"Patriarchy"

[Sunstone]

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?

Agreed that we should not jump to the conclusion that all gender roles come from patriarchy. But I think it is reasonable to recognize that many do seem to come from patriarchy -- or, at the very least, they serve to support patriarchies.

 

[Me Myself]

Agreed that we should not jump to the conclusion that all gender roles come from patriarchy. But I think it is reasonable to recognize that many do seem to come from patriarchy -- or, at the very least, they serve to support patriarchies.

Sme like which and why do you think they are intrinsically patriarchical? Other words, how could they have not arised in a non patriarchal society?

 

[Sunstone]

Sme like which and why do you think they are intrinsically patriarchical? Other words, how could they have not arised in a non patriarchal society?

If I understand your question, I would guess that such notions as the man is always the head of the household are pretty straight forward patriarchal beliefs. And, in general, I think a tendency to order society into an hereditary hierarchy descending through the male line has been a characteristic of many patriarchies.

 

[Me Myself]

If I understand your question, I would guess that such notions as the man is always the head of the household are pretty straight forward patriarchal beliefs. And, in general, I think a tendency to order society into an hereditary hierarchy descending through the male line has been a characteristic of many patriarchies.

I do agree with that

But for example now I was looking into non patriarchal societies.

The iroquois were matrilineal, and women could have possesions, divorce a man, had real political power, etc.

Yet they still were NOT the soldiers. Gender roles did exist in their societies and were clearly defined.

So here we have a clear exmaple of the man being the one sticking his neck out hunting and on war in a non patriarchal system.

Oe of my arguments is that male disposabillity is not exclusive at all to patriarchy, nor is inherent part of the concept. i do feel its existence in oer contexts clearly demonstrates this.

Each discrimination has its own name, I feel playiung "patriarchy" to be the only big bad guy to which all other sexual discriminations are subordinate evil minions is completely unwarranted for.

Male disposability is a form of gender discrimination prevalent in most cultures, including those (few) mathrilineal or more "egualitarian" ones towards the women.

 

[Sunstone]

I do agree with that

But for example now I was looking into non patriarchal societies.

The iroquois were matrilineal, and women could have possesions, divorce a man, had real political power, etc.

Yet they still were NOT the soldiers. Gender roles did exist in their societies and were clearly defined.

So here we have a clear exmaple of the man being the one sticking his neck out hunting and on war in a non patriarchal system.

Oe of my arguments is that male disposabillity is not exclusive at all to patriarchy, nor is inherent part of the concept. i do feel its existence in oer contexts clearly demonstrates this.

Each discrimination has its own name, I feel playiung "patriarchy" to be the only big bad guy to which all other sexual discriminations are subordinate evil minions is completely unwarranted for.

Male disposability is a form of gender discrimination prevalent in most cultures, including those (few) mathrilineal or more "egualitarian" ones towards the women.

Good points. I can substantially agree with you here.

 

[Me Myself]

Good points. I can substantially agree with you here.

Siiiiiiiiigh*

THANKS!

Wow it sure was nice to actually talk the subject of the thread and felt like I was making my points clear and all after so many pages of misconceptions and caricatures of my position.

Now I can go to sleep more or less in peace.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Siiiiiiiiigh*

THANKS!

Wow it sure was nice to actually talk the subject of the thread and felt like I was making my points clear and all after so many pages of misconceptions and caricatures of my position.

Now I can go to sleep more or less in peace.

Next time, I suggest a different OP that address what you just said on the last page. I felt the misconceptions and caricatures were largely a result of what "patriarchy" and "feminism" meant in terms of what was more denigrating and what was more fluffy and sweet.

The last 2 pages, IMO, were different from what you've been saying about male disposability. I never once said that male disposability was only seen in patriarchal societies. I did say that it is a trait of patriarchy, and since we do live in a patriarchal society here, that male disposability is largely a result of the social stratification we see in this society.

We both agreed this thread has taken all kinds of tangents, including the insistence on feminism being certain things, so I hope you slept well, but the misconceptions remain about feminism which can be corrected by actually reading works by feminist writers themselves.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Patriarchy"


-----A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.



I don’t think there is any objectionable thing in the patriarchy; both parents are important for a child.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

"Patriarchy"


-----A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.



I don’t think there is any objectionable thing in the patriarchy; both parents are important for a child.

Where in patriarchy does it acknowledge the importance, the autonomy, and the humanity of females?

How does patriarchy respect females, in other words?

 

[Alceste]

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?

As Plato said, one of a patriarch's duties is harming his enemies.

 

[Alceste]

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?

Everybody gets what you mean, mm. You're just wrong. You don't know what patriarchy means, so you're having trouble figuring out what is or isn't a part of it.

 

[Sunstone]

"Patriarchy"


-----A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.



I don’t think there is any objectionable thing in the patriarchy; both parents are important for a child.

That's a fairly narrow definition. There are other, broader definitions.

 

[Sunstone]

If I understand what Me Myself is saying, he's merely pointing out that some traits of patriarchy -- such as male disposablility -- are not limited to patriarchies. If that's all he's arguing, I can see his point. Patriarchies may be characterized by male disposability without male disposability being limited to patriarchies. But is that all you're arguing, Me Myself? Or is there more to it than that?

 

[Alceste]

If I understand what Me Myself is saying, he's merely pointing out that some traits of patriarchy -- such as male disposablility -- are not limited to patriarchies. If that's all he's arguing, I can see his point. Patriarchies may be characterized by male disposability without male disposability being limited to patriarchies. But is that all you're arguing, Me Myself? Or is there more to it than that?

I think for about fifty pages he's been insisting no form of discrimination against men is rooted in patriarchal attitudes, and we nasty feminists have "added" things like conscription of males, discrimination in child custody cases, and a lack of societal support for male victims of domestic violence.

I'd be delighted if he's changed his tune, but I doubt it.

 

[Sunstone]

I think for about fifty pages he's been insisting no form of discrimination against men is rooted in patriarchal attitudes, and we nasty feminists have "added" things like conscription of males, discrimination in child custody cases, and a lack of societal support for male victims of domestic violence.

I'd be delighted if he's changed his tune, but I doubt it.

I suppose it turns on what is meant by "rooted". I think a cultural trait may be transplanted from another society and become "rooted" in a patriarchy even though it is found elsewhere too.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If I understand what Me Myself is saying, he's merely pointing out that some traits of patriarchy -- such as male disposablility -- are not limited to patriarchies. If that's all he's arguing, I can see his point. Patriarchies may be characterized by male disposability without male disposability being limited to patriarchies. But is that all you're arguing, Me Myself? Or is there more to it than that?

From the OP:

If feminism is fighting gender roles, then why did they choose to call "patriarchy" to all the unequal privileges and opressions of men and women that currently exist in diferent levels of intensity around the world?

It is gender inequality that favors and disfavors men and women depending on the context. Why then charge it with a male quality?

I can undersand the movement being called feminism to a point, and given its origins, because it fights injustices to women because of unequality. The problem is he second it choose to call this indquality "pariachism" it did itself a diservice by atracking the equality they say to profess.

I have read and understand the reasons they call it patriarchy, but do y honestly think such a term doesnt unwittingly perpetuate the image of the abusive man? To equate the abusive system to a male persona and the solution to a female persona? T equate equality to female and unequality to male? I know they dont do it in their definitions, but the associations speak miles and miles, and we do know it has bite them in the behind by now because a lot of people associate feminism to radical feminism.

I is because of the name. Names have power, words have power.

I submit that MM hasn't been merely been pointing out that some traits of patriarchy are not limited to patriarchy, but that he takes issue with some traits of feminism=women=good and patriarchy=male=bad due to any connotations implied by the words themselves.

Based on the OP, and for the arguments that ensued for dozens of pages in this thread, I don't necessarily agree that MM has deviated from what he suggested in his opening argument, that he takes great issue with feminism in general (and without reading any feminist works to boot to form an informed argument), and doesn't want to be seen as a bad guy because he's male and patriarchy has shown to be oppressive as a social system of stratification.

IF he has suddenly decided to merely focus the debate on how aspects of patriarchy are not limited to patriarchy itself, but can be seen in other social systems like matriarchy, then I suggest a new OP with that as it's topic. It's a different tune than what has been sung here for a long while.

 

[Alceste]

I suppose it turns on what is meant by "rooted". I think a cultural trait may be transplanted from another society and become "rooted" in a patriarchy even though it is found elsewhere too.

Well I think it's fair to assume that whatever social system we have, fighting will probably mainly fall to men, because they have greater amounts of testosterone than women. It's a biological thing. I expect the issue of "male disposability" arose even before patriarchy, as soon as there was resource competition between unrelated tribes of humans.

I gather that because when chimpanzees - our closest relatives - go to "war", it's still the lads who do the fighting. I wouldn't call chimps patriarchal.

However, a society that discourages or prohibits women from fighting if they want to is patriarchal, even though it results in more men than women dying in wars.

 

[Sunstone]

I gather that because when chimpanzees - our closest relatives - go to "war", it's still the lads who do the fighting. I wouldn't call chimps patriarchal.

For the record, female chimps sometimes accompany the males on raids and territorial patrols. Just to be a nerd about it.

 

[Sunstone]

From the OP:



I submit that MM hasn't been merely been pointing out that some traits of patriarchy are not limited to patriarchy, but that he takes issue with some traits of feminism=women=good and patriarchy=male=bad due to any connotations implied by the words themselves.

Based on the OP, and for the arguments that ensued for dozens of pages in this thread, I don't necessarily agree that MM has deviated from what he suggested in his opening argument, that he takes great issue with feminism in general (and without reading any feminist works to boot to form an informed argument), and doesn't want to be seen as a bad guy because he's male and patriarchy has shown to be oppressive as a social system of stratification.

IF he has suddenly decided to merely focus the debate on how aspects of patriarchy are not limited to patriarchy itself, but can be seen in other social systems like matriarchy, then I suggest a new OP with that as it's topic. It's a different tune than what has been sung here for a long while.

Yeah, I was only responding to his last few posts, rather than to his OP. The OP seems flawed to me.

 

[Alceste]

For the record, female chimps sometimes accompany the males on raids and territorial patrols. Just to be a nerd about it.

Well then! I stand corrected.