"Patriarchy"

[dust1n]

This is unacceptable, since you're capable of more than most.
"Matriarchy" is definitely not the state of society.
Rather it is a component of society's state, right alongside patriarchy.

Okay, so in which component of society do females have "central roles of political leadership," "moral authority," and "control of property."

A matriarchy is, after all, by definition, "a society in which women have the central roles or political leadership, etc."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#cite_note-LivingLapGoddess-pp161162164n84-1

You're making the mistake of seeing evidence of patriarchy & from that reasoning that there can be no matriarchy.
Of course, there would be evidence for patriarchy, since it is one component. So this does not defeat my contention that both traits exist.

Ignoring the fact that patriarchy and matriarchy are actually describing the political class and their society, (which is hard, because they we be mutually exclusive, let's see the evidence for matriarchy then.

 

[crossfire]

I'm just going to post a the etymology of a couple of words for easy reference in this thread. I've highlighted some things in bold red. Carry on your discussion.

hierarchy (n.) mid-14c., from Old French ierarchie, from Medieval Latin hierarchia "ranked division of angels" (in the system of Dionysius the Areopagite), from Greek hierarkhia "rule of a high priest," from hierarkhes "high priest, leader of sacred rites," from ta hiera "the sacred rites" (neuter plural of hieros "sacred;" see ire) + arkhein "to lead, rule" (see archon). Sense of "ranked organization of persons or things" first recorded 1610s, initially of clergy, sense probably influenced by higher. Related: Hierarchal; hierarchical.

Hierarchy means "sacred rule."

Patriarchy would be "Father Rule," and Matriarchy would be "Mother Rule."


egalitarian (adj.) 1885, from French égalitaire, from Old French egalite, from Latin aequalitatem (see equality). The noun is 1920. equality (n.) late 14c., "evenness of surface, uniformity of size;" c.1400, in reference to amount or number, from Old French equalité (Modern French égalité, which form dates from 17c.), from Latin aequalitatem (nom. aequalitas) "equality, similarity, likeness" (also sometimes with reference to civil rights), from aequalis (see equal). Of privileges, rights, etc., from 1520s.

feminism (n.) 1851, "state of being feminine;" sense of "advocacy of women's rights" is 1895, from French féminisme (1837); see feminine + -ism.​

We don't want to confuse sacred top-down power structures with bottom-up structures. Patriarchy and Matriarchy are top-down. Egalitarianism and Feminism are ideally bottom-up. (Although it is possible to have top-down imposed equality/standardization, aka regulation.)


I hope this will help to clear up the confusion I'm seeing in this thread. Carry on.

 

[dust1n]

Who said rhat and where? Quote it to me. We are saying there are clear discrimination issues against men, and that is has notng to do with men being in power. Do you understand the difference between that and "women have more control"?

I just cant fathom why you keep adressing e issue as if sexism against women erased sexism against men because this is all I am reading here. "It is imposible that women are sexist to men, because men are very very very sexist towards women" its what you are inherently proposing in a nutshell and it is simply fallacious.

Not even close, and if you wish to address one of my points, I'd suggest choosing one that was directed at you, and not at someone else entirely.

"Woman having more control" =/= matriarchy or matriarchal component to society or however else this will be inevitably worded.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I don't like it.

And thank goodness it is a fringe element of pornography, and not mainstream. If it was, I'd be more worried about the state of our culture. But it's availability by itself is symptomatic of the larger picture, and that is a level of acceptability of violence against women. I address the source, personally, not the symptom.

Ok that's cool

 

[dust1n]

The saddest part is that every single one of these grasping, ludicrous "criticisms" of feminism comes from a person who has never bothered to read so much as a wikipedia article to learn what feminism actually is.

I know... which is why we are constantly have to talking about feminism but no one who has actually wrote about feminism. Notice no reference to any feminist thinker?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I know... which is why we are constantly have to talking about feminism but no one who has actually wrote about feminism. Notice no reference to any feminist thinker?

And at times it seems eerily similar to criticisms of "the homosexual agenda."

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, so in which component of society do females have "central roles of political leadership," "moral authority," and "control of property."

According to this pro-gal group, women control about half of all the wealth in the US.
http://www.socwomen.org/web/images/stories/resources/fact_sheets/fact_2-2010-wealth.pdf
We also see that women can individually amass great wealth & influence.
The Richest Women In America - Forbes
Add to all this the fact that political candidates must cater to women as half of the voting public.
In the last election, women voted in higher percentages & higher total numbers than did men.
By the numbers: Women voters - CNN.com
Obama would likely not be in office were it not for women voters, so he is an extension of their power even though he isn't one of them.
Women voters carry Obama to victory on historic election night | World news | The Guardian
Their power is enhanced by voting with some unity.
Voting gender gap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A matriarchy is, after all, by definition, "a society in which women have the central roles or political leadership, etc."

Would a patriarchy have a similar definition, wherein men have the central roles? Should the definitions be limited to government, & not
include business, media & lobbying? Certainly, men don't wield all the control. We see women as governors, mayors, & holding high positions
in the fed gov (although reduced a little under Obama). In business we see them with top positions in media & running companies. Sure,
there is room for their advancement, but it cannot be said that they don't wield great power.
They also benefit from affirmative action, exemption from registering for selective service, preference in child custody, & more social safety
net benefits.

The Inevitability of Patriarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's certainly possible that biological differences could cause enduring differential
power, but we are not predestined to place all power in the hands of males.

Ignoring the fact that patriarchy and matriarchy are actually describing the political class and their society, (which is hard, because they we be mutually exclusive, let's see the evidence for matriarchy then.

If you see them as mutually exclusive, then this would create an either/or situation. Since we (I & most of us anyway) see
society evolving away from patriarchy as women assume more control, your view would suggest great discontinuity in change.
I see change as occurring more in small steps, with changing weight of various components.

 

[Alceste]

And at times it seems eerily similar to criticisms of "the homosexual agenda."

"I'm ok with gay marriage but the homosexual agenda just goes too far. Gay marriage advocates are too angry and hateful of straight people - I don't see why they can't just support marriage instead of only gay marriage. If they really cared about marriage they would be more active doing something about straight divorce. Also, since they somehow voted in large enough numbers to get married in some states, those states are now homoarchies, partly."

 

[Me Myself]

It's a start.

There's a good number of highly effective feminist writers. The usual starting points in many university women's studies courses are Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir. But you don't have to begin with Second Wave thinkers. You could legitimately begin with Mary Wollstonecraft, Margaret Fuller, or even check out Christine de Pizan (15th century, whoot). All of these feminists challenge prevailing attitudes about women and offer points in support of more social and political involvment of women.

If you're interested in contemporary feminist writers, I am good friends with one, as a matter of fact, who has published two large works (one is a scholarly reference book), regularly teaches at the university, received her PhD on feminist literature, and lectures often on the subject. But if not her, there are numerous writers covering a wide range of subculture perspectives and that continue to address inequality in various socio-politcal-economic arenas. A quick google search will give you a cursory list to get you started if you're interested.

Links to anything free I will check out

I am broke though, so I cant do more than that even when interested.

I havent found sme yet tthough. I tried to find videos in youtube where a feminist talks, but I mostly just find those where people talk against feminism, including a former feminist who talks about it.

What I find worrying in what I ve seen (little as it may be and maybe correctible if wrong given some free ceminist sources) is that they are too concerned with not having women hurt at all in FICTION and ADVERTISING which to me makes no sense. No one complains when a character of a male is hurt in advertising or fictious stories, NOR shuld they of course. I find it worrying to expect such exceptions for female characters and female depictions. Its an attitude I find highly worryng.

 

[Me Myself]

"I'm ok with gay marriage but the homosexual agenda just goes too far. Gay marriage advocates are too angry and hateful of straight people - I don't see why they can't just support marriage instead of only gay marriage. If they really cared about marriage they would be more active doing something about straight divorce. Also, since they somehow voted in large enough numbers to get married in some states, those states are now homoarchies, partly."

you are making a caricature of our points pretending we are making a caricature of yours.

 

[Me Myself]

Not even close, and if you wish to address one of my points, I'd suggest choosing one that was directed at you, and not at someone else entirely.

"Woman having more control" =/= matriarchy or matriarchal component to society or however else this will be inevitably worded.

I never said we lived in a matriarchy

I said there is female privilege as well as male privilege and both genders are unequal in different scenarios favoring a different gender with different intensities on different areas.

 

[Alceste]

you are making a caricature of our points pretending we are making a caricature of yours.

Yes to the first half of your sentence, can't quite make sense of the second half.

I don't mind if you wish to demonstrate that my arguments are absurd by applying them to a similar issue. Just make sure you get them right, as I did, and make sure the issues are genuinely similar (ie. a disenfranchised group seeking equality).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My problem is that according to feminism, ALL problems of gender unequality steam from "pariarchism" and while I obviously agree patriarchism is wrong and is an unjust and need-to-end form of unequality, it is ONE form of gender inequality, not the only one nor the father of them all.

"Feminism" says that all problems of gender inequality come from patriarchy? Who in "feminism" says this?

So I give the example of male disposability, that simply is against patriarchy ithe core. The "archy"s are used to denominate those that must rule as you well say, not those that are more dispensable, but the other way around.

There's no inherent contradiction between a system where being a man is one of the prerequisites to be in power and one where the ruling class treat lower-class men as disposable.

Patriarchy doesn't mean that all men have power.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes to the first half of your sentence, can't quite make sense of the second half.

I don't mind if you wish to demonstrate that my arguments are absurd by applying them to a similar issue. Just make sure you get them right, as I did, and make sure the issues are genuinely similar (ie. a disenfranchised group seeking equality).

The problem is that whatever you did does not even by far resemble anything I've said.

Or by all means quote the post you find so analogous.

 

[Alceste]

I never said we lived in a matriarchy

I said there is female privilege as well as male privilege and both genders are unequal in different scenarios favoring a different gender with different intensities on different areas.

Do you believe that men and women are equal already if you take the average of all these individual scenarios?

 

[Me Myself]

"Feminism" says that all problems of gender inequality come from patriarchy? Who in "feminism" says this?

To be more specific, Mystic said that the gender protrayal of the woman as weak and the man as strong steams from patriarchy, and that women first also come from patriarchy(this also said from alceste who said this is completely only because MEN "think" women want this) and similarly on the cultural impacts of a male striking a woman being worst than the other way around.

Those examles they say all come from patriarchy, but they dont hold up when comared to other "archy"s, it doesnt make sense that a monarc is not seen well if he attacks a non monarc or an aristocrat attacks a non aristocrat, nor in any of these the monarc or aristocrat go second or must stand up when the non monarc comes in the room.

If they did not accurately represent popular feminiist beliefs when saying this, then sure, my bad

There's no inherent contradiction between a system where being a man is one of the prerequisites to be in power and one where the ruling class treat lower-class men as disposable.

Patriarchy doesn't mean that all men have power.

I was adressing this above.

 

[Alceste]

The problem is that whatever you did does not even by far resemble anything I've said.

Or by all means quote the post you find so analogous.

You have complained that feminists aren't doing enough about domestic abuse of men in a multitude of posts, including this thread, and tried to use your complaint to establish that feminism is not really about equality. The part of the caricature that deals with your argument is the complaint that gay marriage advocates aren't doing enough about problems in straight marriages, so they don't really care about marriage.

 

[Debater Slayer]

people need to start reading what I post three times or something.

I habe NEVER suggested that "feminism" has an evil INTENTIONAL agenda. Come on people...seriously.


I dont tthink it is unfortunate thou.gh. It is a simple joke. Which would have become a madness media scandal if it had been the other way around.

What I get out of your argument is this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

1. "There are cases of treating males unfairly."

2. "Feminists don't speak out against those cases as much as they do for cases of treating females unfairly."

3. "Ergo, feminism is biased against males."

If this is your argument, then I don't see how (3) follows from the other two. You don't have to speak out against every single injustice that exists to be able to support your own cause or speak in favor of it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Links to anything free I will check out

I am broke though, so I cant do more than that even when interested.

I havent found sme yet tthough. I tried to find videos in youtube where a feminist talks, but I mostly just find those where people talk against feminism, including a former feminist who talks about it.

What I find worrying in what I ve seen (little as it may be and maybe correctible if wrong given some free ceminist sources) is that they are too concerned with not having women hurt at all in FICTION and ADVERTISING which to me makes no sense. No one complains when a character of a male is hurt in advertising or fictious stories, NOR shuld they of course. I find it worrying to expect such exceptions for female characters and female depictions. Its an attitude I find highly worryng.

1) I won't do your homework for you. You are more than capable of searching for free ebooks if they are available. If not, I highly suggest if you truly are interested in putting any time in to researching actual feminist writers, that you'll invest cash into it too. Until then, all you're going by is second-hand sources.

2) Either you are not typing in effective search terms for feminist discussions on youtube or you are being deliberately obtuse.

3) Your worry about the acceptance in media marketing is due to prevailing attitudes that arise from patriarchy (male=automatons, female=weak and helpless). Again.

 

[Me Myself]

Do you believe that men and women are equal already if you take the average of all these individual scenarios?

Why do you think this question is important for THIS discussion?

If I were saying women have it better or some silly thing like that it would, but I am not. I am just saying that female privilege is not accurately described as being a form of patriarchy at all, and you'll do well to notice that I have not said there is more female privilege than male privilege, again, if I had then your question would be relevant for this subject.

So I'll repeat for clarity, what I am saying is that both female and male privilege exist, and that while some male privileges can be accurately described as a patriarchy, thats not the case for most if not all female privileges.

Again notice that that affirmation has nothing to do with comparing "who has more privileges". NO ONE SHOULD, and ALL such privileges should be abolished.