"Patriarchy"

[Me Myself]

Do you still take issue with how "patriarchy" seems to be a subliminal denigrating term for men, and how "feminism" subliminally venerates women?

I think this thread has met it's quota for tangents on patriarchy as the thread subject.

Ha! true it has. Yes it is too. Mostly because it is completely arbitrary to designate it in such a way.

Gender inequalities and stereotypes tend to support each other, both the female privileges and the male privileges, so I dont see why it is any helpful to categorize all inequality with a male term and all equallity with a female term (feminism)

It is unnecessarily polarising. Why do it?

 

[outis]

gains in equality for women are directly proportional to the erosion of patriarchal attitudes and institutions.

So would you say for instance that the reunification of Germany amounted to a restoration of patriarchal attitudes and institutions?
The argument has of course been made but I think most people do not understand patriarchy as an antonym of socialism!
For more specific definitions of patriarchy, the facts do not agree with your "directly proportional" thesis as many factors influence equality.

And yes, when it comes to making decisions about what drugs and procedures will be permissible by law or funded with public money, somebody in government needs to decide.

No, reasonable governments can and do let professionals decide.
That is not the current trend of course since right-wingers want their meddlesome politicians to micro-manage every aspect of life. But many decisions regarding health care are thankfully still made by professionals together with the relevant stakeholders (more so in some countries than others).

 

[Me Myself]

I just know it's kind of hot when a chick calls you daddy while you're doing it. And that I'm disturbed by this.

I am confused. You mean you feel both horny and disturbed? or do you mean that it disturbs you when others feel horny when they are called that? Or both

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You mean you feel both horny and disturbed?

Almost constantly.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ha! true it has. Yes it is too. Mostly because it is completely arbitrary to designate it in such a way.

Gender inequalities and stereotypes tend to support each other, both the female privileges and the male privileges, so I dont see why it is any helpful to categorize all inequality with a male term and all equallity with a female term (feminism)

It is unnecessarily polarising. Why do it?

Well, why do women culturally take the man's last name in marriage? Why are women considered the "weaker sex", more fragile, and can be beaten up more easily than men? Why are women "PMSing" when they're distraught about something? Why do men overwhelmingly occupy more positions in higher government, religion, and the military?

The assumptions in some people's answers to the above questions are unnecessarily polarizing. Why do it?

 

[Alceste]

What specific part do you think supports your point? I read it several times.

The entire "history" section debunks your claim that patriarchy means nothing but male heads of the house and political leaders, and that feminism added anything at all to the definition. Even Plato said a man must know how to run a state and "harm his enemies" while women need to do nothing but stay home and obey their husbands. "Harming his enemies" means waging war, or more specifically, sending men to fight in wars.

 

[outis]

Well, why do women culturally take the man's last name in marriage?

That's literally patriarchal culture. Straightforward enough.

Why are women considered the "weaker sex", more fragile, and can be beaten up more easily than men? Why are women "PMSing" when they're distraught about something?

Attributing this to patriarchy is not straightforward.
Without hormones or other modern developments such as explosives, women are on average disadvantaged in combat for instance. The disadvantage is of course not overwhelming but it's real enough. Not to mention the pregnancy business which is considerably more likely to involve weakness or disability in the absence of sound nutrition or modern medical care.
A matriarchal culture may also rely primarily on males for combat or even perpetuate beliefs about "PMSing". There is such a thing as postmenopausal females and they are more likely to be leaders than youths anyway. As you may know, leaders are fond of justifying their position in any way they can.

Recall that patriarchy does involve the disenfranchisement of males as well and the perpetuation of beliefs about the inadequacies of non-patriarchal males.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me butt in here......

Well, why do women culturally take the man's last name in marriage?

Who still does that? Oh, yeah, it happens, but it's voluntary.
(Mrs Revolt never took my name.)

Why are women considered the "weaker sex", more fragile, and can be beaten up more easily than men?

They generally are smaller & weaker.

Why are women "PMSing" when they're distraught about something?

It's an insult, just like when women talk of "testosterone poisoning" when men are brutes.

Why do men overwhelmingly occupy more positions in higher government....

Cuz women elect them. (They out-vote men.)

...religion

That is a function of the particular religion's dogma & tradition.

, and the military?

Until recently, the function of killing people & breaking things was best served by greater strength & speed.
Technology is now changing that, & women are becoming deadlier. Woo hoo....progress!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My questions were largely rhetorical. I need to use more smileys than I already do. :sad:

 

[Alceste]

So would you say for instance that the reunification of Germany amounted to a restoration of patriarchal attitudes and institutions?
The argument has of course been made but I think most people do not understand patriarchy as an antonym of socialism!
For more specific definitions of patriarchy, the facts do not agree with your "directly proportional" thesis as many factors influence equality.

You might need to be more specific here. I can't make sense of what you're saying. How did the reunification of Germany impact the status of women? If it limited their opportunities to participate in society outside the home, then yes, it would be a move back toward patriarchy to whatever extent those limits applied.

Also, what does equal opportunities for women to participate in society outside the home have to do with socialism?

No, reasonable governments can and do let professionals decide.
That is not the current trend of course since right-wingers want their meddlesome politicians to micro-manage every aspect of life. But many decisions regarding health care are thankfully still made by professionals together with the relevant stakeholders (more so in some countries than others).

The point I was making was that women were specifically excluded from the Republicans' public debate over health care issues that primarily concern women. I don't necessarily think that only women are qualified to make those public health decisions, but in a context where NOBODY is a qualified professional (IOW, the GOP debate, which was comprised of right wing politicians and male religious leaders), it is very bizarre not to at least allow women a seat at the table, and preferably leadership of the debate. Nevertheless, much of American society did not perceive this whole situation as bizarre in the extreme, and that demonstrates the persistence of deeply entrenched patriarchal attitudes.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine an all-female panel deciding on when and where men should have access to vasectomies and / or viagra, and what portion should be publicly funded, where all the testimony came from women, and none of these women had any relevant medical qualifications at all. Bizarre, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

My questions were largely rhetorical. I need to use more smileys than I already do. :sad:

Did I get the right answers?
Wait....of course I did!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I honestly am not sure of your point here.

The only ting patriarchy has done is forbid women to hold places of political power. Each other gender discrimination is its own gender discrimination.

WHAT?? :cover:

 

[Me Myself]

Well, why do women culturally take the man's last name in marriage? Why are women considered the "weaker sex", more fragile, and can be beaten up more easily than men? Why are women "PMSing" when they're distraught about something? Why do men overwhelmingly occupy more positions in higher government, religion, and the military?

The assumptions in some people's answers to the above questions are unnecessarily polarizing. Why do it?

I asked a direct question, but I honestly dont know what do you want to ask with this questions. I assume they are rethoric?

Each one of those questions sound like a topic in themselves. Sorry I dont get the directipn of your post, could you answer the question more directly?

 

[Me Myself]

The entire "history" section debunks your claim that patriarchy means nothing but male heads of the house and political leaders, and that feminism added anything at all to the definition. Even Plato said a man must know how to run a state and "harm his enemies" while women need to do nothing but stay home and obey their husbands. "Harming his enemies" means waging war, or more specifically, sending men to fight in wars.

The history part talks about domination of males by women, which is what I am saying is the only meaning of patriarchy.

Where does the history part or any of your mentioned parts say that male disposability is an intrinsic part of patriarchy? I am not finding that.

Adtually, it specifically states patriarchy as being a system in which men oppresss women. While male disposability does not contradict that, it is obviously not comprehended ithat definition.

 

[Sunstone]

About two to four percent of males disproportionately benefit under a patriarchy. The remainder are the system's peasants.

 

[Me Myself]

About two to four percent of males disproportionately benefit under a patriarchy. The remainder are the system's peasants.

I beg of you, tell me you do not think I ignore this o.o

I AM NOT SAYING MALE DISPOSABILITY CONTRADICTS PATRIARCHY.

I am saying it is not comprehended by the concept of patriarchy, Am I explaining myself? (Sorry if I sound tired, ñi have writen this so many times over this thread. If I misunderstood your point, my apologies it may be the trauma echoing in my head by now)

 

[Sunstone]

I beg of you, tell me you do not think I ignore this o.o

I AM NOT SAYING MALE DISPOSABILITY CONTRADICTS PATRIARCHY.

I am saying it is not comprehended by the concept of patriarchy, Am I explaining myself? (Sorry if I sound tired, ñi have writen this so many times over this thread. If I misunderstood your point, my apologies it may be the trauma echoing in my head by now)

Sorry to hear of your trauma. I hope it improves soon. I was not addressing you, however, but making a general observation.

 

[Me Myself]

Sorry to hear of your trauma. I hope it improves soon. I was not addressing you, however, but making a general observation.

Ah, thanks goodness. Yes Ip thought it might have been that. its just SO many people in this thread have made that misconception already, that I cannot know anymore.

What do you think on the subject of the thread?

Do you think it is reasonable to equate male disposability to patriarchy? Or is it more reasonable to approach them as two different specific forms of discrimination?

 

[Sunstone]

Ah, thanks goodness. Yes Ip thought it might have been that. its just SO many people in this thread have made that misconception already, that I cannot know anymore.

What do you think on the subject of the thread?

Do you think it is reasonable to equate male disposability to patriarchy? Or is it more reasonable to approach them as two different specific forms of discrimination?

It's my impression that male disposability often enough goes hand in hand with patriarchy. At least, historically. They seem, therefore, to be related. But precisely how?

 

[Me Myself]

It's my impression that male disposability often enough goes hand in hand with patriarchy. At least, historically. They seem, therefore, to be related. But precisely how?

Tat is one of my questions precisely. Gender roles in general are qidespread among cultures.

I think it is reasonable to say patriarchy and male disposability are two forms of discrimination based on cultural beliefs about the gender.

This is why I find it polarising and jumpy to conclusions to think all gender roles come from patriarchy, we dont really know. As far as we tell, this are just some among many discriminations based on gender.

Do you get what I mean?