"Patriarchy"

[Alceste]

OK, I admit I'm a bit of a bigot. Sometimes.

Jeez, are you being ironic now? I only just noticed you don't mention your nationality in "location". I was just assuming, since nobody outside the US reads Glenn Beck, watches Fox news, or references Conservapedia except for a laugh. Am I wrong?

If you're implying I'M a bigot, some of my best friends are Americans. Literally. they also think those kinds of sources are only ever referred to by Americans, unless it's for a laugh.

I'm so confused!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Then basically women are just as much perpetrators of sexual violence as men and the whole notion of a rape culture collapses like a bridge of cards.

What the hell...

Yeah, okay, when the male/female ratio of rapists approaches 50:50, get back to me with this point.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

In other words he was trying to demoralize the British public so that they would not oppose Hitler.

Can we please stay on topic? Kthxbai.

 

[Alceste]

Can we please stay on topic? Kthxbai.

Sorry, sorry. I'm like a dog with a bone whenever I unearth a new right wing rewrite of history. By all means, let's get back to the question of whether patriarchy means "only men can be political leaders". I'm sure that after 70 pages we have only begun to scratch the surface of this fascinating subject.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Sorry, sorry. I'm like a dog with a bone whenever I unearth a new right wing rewrite of history. By all means, let's get back to the question of whether patriarchy means "only men can be political leaders". I'm sure that after 70 pages we have only begun to scratch the surface of this fascinating subject.

Actually I wasn't talking to you...I was talking to these guys who were going out of their way to divert attention from the problem. Funny how that seems to be a common theme...

Speaking of which. What's an actual, not a BS, definition of "patriarchy"?

 

[Alceste]

Actually I wasn't talking to you...I was talking to these guys who were going out of their way to divert attention from the problem. Funny how that seems to be a common theme...

Speaking of which. What's an actual, not a BS, definition of "patriarchy"?

Well, the wikipedia article is pretty thorough. I don't think any dictionary entry does an entire social system justice.

 

[outis]

By all means, let's get back to the question of whether patriarchy means "only men can be political leaders".

Is that the point at which I should feel insulted?

If you're implying I'M a bigot

Nah, you're not a bigot if you have a good reason to tar hundreds of millions of people with a broad brush.
And sometimes I find it really hard to convince myself that I don't. It must be the testosterone. See what I did there? On topic!

 

[outis]

Speaking of which. What's an actual, not a BS, definition of "patriarchy"?

I posted one a while back. Sort of. I referenced recent HBO shows. Nobody said they were inaccurate.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Well, the wikipedia article is pretty thorough. I don't think any dictionary entry does an entire social system justice.

Which implies that patriarchy is more of a system than a discrete entity? That makes sense...

 

[Mathematician]

What the hell...

Yeah, okay, when the male/female ratio of rapists approaches 50:50, get back to me with this point.

Yeah, because a majority of men are even apologetic about rape, let alone commit it. Please. Male-hating on this forum is getting vile and extreme. There is no rape culture, just like there's no patriarchy.

Rape is more often committed by men because of differences in physical force. Sexual harassment is about 50:50 when you look beyond the fact men accept or even revel being victims.

 

[outis]

the fact men accept or even revel being victims.

Just when I thought you couldn't possibly top the thing about political bias in discerning irony...

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Yeah, because a majority of men are even apologetic about rape, let alone commit it. Please. Male-hating on this forum is getting vile and extreme. There is no rape culture, just like there's no patriarchy.

Dude, there is no male-hating. Trust me, as a proud owner of a penis, I'd be the first to stand against true male-bashing if I saw it. The disdain comes against the culture of silence, that has attempted to justify acts of violence against women. One needs to look no farther than the Steubenville, Ohio rape case to see an example of that. The fact that ANYONE, let alone a significant portion of the town, is defending the young men's barbaric acts speaks volumes about what kind of people they are.

Rape is more often committed by men because of differences in physical force. Sexual harassment is about 50:50 when you look beyond the fact men accept or even revel being victims.

What?? Evidence, please? When the HELL has a man EVER "reveled about being a victim"? Man, you need to start putting trigger warnings on your posts.

 

[dust1n]

Yes, obviously.
And it is not the same thing as "only males can be political leaders ( the highlighted part being the only actual meaning of the word patriarchy)". Pay attention to the "only" part as it's critical and has been at the center of some arguments in this thread.

Indeed. It's why I referenced the fallacy on his part.

You of course find "only males can be political leaders" in some historical societies but it's also something that some women and some feminists are particularly preoccupied with. I guess many feminists would say that "only males can be political leaders" is part of patriarchy.
The general historical meaning of patriarchy (as well as the current meaning according to some dictionaries) does not however rule out female political leaders. Most historical patriarchal societies didn't rule out female political rulers either, only insisted that they were subservient in some actual or symbolic way to male political leaders.
As I have argued earlier, it's not optimal to rule out female political leaders, either from the perspective of male political leaders or of the societies in question (outside of special cases). In contrast, the patriarchal system itself used to be advantageous, which is most likely why it was so widespread.
This is part of why I'm saying that the feminist and historical meanings have been confused by some including the OP.

That's all in agreement with me, for the most part.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yeah, because a majority of men are even apologetic about rape, let alone commit it. Please. Male-hating on this forum is getting vile and extreme. There is no rape culture, just like there's no patriarchy.

Who said anything about a "majority of men"? The only issue I've seen taken is with people who endorse a misogynistic culture where women are treated as second-class citizens, which includes justification of rape by some men.

By the way, speaking of "male-hating":

Rape is more often committed by men because of differences in physical force. Sexual harassment is about 50:50 when you look beyond the fact men accept or even revel being victims.

I find the bolded portion to be far more insulting to males than anything that's been posted in this thread so far. Who exactly "accepts" (much less "revels in") being a rape victim?

 

[Alceste]

Which implies that patriarchy is more of a system than a discrete entity? That makes sense...

Yes, even the earliest philosophical descriptions of patriarchy (Plato's, for example) described much broader gender-based roles than simply "only men are allowed to be political leaders". The father was the head of the household, the final arbiter of family economic affairs, and the heir of his own father's title and estates. Extrapolated to society in general, the lord was the "father" of the region. The king was the "father" of the lords. The church was the "father" of the kings (until the kings woke up), and God was the father of the church.

Women did not enter into this model of society at all, except as indentured servants to men in the home.

 

[outis]

For completeness, there are other forms of patriarchy besides monarchy such as republican patriarchy which gave us literal godfathers in addition to metaphorical fathers.

Women did not enter into this model of society at all, except as indentured servants to men in the home.

Radical feminism belittles decent women again!
What about motherhood? And behavior demonstrating to everyone who the father of the children is? Do you think a mere servant can do that?

As mentionned earlier, monarchy in particular sometimes gave some rather more meaningful roles to women because it was safer than to empower men who might take advantage of these roles.
In republican patriarchy, part of the game is males having each other's back so that is less of an issue. And the less women had actual roles, the more imaginary roles they seemed to play in black propaganda (see I, Claudius).


Since someone insists on keeping the topic alive, I'm trying.
But if you have seen anything as mind-blowing as http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3270734-post682.html I welcome PMs with links. These are so much more fun...

 

[Alceste]

For completeness, there are other forms of patriarchy besides monarchy such as republican patriarchy which gave us literal godfathers in addition to metaphorical fathers.


Radical feminism belittles decent women again!
What about motherhood? And behavior demonstrating to everyone who the father of the children is? Do you think a mere servant can do that?

As mentionned earlier, monarchy in particular sometimes gave some rather more meaningful roles to women because it was safer than to empower men who might take advantage of these roles.
In republican patriarchy, part of the game is males having each other's back so that is less of an issue. And the less women had actual roles, the more imaginary roles they seemed to play in black propaganda (see I, Claudius).


Since someone insists on keeping the topic alive, I'm trying.
But if you have seen anything as mind-blowing as http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3270734-post682.html I welcome PMs with links. These are so much more fun...

I'll keep my eyes peeled.

I know your question is rhetorical, but yes, a mere servant can raise children, make supper and keep your house clean. It was fairly common for "patriarchs" to hire actual servants as replacements if their wives died on them.

Actually, I've done that job myself for working couples and divorced men.

Glowing idealism about motherhood doesn't really add anything particularly meaningful to the job, IMO. There are still a lot of crappy diapers involved, and very few intellectually stimulating conversations.

 

[outis]

You clearly don't know how hard it is to keep people from speculating about who you might have slept with when money and politics are at stake.
OK, it's easier when your husband and his folks are killing those who speculate too loudly in the wrong place and at the wrong time. But still, it's an important job.

I hear it's sometimes not clear what I'm talking about. So that was about how the imperatives of the patriarchal system borne out of biological and economic conditions translate into gendered behavioral norms and representations. And all that without referencing a single TV show.

 

[Alceste]

You clearly don't know how hard it is to keep people from speculating about who you might have slept with when money and politics are at stake.
OK, it's easier when your husband and his folks are killing those who speculate too loudly in the wrong place and at the wrong time. But still, it's an important job.

I hear it's sometimes not clear what I'm talking about. So that was about how the imperatives of the patriarchal system borne out of biological and economic conditions translate into gendered behavioral norms and representations. And all that without referencing a single TV show.

Sure - I don't dispute that patriarchal gender roles arose from economic and biological conditions, if that's what you're saying. That still doesn't make staying at home wiping bums and baking pies an interesting, exciting, important, stimulating or meaningful full-time profession, and it sure doesn't elevate women in general beyond the status of household servants.

Honestly, has it ever been any man's childhood ambition to look after children all day and do household chores for the rest of their lives? Why would women in general have ever felt differently? I expect that for most women in history, there was a childhood moment of "AHA - I get it, I'm actually not allowed to do anything at all with my life because I don't have a penis", and that moment was disappointing and sad.

I think what Freud termed "penis envy", although ridiculous, is not too far from the truth. What his German clients had was man envy - envy of the ability to make your mark on the world, live independently, earn an income, do something meaningful, etc.

 

[outis]

That still doesn't make staying at home wiping bums and baking pies an interesting, exciting, important, stimulating or meaningful full-time profession, and it sure doesn't elevate women in general beyond the status of household servants.

Obviously.
Since we're on topic, I will try to let people know if they miss the sarcasm.

But your reply wasn't wasted. My rendition was a caricature but there were people who think like that (who am I kidding? there *are*).

I think what Freud termed "penis envy", although ridiculous, is not too far from the truth. What his German clients had was man envy - envy of the ability to make your mark on the world, live independently, earn an income, do something meaningful, etc.

If we had SF-nal virtual reality that actually worked, wouldn't you have at least enough penis envy to try once?
I know I would. But I don't know the Freudian terminology for that one.