"Patriarchy"

[Me Myself]

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.

Male disposability is not an "aspect of patriarchy"

And yes I take issue on using deceiving terms.

 

[outis]

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.

Did you know that Mujeres Libres used to discourage women from fighting on the front lines?
Was the best-known radical feminist organization of the time patriarchal then? I think not. Everything that wouldn't happen without the patriarchal cultural context doesn't amount to patriarchy. You're being simplistic again and I think that's part of the background for the confusion evidenced in the OP.

I'll try to reply to your previous post later because I couldn't do it in a short post with telling you to Google the answers (you want me to be explain the relationship socialism and women having careers, seriously?).

 

[Me Myself]

Did you know that Mujeres Libres used to discourage women from fighting on the front lines?
Was the best-known radical feminist organization of the time patriarchal then? I think not. Everything that wouldn't happen without the patriarchal cultural context doesn't amount to patriarchy. You're being simplistic again and I think that's part of the background for the confusion evidenced in the OP.

I'll try to reply to your previous post later because I couldn't do it in a short post with telling you to Google the answers (you want me to be explain the relationship socialism and women having careers, seriously?).

YES! Thats what I am saying!

 

[Alceste]

Did you know that Mujeres Libres used to discourage women from fighting on the front lines?
Was the best-known radical feminist organization of the time patriarchal then? I think not. Everything that wouldn't happen without the patriarchal cultural context doesn't amount to patriarchy. You're being simplistic again and I think that's part of the background for the confusion evidenced in the OP.

I'll try to reply to your previous post later because I couldn't do it in a short post with telling you to Google the answers (you want me to be explain the relationship socialism and women having careers, seriously?).

Yes, I really do want you to explain what you think women having careers has to do with socialism.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

How does patriarchy respect females, in other words?

So, what is the alternative? Please

 

[paarsurrey]

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

For instance

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So, what is the alternative? Please

That doesn't exactly answer my question. You stated there is nothing objectionable about patriarchy, and I asked for specifics in how a distinctly patriarchal system respects females. Asking me for an alternative doesn't specify what you meant by your first statement.

 

[outis]

Well, an alternative to patriarchy we have extensive experience with would be equal rights (specifically the division of any inheritance in equal parts between female and male siblings) and the monopolization of violence by officials.
For this to work, you need:
a)some way to prevent arbitrary violence, else property will have be concentrated in the hands of someone in charge of paying for its protection
b)property must be fungible
These conditions have largely been fulfilled in the countries where most Internet users live for decades (or more). And in most of these countries, males and females have consequently become equal before the law. That of course doesn't make them equal in all respects. But it is the death of patriarchy.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

What the hell is this "male disposability" that keeps popping up in this thread?

 

[Alceste]

What the hell is this "male disposability" that keeps popping up in this thread?

Men fighting wars, mostly, and doing more dangerous jobs in general.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Men fighting wars, mostly, and doing more dangerous jobs in general.

Oh I see. And women are supposedly better off because they are "protected" from that?

 

[Alceste]

Oh I see. And women are supposedly better off because they are "protected" from that?

Beats me. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a consequence of the myth of male toughness. Speaking as a woman who once did a traditionally "male" job and was constantly sexually harassed and then kicked out of the union in a mysterious all-male meeting, of which there is no record, and then told it was because I was a "tease", I expect there's a lot more going on than "male disposability". Those jobs pay more, and men are somewhat disinclined to have to compete with women for them, it seems.

 

[outis]

As far as I'm concerned, it's just a consequence of the myth of male toughness.

As I pointed out ealier, there are other reasons why patriarchs would prefer to see males die such as the value of females' reproductive potential. But for the most part they don't apply in the modern world.
As to bigotry, it isn't about to go away.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh I see. And women are supposedly better off because they are "protected" from that?

i am not talkng about "better off" in general. I am talking about specific descriminaiton in different areas. You would need to actually read my posts.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

*#{\%{#^^%!

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?

Yes and no. What I am saying is that male disposability is as much a trait of patriarchy as a trait of monarchy.

By this I mean: it is not a trait of "patriarchy" simply because it is found in patriarchal societies. Am i explaining myself?

I obviously agree patriarchy is non desirable, patriarchy being leaving women outcasted of the posibility of political power, or in general making it harder for them to take political charges in basis of their gender. This things are wrong and these things ARE aspects of patriarchies.

Now gender roles exist, and patriarchy exists. Both are undesirable, but both are not the same(or toe more specific, patriarchy doe sfenerate the specific gender role ofales allowed to lead, but thats it, any other gender role is its own and not the same as parriarchy), nor they become the same because of co-existence in the same society.

 

[outis]

Yes and no. What I am saying is that male disposability is as much a trait of patriarchy as a trait of monarchy.

Monarchy is a form of patriarchy, even when the monarch is a female. Queens are only queens by the virtue of their kinship with males.

By this I mean: it is not a trait of "patriarchy" simply because it is found in patriarchal societies. Am i explaining myself?

Yes, and I answered already to no apparent effect.
Sexual competition doesn't work in the same way for males and females. Patriarchs therefore benefit from the death or oppression of males in ways matriarchs do not. A female Caliph would be biologically impossible for instance. I don't know how to make this simpler for you.

 

[Me Myself]

Monarchy is a form of patriarchy, even when the monarch is a female. Queens are only queens by the virtue of their kinship with males.

Conceptually this is not true. The fact that monarchies have happened in a patriarchal society does not mean that it needs to be patriarchal for it to be a monarchy furthermore, even if it is because of kinship with the king, if there is no king and there is a queen, it is atill a system governed by a woman. True, it does not mean at it stops being a patriarchy, but ithis case the monarchy subjugated the patriarchy. If it had happened the other way around, her having royal blood would holdo importance on the fact women cant rule, and a queen with no king would have been impossible.

Yes, and I answered already to no apparent effect.
Sexual competition doesn't work in the same way for males and females. Patriarchs therefore benefit from the death or oppression of males in ways matriarchs do not. A female Caliph would be biologically impossible for instance. I don't know how to make this simpler for you.

If male disposability depended on a patriarch existing then we wouldnt see it outside of a patriarchy. We do see it, so we know they are not at all mutually dependant.

 

[outis]

ithis case the monarchy subjugated the patriarchy. If it had happened the other way around, her having royal blood would holdo importance on the fact women cant rule, and a queen with no king would have been impossible.

One last time, go back to the dictionary you cited and learn what patriarchy means! 60 pages and you still don't get it...
Even if all monarchs were queens by law, patrilineal descent would still make it a patriarchy. And if we step out of conceptual fantasies and into history, not allowing queens to rule in the name of their children or grandchildren has impeded patrilineal descent.

If male disposability depended on a patriarch existing then we wouldnt see it outside of a patriarchy. We do see it, so we know they are not at all mutually dependant.

We see anti-semitism outside of Nazism so we know they are not at all mutually dependant, right?

 

[Me Myself]

One last time, go back to the dictionary you cited and learn what patriarchy means! 60 pages and you still don't get it...
Even if all monarchs were queens by law, patrilineal descent would still make it a patriarchy. And if we step out of conceptual fantasies and into history, not allowing queens to rule in the name of their children or grandchildren has impeded patrilineal descent.


We see anti-semitism outside of Nazism so we know they are not at all mutually dependant, right?

We can see the start of nazism and we can see the relationship between those.

With patriarchy and male disposability it is mere speculation.

Again I DID NOT say they were not patriarchies, I said the monarchy element was more important athe patriarchal element on the choosing of the queen. 60 pages and people keep just reading e parts they want to read, and disregarding and distorting in order for it to take my posts to their rigid boxes.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

i am not talkng about "better off" in general. I am talking about specific descriminaiton in different areas. You would need to actually read my posts.

Spell out what you're trying to say, dude. I'm not good at reading between the lines.