, but the presence of gender inequality doesn't entail necessarily patriarchy. As it happens to be case that matriarchy could also lead to gender inequality.

And the unanswered question has been: where is matriarchy in our culture?

 

[Me Myself]

And the unanswered question has been: where is matriarchy in our culture?

And the underlaying question beind that, who has ever said there is a matriarchy?

 

[Revoltingest]

And the unanswered question has been: where is matriarchy in our culture?

Unanswered? Hah! Double hah! You just don't agree with my answer.
Government by gender is analogous to economics, in that virtually no system is pure. So just as we have a hybrid of socialism & capitalism,
we have a hybrid of patriarchy & matriarchy. The growth of the welfare state is arguably a direct result of women gaining political power.
(It's all that unnecessary nurturing & 'fairness'. Menfolk didn't cause that.) Moreover, the heifers outvote the bulls.
A corresponding question is....if you say American society is patriarchy without dilution, then how do you justify the idea that men hold
all the power?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Unanswered? Hah! Double hah! You just don't agree with my answer.

Right, I don't agree it answered the question.

Government by gender is analogous to economics, in that virtually no system is pure. So just as we have a hybrid of socialism & capitalism,
we have a hybrid of patriarchy & matriarchy. The growth of the welfare state is arguably a direct result of women gaining political power.
(It's all that unnecessary nurturing & 'fairness'. Menfolk didn't cause that.) Moreover, the heifers outvote the bulls.

I believe that isn't a hybrid of patriarchal and matriarchal elements, but that our culture has become more egalitarian. It's evident of not so much that a major shift of women exclusive gaining political power and the blatant and concerted exclusion of males, with enforcement of male oppression.

A corresponding question is....if you say American society is patriarchy without dilution, then how do you justify the idea that men hold
all the power?

I find American society to be a smaller degree of patriarchy, not the extreme patriarchal elements of other Third World nations. It isn't so much that if patriarchy has lessened that there is a void created where women-exclusive power suddenly rushes in to fill it. I ask again, where are women in majority political and influential power repressing males simply because they are males?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find American society to be a smaller degree of patriarchy, not the extreme patriarchal elements of other Third World nations. It isn't so much that if patriarchy has lessened that there is a void created where women-exclusive power suddenly rushes in to fill it. I ask again, where are women in majority political and influential power repressing males simply because they are males?

Traditionally, Iroquois society was at least matrilineal if not a matriarchy. Women held a great deal of societal and political power, and apparently, while they still had male chiefs, those chiefs could be overruled or voted out by a majority of the women.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, I don't agree it answered the question.

You rascal!

I believe that isn't a hybrid of patriarchal and matriarchal elements, but that our culture has become more egalitarian.

I'd agree there is that. But it fails to explain government becoming more caring
& sensitive (aka "the welfare state"). This change definitely screams girly power.

It's evident of not so much that a major shift of women exclusive gaining political power and the blatant and concerted exclusion of males, with enforcement of male oppression.

Say whuh?

I find American society to be a smaller degree of patriarchy, not the extreme patriarchal elements of other Third World nations. It isn't so much that if patriarchy has lessened that there is a void created where women-exclusive power suddenly rushes in to fill it. I ask again, where are women in majority political and influential power repressing males simply because they are males?

I don't know where women are a majority power at all, or in power & repressing men. Is this necessary for your definition of matriarchy?
If so, I'd say that's an overly narrow definition. But neither can you say that menfolk are a majority power in the US, when you guys
outvote us, & put the leaders in charge. If you choose male leaders to do your bidding, you cannot easily claim that it's a patriarchy.

 

[Me Myself]

Traditionally, Iroquois society was at least matrilineal if not a matriarchy. Women held a great deal of societal and political power, and apparently, while they still had male chiefs, those chiefs could be overruled or voted out by a majority of the women.

They were a matriarchy? Thats probably a result of their ptrriarchal system too.

 

[Me Myself]

You rascal!

I'd agree there is that. But it fails to explain government becoming more caring
& sensitive (aka "the welfare state"). This change definitely screams girly power.

Say whuh?


I don't know where women are a majority power at all, or in power & repressing men. Is this necessary for your definition of matriarchy?
If so, I'd say that's an overly narrow definition. But neither can you say that menfolk are a majority power in the US, when you guys
outvote us, & put the leaders in charge. If you choose male leaders to do your bidding, you cannot easily claim that it's a patriarchy.

Actually... That is correct. I wouldn't say that makes it a matriarchy though, but yeah, technically speaking, women have the final say on who is a political leader in US not men. I still wouldnt call it a matriarchy because each individual female vote is worth as much whether you are male or female.

Actuallly... Now I am completely curious, where is e patriarchy in US?

Are women less capable of opening up their own business than men? They are certainly not less capable of becoming president.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually... That is correct. I wouldn't say that makes it a matriarchy though, but yeah, technically speaking, women have the final say on who is a political leader in US not men. I still wouldnt call it a matriarchy because each individual female vote is worth as much whether you are male or female.
Actuallly... Now I am completely curious, where is e patriarchy in US?
Are women less capable of opening up their own business than men? They are certainly not less capable of becoming president.

I better be careful, & state once again that I do not believe we have a matriarchy, lest we see another false claim that I said we do.
I say very specifically that matriarchy is just a component, a partial component, of our society. Gawd, we must be so careful with
how we choose our words with some topics. No place for brevity or nuance is there.

 

[Me Myself]

I better be careful, & state once again that I do not believe we have a matriarchy, lest we see another false claim that I said we do.
I say very specifically that matriarchy is just a component, a partial component, of our society. Gawd, we must be so careful with
how we choose our words with some topics. No place for brevity or nuance is there.

I guess, I do was surprised to read you use the word

Athough now I genuinely wonder, how is there a patriarchy in the US?

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess, I do was surprised to read you use the word
Athough now I genuinely wonder, how is there a patriarchy in the US?

Tis above my pay grade to say who has more control in the US, male or female.
And both genders seem to be changing, eg, women more pro-war.

 

[Me Myself]

Tis above my pay grade to say who has more control in the US, male or female.
And both genders seem to be changing, eg, women more pro-war.

I am actually talk,ing more about opportunity for control. So it is true that y havent had no women president, but how many women candidates? And truly the voters are more women than men. In theory, why would a woman have less opportunities an a man to be president, if she wanted to?

Other forms of leadership would be to be the head of the family, which is more abstract and I have no idea in how many families does the wife have the final say or the husband have a final say (and I would assume none of both truly would have "absolute" power, after all, it is still a persuasion business that one)

When it comes to business, is there any reason why a woman would have less opportunities than a man to put her own business?

Al these are just questions, but I am interested in the answers. Where is the patriarchy in US now?