"Patriarchy"

[outis]

I said the monarchy element was more important athe patriarchal element on the choosing of the queen.

Yes, and it is not true. In the real world, queens are chosen by their husband AKA the patriarch. Their power protects the claim of his offspring.
You aren't misunderstood, you're wrong.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

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.

That's awful.

Some people, both women and men, seek out dangerous jobs not in spite of the fact that they are dangerous, but because they are dangerous. If you think about the three traditional "female" careers--nursing, teaching, and being a secretary--all of them are relatively "safe," supporting roles where physical danger is rare, but emotional danger can be common, and the first two especially are some of the toughest jobs on the planet.

 

[Me Myself]

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

Reading the lines would suffice:

*Patriarchy means not allowing or limiting women's accesss to political power because of the fact they are women. (Tis part I am sure we agree?) . This is of course gender discrimination and its wrong (on this I assume, we agree too.)

Patriarchy is not the start all and end all of gender discrimination. Not all forms of gender discrimination happen because of women being withheld from power.

So, it is appropiate to name patriarchy to be what is described in here * , but it is not appropiate to nickname any gender disparity as patriarchy, unless they are, well, patriarchy *

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Reading the lines would suffice:

*Patriarchy means not allowing or limiting women's accesss to political power because of the fact they are women. (Tis part I am sure we agree?) . This is of course gender discrimination and its wrong (on this I assume, we agree too.)

Patriarchy is not the start all and end all of gender discrimination. Not all forms of gender discrimination happen because of women being withheld from power.

So, it is appropiate to name patriarchy to be what is described in here * , but it is not appropiate to nickname any gender disparity as patriarchy, unless they are, well, patriarchy *

Before I respond to that, I'd better ask around to make sure you've got the right definition of "patriarchy."

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, and it is not true. In the real world, queens are chosen by their husband AKA the patriarch. Their power protects the claim of his offspring.
You aren't misunderstood, you're wrong.

Again, royal blood was more important than patriarchy in monarchies when it came to choosing the monarch.

Elizabeth I .

 

[Me Myself]

Before I respond to that, I'd better ask around to make sure you've got the right definition of "patriarchy."

Well, the oxford dictionary also includes the father being the leader of the household and heritage going by fathers name.

Feminism then adds a lot of things to the concept that were never part of such concept.

That is my complain.

 

[Me Myself]

I mean it should be obvious that gender discrimination goes way beyond patriarchy, unless one can find non patriarchal cultures not having any ender discrimination.

What I read from the iriquos, does show that in general gender discrimination has developed in all societies through out history, including non patriarchal ones, so there is no reasoto believe patriarchy is the originator of othher forms of discrimination at all.

For something to be a "trait" it needs to be a "distinguishing" quality, but we see there is nothing distinguishing on gender discrimination on patriarchal societies, beyond the political power and heritage thing (which is of course what conceptualizes it)

 

[WyattDerp]

Well, the oxford dictionary also includes the father being the leader of the household and heritage going by fathers name.

Feminism then adds a lot of things to the concept that were never part of such concept.

That is my complain.

And what's the big deal about that? If men have the say so in the family and are the ones who own property, that's a pretty solid basis for all the abuses and exploitation; now we (started to) remove(d) this "pillar", the symptoms of that are still around.

Think of it this way. Patriarchy, in the definition you are referring to, is like a dead, rotten fish. Now if you put that dead old rotten fish into a soup, which would be wider society, it will taste like a dead, rotten fish. If you then take out the dead, rotten fish, you will find that the soup is STILL contaminated with the stink, so the cleanup process begins (since we only have this one soup, can't make a new one, we need to filter it and that's such a hassle). But since we the original dead fish is already the garbage bin, instead of saying "the effects of the dead rotten fish" every time, you shorten that to "dead fish", because that's what we are still talking about mostly. If need be, the actual dead fish in the garbage bin can be referred to as "the actual dead fish".

Easy, no? ^^

 

[outis]

Again, royal blood was more important than patriarchy in monarchies when it came to choosing the monarch.

Elizabeth I .

She wasn't "chosen". She inherited the title according to the English version of patrilineal succession because she had no surviving brothers. She wasn't the first female to get the crown for that reason. The only way to deny her the throne would have been to declare her illegitimate (the forum censors the b-word).
Her male relatives had "royal blood", same as her. That wasn't the issue. But they were not descendents of King Henry. That was the issue. If a male relative had succeeded, her father's line would have lost the title. So she succeeded so that her father's (the patriarch) grandchildren might get the crown.
But I guess you understand that and are once again trying to redefine patriarchy...

 

[outis]

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

I'm kind of at a loss when it comes to answering this because it seems so obvious to me. I'll do what I can...
Apologies if some of this seems condescending but since I don't know what is common knowledge in your area, I'll state things most people in many countries are aware of.
It's a big topic and I'm not willing to write down some kind of essay.
I'll be simplistic but hopefully not too simplistic. Things will be omitted. I'll be wrong and misleading about what I consider to be details for the sake of brevity but hopefully the general drift will not be too far from the mark.

I think distinguishing between these three broad categories of relevant socialist action will be useful to organize the matter:
a) social war against the old order
b) by-products of economic policies
c) accomodating motherhood
Category a) was more important historically whlie c) is more important now.

a) Socialism being a direct attack on the power of property and property being overwhelmingly patriarchical at the time, socialism was orginally basically an attack on patriarchy.
Socialists were ideologically committed to the abolition of patriarchal institutions including marriage and the nuclear family in the case of the more radical factions. This was partly due to abstract considerations such as likening women who did not control their household's property to proletarians and husbands to capitalist exploiters. But it was underpinned by pragmatic considerations as well.
The core male constituency of socialists were urban workers who in contrast with people who worked a plot of land or could afford a bourgeois lifestyle did not have the opportunity to control much of their wives' lives and also badly needed income from their wives' independent employment. A strongly patriarchal lifestyle made little sense to them and restrictions on a woman's ability to be employed were against their interests.
Women employed in mid-sized to large businesses were also a constituency of socialists while servants and women whose life was controlled by their husbands such as those working on a family farm were a consitutuency of theocrats ideologically and pragmatically committed to patriarchy, especially in Roman Catholic areas. Socialists were virtually at war with conservative theocrats and therefore stood to benefit from women having lives outside of homes and churches.
For similar reasons, socialists also stood to benefit from female literacy and secular education.
For these reasons and more, a tradition was established in the socialist movement to support policies which would directly and indirectly help women have careers and more generally participate actively in society outside of the home. This tradition did not entierly die when much of what I described above became history.

b) All women have to face what remains of patriarchal culture in the labor market. Women who choose to have children have to face an additional problem which is becoming relatively more burdensome, especially if they choose to do so at an inconvenient point in their career. Assuming this as a given and assuming away regulatory reforms and whatnot, the actual impact of these issues on gender inequality and women's career is going to depend on economic vagaries and in particular on the unemployment rate.
The easier it is to land a new job, the easier it is for women who are trying to balance the demands of their family life and their employment to bargain for convenient working hours and the like or to temporarily quit the labor market in order to take care of young children.
Among other economic policies affecting women, socialists strive to eliminate unemployment, to compensate adequately those who are unemployed (even deliberately) and more generally to strengthen the bargaining position of workers. Fully socialist regimes normally have little unemployment because the owning class (if it even exists) has no say in the matter and there's usually no shortage of work to be done with minimal inputs other than time and effort on the part of the workers.
As a result even outside of any policies specifically designed to help women get good paying jobs, socialist economic policies happen to disproportionately benefit women and especially mothers. It if wasn't for patriarchal culture, that effect would be considerably less important but that's how things stand.

c) Because women will continue to have children for the forseeable future and because economic rationality will cause mothers to face discrimination in the workplace outside of any patriarchal prejudice or harmful intent, this issue is becoming more important as gender inequality wanes.
In part due to the history mentionned above, countries in which socialism is strong or has been strong at any point since the last reactionary upheaval tend to give more effective privileges to mothers, sometimes dramatically so.
In addition, these countries tend to have cheaper and better child care and education with hours designed to make it practical for parents to hold jobs, in part due to socialization of the sector. This naturally helps parents and especially single mothers.
Outside of a patriarchal cultural context, fathers also exercise some of the aforementioned privileges so it's worth putting them into two categories: those regarding pregnancy and breast-feeding on the one hand and those regarding parental paid or unpaid leave which can be exercised by both parents. But even if such a priviledge is exercised by the father, mothers benefit indirectly (and vice-versa in principle, except that any remnant of patriarchal culture puts more burden on mothers who therefore benefit more from any relief on average).
These priviledges are also noteworthy now because they're cheap compared to their impact on people's lives, because they're particularly useful in a poor economic environment and because many countries do not have a socialist government anymore but have a socialist legacy which is now defended by moderate feminists as well.

Hopefully that answers your question.
If the above is satisfactory, I may try to give satisfactory answers on to the other topics you raised which aren't straightforward either. Short answers in the meantime:
-I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "opportunity" and "limits" but the actual outcome of German reunification was broadly as I stated (and was easily predictable)... but probably not for the reasons you might imagine considering the words you used. Also the #1 political job has been held for years by a woman from East Germany (childless, yes but still remarkable) which goes to show how weak the relationship is between average outcome and representation at high levels (same deal with Obama I guess).
-Yes, the GOP is extremely bizarre on virtually all issues.
-No, women are able to make reasonable and informed decisions about vasectomies and whatnot. These matters are trivial compared to female reproductive issues anyway.

 

[dust1n]

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.

And all the way back around to the etymological fallacy all over again. These threads sure are fun.

Etymological fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception.[1] An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.[2]

A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies,[3] or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology. A similar concept is that of false friends."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

 

[dust1n]

Well, the oxford dictionary also includes the father being the leader of the household and heritage going by fathers name.

Feminism then adds a lot of things to the concept that were never part of such concept.

That is my complain.

It just happens to be a tiresome logical fallacy of a complaint.

 

[outis]

And all the way back around to the etymological fallacy all over again.

Actually, no. Me Myself is inconsistent but even etymology doesn't support his objectionable assertions. And neither does any dictionary I've seen for what that's worth.

I have no problem with using alternative definitions but I've got a problem using different definitions of the same word interchangably, especially if the point is to equate different things while keeping a straight face.

 

[dust1n]

Actually, no. Me Myself is inconsistent but even etymology doesn't support his objectionable assertions. And neither does any dictionary I've seen for what that's worth.

I have no problem with using alternative definitions but I've got a problem using different definitions of the same word interchangably, especially if the point is to equate different things while keeping a straight face.

I think you may have misunderstood my post.

 

[outis]

You brought up etymology in response to a post which does not mention etymology and is not grounded on etymology either.

So yeah, I didn't understand your post.
But whatever you meant exactly, I thought pointing out the lack of etymological content might be relevant.

Same deal for the dictionary thing.

 

[dust1n]

You brought up etymology in response to a post which does not mention etymology and is not grounded on etymology either.

So yeah, I didn't understand your post.
But whatever you meant exactly, I thought pointing out the lack of etymological content might be relevant.

Same deal for the dictionary thing.

The etymological flaw involves not recognizing new meanings to words. If you consult OED, you will get the diction for patriarchy if it's original context. If you consult a feminist text, the text will outline what it is exactly they mean when they used the word. "Patriarchy" in feminist texts is qualified in the text, not the OED. The insistence that only a specific definition can be used for a particular word is an etymological fallacy.

 

[outis]

It's not what Me Myself does.
a) He uses several definitions.
b) He did not insist on obsolete definitions (or at least not in the stuff you quoted - I didn't read most of the thread).
c) If anything, his preferred definition (as best as I can make it) agrees more with some feminist texts than historical texts.

Are you aware that "history part" in the post you quoted refers to a Wikipeadia article about the concept and not to etymology?

 

[Alceste]

I'm kind of at a loss when it comes to answering this because it seems so obvious to me. I'll do what I can...
Apologies if some of this seems condescending but since I don't know what is common knowledge in your area, I'll state things most people in many countries are aware of.
It's a big topic and I'm not willing to write down some kind of essay.
I'll be simplistic but hopefully not too simplistic. Things will be omitted. I'll be wrong and misleading about what I consider to be details for the sake of brevity but hopefully the general drift will not be too far from the mark.

I think distinguishing between these three broad categories of relevant socialist action will be useful to organize the matter:
a) social war against the old order
b) by-products of economic policies
c) accomodating motherhood
Category a) was more important historically whlie c) is more important now.

a) Socialism being a direct attack on the power of property and property being overwhelmingly patriarchical at the time, socialism was orginally basically an attack on patriarchy.
Socialists were ideologically committed to the abolition of patriarchal institutions including marriage and the nuclear family in the case of the more radical factions. This was partly due to abstract considerations such as likening women who did not control their household's property to proletarians and husbands to capitalist exploiters. But it was underpinned by pragmatic considerations as well.
The core male constituency of socialists were urban workers who in contrast with people who worked a plot of land or could afford a bourgeois lifestyle did not have the opportunity to control much of their wives' lives and also badly needed income from their wives' independent employment. A strongly patriarchal lifestyle made little sense to them and restrictions on a woman's ability to be employed were against their interests.
Women employed in mid-sized to large businesses were also a constituency of socialists while servants and women whose life was controlled by their husbands such as those working on a family farm were a consitutuency of theocrats ideologically and pragmatically committed to patriarchy, especially in Roman Catholic areas. Socialists were virtually at war with conservative theocrats and therefore stood to benefit from women having lives outside of homes and churches.
For similar reasons, socialists also stood to benefit from female literacy and secular education.
For these reasons and more, a tradition was established in the socialist movement to support policies which would directly and indirectly help women have careers and more generally participate actively in society outside of the home. This tradition did not entierly die when much of what I described above became history.

b) All women have to face what remains of patriarchal culture in the labor market. Women who choose to have children have to face an additional problem which is becoming relatively more burdensome, especially if they choose to do so at an inconvenient point in their career. Assuming this as a given and assuming away regulatory reforms and whatnot, the actual impact of these issues on gender inequality and women's career is going to depend on economic vagaries and in particular on the unemployment rate.
The easier it is to land a new job, the easier it is for women who are trying to balance the demands of their family life and their employment to bargain for convenient working hours and the like or to temporarily quit the labor market in order to take care of young children.
Among other economic policies affecting women, socialists strive to eliminate unemployment, to compensate adequately those who are unemployed (even deliberately) and more generally to strengthen the bargaining position of workers. Fully socialist regimes normally have little unemployment because the owning class (if it even exists) has no say in the matter and there's usually no shortage of work to be done with minimal inputs other than time and effort on the part of the workers.
As a result even outside of any policies specifically designed to help women get good paying jobs, socialist economic policies happen to disproportionately benefit women and especially mothers. It if wasn't for patriarchal culture, that effect would be considerably less important but that's how things stand.

c) Because women will continue to have children for the forseeable future and because economic rationality will cause mothers to face discrimination in the workplace outside of any patriarchal prejudice or harmful intent, this issue is becoming more important as gender inequality wanes.
In part due to the history mentionned above, countries in which socialism is strong or has been strong at any point since the last reactionary upheaval tend to give more effective privileges to mothers, sometimes dramatically so.
In addition, these countries tend to have cheaper and better child care and education with hours designed to make it practical for parents to hold jobs, in part due to socialization of the sector. This naturally helps parents and especially single mothers.
Outside of a patriarchal cultural context, fathers also exercise some of the aforementioned privileges so it's worth putting them into two categories: those regarding pregnancy and breast-feeding on the one hand and those regarding parental paid or unpaid leave which can be exercised by both parents. But even if such a priviledge is exercised by the father, mothers benefit indirectly (and vice-versa in principle, except that any remnant of patriarchal culture puts more burden on mothers who therefore benefit more from any relief on average).
These priviledges are also noteworthy now because they're cheap compared to their impact on people's lives, because they're particularly useful in a poor economic environment and because many countries do not have a socialist government anymore but have a socialist legacy which is now defended by moderate feminists as well.

Hopefully that answers your question.
If the above is satisfactory, I may try to give satisfactory answers on to the other topics you raised which aren't straightforward either. Short answers in the meantime:
-I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "opportunity" and "limits" but the actual outcome of German reunification was broadly as I stated (and was easily predictable)... but probably not for the reasons you might imagine considering the words you used. Also the #1 political job has been held for years by a woman from East Germany (childless, yes but still remarkable) which goes to show how weak the relationship is between average outcome and representation at high levels (same deal with Obama I guess).
-Yes, the GOP is extremely bizarre on virtually all issues.
-No, women are able to make reasonable and informed decisions about vasectomies and whatnot. These matters are trivial compared to female reproductive issues anyway.

I'll keep this simple too, and try not to be too condescending.

The movement that challenges patriarchy is feminism.
The movement that challenges capitalism is socialism.

While their interests have historically overlapped sometimes, feminism is not a socialist movement, and socialism is not a feminist movement. First and second wave feminists have explicitly protected a capitalist economic system in Europe and north America, only seeking greater liberty to compete, profit and succeed in it. third wave feminists have greater concerns about poverty than their predecessors, and many may see the solution in socialistic policies, but not all. In the west, capitalism is a sacred cow. the absolute most that any respectable western dissident would ever suggest is a bit of minor tweaking - like free university education or public utilities. Not the complete abolition of private property.

 

[outis]

The movement that challenges patriarchy is feminism.
The movement that challenges capitalism is socialism.

It's more complicated than slogans.

First and second wave feminists have explicitly protected a capitalist economic system in Europe

I know my feminist history and it happens to be full of socialists. Maybe they don't get a wave number. No biggie.

Maybe you figure feminists stand for policies which harm the majority of women and increase gender inequality. Fine. I don't pretend to tell people if they are feminist or not.
I know people who identify as feminist and whom I support because I know I can trust them on issues which disproportionately affects the lives of women. Call them what you want.

Not the complete abolition of private property.

This is not what the vast majority of people identifying as socialist are proposing nowadays (as you probably know).

 

[Alceste]

It's more complicated than slogans.


I know my feminist history and it happens to be full of socialists. Maybe they don't get a wave number. No biggie.

Maybe you figure feminists stand for policies which harm the majority of women and increase gender inequality. Fine. I don't pretend to tell people if they are feminist or not.
I know people who identify as feminist and whom I support because I know I can trust them on issues which disproportionately affects the lives of women. Call them what you want.


This is not what the vast majority of people identifying as socialist are proposing nowadays (as you probably know).

That's a very basic logical fallacy.

Some feminists are socialists.
Some socialists are feminists.
Therefore, feminism = socialism.

Nope.