"Patriarchy"

[Alceste]

Jeebers! This is one bizarre thread.

Sure is! "Obama is a matriarchal leader because he grasps the concepts of rape, female bodily autonomy and women having jobs well enough to make women in general prefer him to Romney! Women are privileged too, only in a different way than men, because they get to go first in the lunch line at my school!"

 

[Revoltingest]

Rev, we could probably compare battle scars all day long when it comes to being screwed over by the system in place. And I'm absolutely sure we're not the only ones who sport some deep scars, either.

At least we'd be both railing against the same things.
(Railing is good for the soul.....according to those who have one).

 

[dust1n]

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

Where does it say that?

We also see that women can individually amass great wealth & influence.
The Richest Women In America - Forbes

This is a list of women who currently hold CEO positions at companies that rank on the 2012 Fortune 1000 lists. Women currently hold 4.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEO positions and 4.2 percent of Fortune 1000 CEO positions.

EDIT: source: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-fortune-1000

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

Voter turn-out rate doesn't constitute a matriarchy/patriarchy.

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

Male and female's role in democracy is equal at this point in history. The fact men don't go out to vote doesn't constitute a matriarchy.

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?

Yes, and business and media and lobbying I would include. Those are, after all, political organizations.

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.

All those benefits and still grossly under represented.

• Women hold only 17% of the seats in Congress. (Source)
• Only 22% of all statewide elective executive office positions are currently held by women. (Source)
• State Legislatures are only 24% women. (Source)
• Only 6 out of 50 states have a female governor. (Source)
• The United States trails behind much of the world—ranking 90th in the number of women in our national legislature. (*Note: The U.S. is listed as 73rd, but after accounting for tied rankings of other countries, the ranking for the U.S. is 90th. Source)
• On average, male cabinet appointees outnumber women cabinet appointees in our states by a ratio of 2 to 1. (Source)
• 50% less women than men consider of running for office. Of those, 30% less actually run, with only a fraction seeking higher office. (Lawless, Jennifer and Richard L Fox. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge UP, 2005.)
• Women constituted 54% of voters in the 2008 elections, but only 24% of state legislators. (Source)
• Women of color represent only 4% of Congress and 23% of women Members of Congress. (Source)

Women in politics statistics

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.

Sorry, that was the wrong link. I have like 20 tabs open at any given time, so it's bound to happen.

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.

I didn't say there weren't varying degrees patriarchy or matriarchy. I said they are mutually exclusive terms. Males and females can't both be the primary leadership. If there is no distinguishable amount of power allotted to one sex, then both matriarchy and patriarch are no longer applicable.

 

[dust1n]

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.

I never said you did say we lived in a matriarchy. Again, that whole conversation is directed as someone else entirely.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where does it say that?

Must be off to do some work, so I'll address points in separate posts.
Check the charts. You'll see that women own a certain percentage. Add in half of what couples own, & you see about 50% ownership.

More later.

 

[dust1n]

Must be off to do some work, so I'll address points in separate posts.
Check the charts. You'll see that women own a certain percentage. Add in half of what couples own, & you see about 50% ownership.

More later.

Take your time, but the chart seems to indicate the median income for single women (lowest), single men (higher), and couples (highest obviously, as there are two individuals). However, there is no distinguishing sign of how much men and women make in couples on that chart. If you split it half equally (which would be incorrect because the chart below shows that married women make the less money in comparison to married men), there would still be a gender gap on the side of males...

The chart states:

18-65: Couple, 127,300, Men 31,150, Women 15210. 127,300 divided by 2 (which would erroneous because it assumes that that money is evenly split amongst a couple) is 63650. Men would be 94800. Women would be 78860.

Even if that was your method (if I understood correctly), how does 83% the median income qualify as 'almost half'? Even that would be supremely generous considering couples median incomes were just split in half.

 

[Revoltingest]

Take your time, but the chart seems to indicate the median income for single women (lowest), single men (higher), and couples (highest obviously, as there are two individuals).

It's the wealth chart I'm addressing.....not income.

 

[dust1n]

It's the wealth chart I'm addressing.....not income.

Figure 1, correct?

 

[Me Myself]

Where does it say that?

This is a list of women who currently hold CEO positions at companies that rank on the 2012 Fortune 1000 lists. Women currently hold 4.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEO positions and 4.2 percent of Fortune 1000 CEO positions.

Voter turn-out rate doesn't constitute a matriarchy/patriarchy.

Male and female's role in democracy is equal at this point in history. The fact men don't go out to vote doesn't constitute a matriarchy.

Yes, and business and media and lobbying I would include. Those are, after all, political organizations.


All those benefits and still grossly under represented.

• Women hold only 17% of the seats in Congress. (Source)
• Only 22% of all statewide elective executive office positions are currently held by women. (Source)
• State Legislatures are only 24% women. (Source)
• Only 6 out of 50 states have a female governor. (Source)
• The United States trails behind much of the world—ranking 90th in the number of women in our national legislature. (*Note: The U.S. is listed as 73rd, but after accounting for tied rankings of other countries, the ranking for the U.S. is 90th. Source)
• On average, male cabinet appointees outnumber women cabinet appointees in our states by a ratio of 2 to 1. (Source)
• 50% less women than men consider of running for office. Of those, 30% less actually run, with only a fraction seeking higher office. (Lawless, Jennifer and Richard L Fox. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge UP, 2005.)
• Women constituted 54% of voters in the 2008 elections, but only 24% of state legislators. (Source)
• Women of color represent only 4% of Congress and 23% of women Members of Congress. (Source)

Women in politics statistics

Sorry, that was the wrong link. I have like 20 tabs open at any given time, so it's bound to happen.

I didn't say there weren't varying degrees patriarchy or matriarchy. I said they are mutually exclusive terms. Males and females can't both be the primary leadership. If there is no distinguishable amount of power allotted to one sex, then both matriarchy and patriarch are no longer applicable.

S if I got the figure straight, there are less women running for office than men, and you are surprised tthere are less women working in there than men, correct?

 

[dust1n]

S if I got the figure straight, there are less women running for office than men, and you are surprised tthere are less women working in there than men, correct?

Incorrect.

 

[Revoltingest]

Figure 1, correct?

Yes.

Boy, answers like this really boost my post count!

 

[dust1n]

Yes.

Boy, answers like this really boost my post count!

That's the figure that I pulled all the numbers from.

 

[Alceste]

Must be off to do some work, so I'll address points in separate posts.
Check the charts. You'll see that women own a certain percentage. Add in half of what couples own, & you see about 50% ownership.

More later.

Wow. I read that report. It's completely unambiguous in its firm conclusion that women are at a major economic disadvantage. They persistently earn less and accumulate less wealth than men until their husbands start to die off. And you want to argue that it supports your view that women hold half the wealth by "adding couples" into your calculations?

Interestingly, the study also reports that women lose more wealth than men in a divorce. That kind of implies that it was not "theirs", but their husbands', and they simply had the use of it for as long as they were partnered with a man.

Why not just go with what the study says instead of reinterpreting the data to draw radically different conclusions? After all, it's your own evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow. I read that report. It's completely unambiguous in its firm conclusion that women are at a major economic disadvantage. They persistently earn less and accumulate less wealth than men until their husbands start to die off. And you want to argue that it supports your view that women hold half the wealth by "adding couples" into your calculations?
Interestingly, the study also reports that women lose more wealth than men in a divorce. That kind of implies that it was not "theirs", but their husbands', and they simply had the use of it for as long as they were partnered with a man.
Why not just go with what the study says instead of reinterpreting the data to draw radically different conclusions? After all, it's your own evidence.

Yes, there are many perspectives towards evidence.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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

I too am confused how you concluded that women control about half of all the wealth in the U.S.

Possibilities I'm seeing in your argument are that there is the recognition of disparity until men and women marry, and then I'm guessing you are saying that both assets are combined to generate more wealth in her benefit, until then after the age of 65 for widowed partners the graph shows women holding an advantage.

I disagree due to the corroborating figures in the second graph that shows older widowed women not faring well (quote from your link) -

Nevertheless, not all widows fare well financially: close to 1
in 5 widows live in poverty, whereas 11% of widowed men and 5% of married couples live in poverty.

If the argument stems from the evidence that wealth for women jumps due to marriage, it still does not logically follow that women control half of all the wealth in the U.S. In fact, some pretty disappointing figures come up due to the wealth disparity, and especially when it comes to women of color:

Single women are more likely than single men to have the financial burden of custodial parenthood.

Women lack wealth-building fringe benefits (such as employer-sponsored retirement plans) because they are more likely to work
in jobs (such as service occupations) that are least likely to provide fringe benefits and because women are more likely to work
part-time and such benefits are often denied to part-time workers.

Because women bear a greater responsibility for caregiving than men, they are more likely to work part-time and to leave the
labor force, reducing their earnings and retirement assets.

Women generally experience steeper economic declines than men when they divorce.

Even with similar credit profiles, women are 32% more likely to receive subprime mortgages than men, typically adding $85,000
to $186,000 more in interest over the life of the loan.

Can you explain why the data supports your argument?

 

[dust1n]

Yes, there are many perspectives towards evidence.

I'm get perspectives. What I don't get are the numbers equating to half of wealth going to women and justification for splitting the couple's in half. The wealth distribution amongst married women and married men is actually at it's highest according to Table 1.

 

[Revoltingest]

I too am confused how you concluded that women control about half of all the wealth in the U.S.

I split the couple wealth in half (presuming hetero couples & evenly divided homo couples).
Then compare the male & female totals. Looks about half of the wealth to me +/- 10% or so.
Of all the couples I know, the wealth benefits both equally, & the female type exercises equal control.

Possibilities I'm seeing in your argument are that there is the recognition of disparity until men and women marry, and then I'm guessing you are saying that both assets are combined to generate more wealth in her benefit, until then after the age of 65 for widowed partners the graph shows women holding an advantage.
I disagree due to the corroborating figures in the second graph that shows older widowed women not faring well (quote from your link) -

I don't deny that there aren't gender disparities. But they've been reduced over time, & the upshot is that women hold much wealth in
the US, enuf to show that it is not the same level of patriarchy as the many countries which keep property out of the hands of women.

 

[Alceste]

I don't deny that there aren't gender disparities. But they've been reduced over time, & the upshot is that women hold much wealth in
the US, enuf to show that it is not the same level of patriarchy as the many countries which keep property out of the hands of women.

Thanks for backtracking from your original claim that women hold half the wealth. This is much more conducive to productive discussion than trying to defend indefensible positions. I agree with you that it isn't as bad as it once was, thank heavens, but I think your study shows that we still have a ways to go before wealth equality is achieved. (= / - 10 % or so).

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for backtracking from your original claim that women hold half the wealth.

Do you not read?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I'm having trouble following what you're saying, but here's my best try at responding to the point I think you're making:

I think you're looking at things too simplistically. There are many conceivable types of patriarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, and every other system that attempts to define who should and shouldn't be in a "ruling class".

There have been some versions of patriarchy that were based on the idea that women were fragile creatures in need of men's protection. In these systems, while the woman is still devalued as a person, she still has a value in that society akin to the value we'd bestow on a piece of property. Even though that society isn't allowing her self-determination, it makes physically hurting her a taboo.

... or, often, it merely gives lip-service to the idea of "chivalry" while actually treating women very badly behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, there have been other versions of patriarchy where women were devalued across the board, and there were no social taboos about physically harming a woman. She was considered the man's property, and he was free to do with her as he saw fit.

"Patriarchy" isn't just one thing. It's a category of things.