"Patriarchy"

[Alceste]

Do you not read?

Well enough to know there is a difference between "much" and "half".

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

I agree that wealth disparity within married households has all but nearly disappeared. That's a very good thing and offers to many men and women that society has made great strides toward more equal protection and opportunity.

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.

Agreed. But I offer that the best avenue for gaining wealth for women is to get married and stay married, whereas men are still able to attain wealth regardless of marital status. A single or divorced woman still has many more obstacles in front of her according to the data than single or divorced men to attain the same level of wealth.

Which, when compared to other parts of the world and in various points throughout history, doesn't change the status of how women can have security in not only savings and investments, but even in health care, affordable and safe housing, reliable transportation, and child care. It still means that if a woman wants basic necessities in life, her best bet is to find a man, get married, and stay married regardless of her well-being or independent pursuits to happiness.

It's a shame. I'd like to see that to be different for women as a whole.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree that wealth disparity within married households has all but nearly disappeared. That's a very good thing and offers to many men and women that society has made great strides toward more equal protection and opportunity.
Agreed. But I offer that the best avenue for gaining wealth for women is to get married and stay married, whereas men are still able to attain wealth regardless of marital status. A single or divorced woman still has many more obstacles in front of her according to the data than single or divorced men to attain the same level of wealth.
Which, when compared to other parts of the world and in various points throughout history, doesn't change the status of how women can have security in not only savings and investments, but even in health care, affordable and safe housing, reliable transportation, and child care. It still means that if a woman wants basic necessities in life, her best bet is to find a man, get married, and stay married regardless of her well-being or independent pursuits to happiness.
It's a shame. I'd like to see that to be different for women as a whole.

Let me just say that your version of feminism is a great model for all (IMO).
(I'm sorta burned out on this topic.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Let me just say that your version of feminism is a great model for all (IMO).
(I'm sorta burned out on this topic.)

(bad joke ahead, warning)

Ready to roll over and go to sleep already? I'm just getting started.

:cigar:

.

.

.

Thanks for the compliment. FWIW, I'm among many feminists, male and female, who share the same views. :yes:

 

[Mathematician]

This would be a great argument if patriarchy didn't exist... but, it did and does.

Male-dominance rose as a predominantly voluntary affair during the agricultural revolution since women in labor no longer could provide the same level of support to the group vs slavery which was imposed on different cultures for the convenience of that dominating nation.

 

[Alceste]

(bad joke ahead, warning)

Ready to roll over and go to sleep already? I'm just getting started.

:cigar:

.

.

.

Thanks for the compliment. FWIW, I'm among many feminists, male and female, who share the same views. :yes:

I actually can't think of ANY feminist who doesn't share those views.

 

[dust1n]

Male-dominance rose as a predominantly voluntary affair during the agricultural revolution since women in labor no longer could provide the same level of support to the group vs slavery which was imposed on different cultures for the convenience of that dominating nation.

Seems like quite the claim. Generally, long-term, geographically expansion, cultural changes, wouldn't qualify, in my mind, as something voluntary and really known, especially a couple thousand years ago.

You gots a source for this?

 

[Mathematician]

Seems like quite the claim. Generally, long-term, geographically expansion, cultural changes, wouldn't qualify, in my mind, as something voluntary and really known, especially a couple thousand years ago.

You gots a source for this?

Almost all anthropological records - both current and present - show this. Except for extraordinary situations like during total warfare, abusing women was never viewed as acceptable. During some periods men were held accountable for their wives' actions. For example, in Britain after the English Civil War a husband could be imprisoned or tortured if his wife committed a crime, but she wouldn't be held accountable unless it was a major crime like murder. How is that patriarchy? If a slave stole from a neighbor, he would be punished by the law, not the slave-owner.

Patriarchy is a myth invented by feminists to demonize men and trivialize any discrimination men face as 'their own fault' even though women commit the same injustices.

 

[dust1n]

Almost all anthropological records - both current and present - show this.

So a link to a couple of them would be relatively easy, no?

Except for extraordinary situations like during total warfare, abusing women was never viewed as acceptable. During some periods men were held accountable for their wives' actions. For example, in Britain after the English Civil War a husband could be imprisoned or tortured if his wife committed a crime, but she wouldn't be held accountable unless it was a major crime like murder. How is that patriarchy? If a slave stole from a neighbor, he would be punished by the law, not the slave-owner.

Who called that patriarchy, or resulting from patriarchy. I think that 17th century Britain was generally considered patriarchal because women had no political rights. A sign of patriarchy is not "women are mauled and violently mauled about by all people at all times or that all laws would reflect some disproportionate to women." Though, in a society where women and kids were thought to the property of a male, it isn't that surprising that they are held responsible for their 'property.'

Patriarchy is a myth invented by feminists to demonize men and trivialize any discrimination men face as 'their own fault' even though women commit the same injustices.

I'm afraid we part ways in understanding right about here.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

LOL Gene's here.

 

[Alceste]

LOL Gene's here.

I thought I recognized the face - and the perspective.

 

[Sunstone]

Patriarchy is a myth invented by feminists to demonize men and trivialize any discrimination men face as 'their own fault' even though women commit the same injustices.

Oh good! I can go back to sleep now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Patriarchy is a myth invented by feminists to demonize men and trivialize any discrimination men face as 'their own fault' even though women commit the same injustices.

That reminds me of this....
[youtube]FZaGWGAMjus[/youtube]
Hank Hill's Opinion on Soccer - YouTube

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

During some periods men were held accountable for their wives' actions. For example, in Britain after the English Civil War a husband could be imprisoned or tortured if his wife committed a crime, but she wouldn't be held accountable unless it was a major crime like murder. How is that patriarchy?

You're joking, right? You can't see how a system where a man has an implied responsibility to control his wife's actions would be considered patriarchy?

I'm having real trouble taking you seriously.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You're joking, right? You can't see how a system where a man has an implied responsibility to control his wife's actions would be considered patriarchy?

I'm having real trouble taking you seriously.

He's serious. Ask him what he thinks about the severity of FGM around the world (as an example). I've debated with him on the issues surrounding feminism, and he consistently has maintained the position you're questioning.

 

[Sunstone]

Almost all anthropological records - both current and present - show this. Except for extraordinary situations like during total warfare, abusing women was never viewed as acceptable. During some periods men were held accountable for their wives' actions. For example, in Britain after the English Civil War a husband could be imprisoned or tortured if his wife committed a crime, but she wouldn't be held accountable unless it was a major crime like murder. How is that patriarchy? If a slave stole from a neighbor, he would be punished by the law, not the slave-owner.

Patriarchy is a myth invented by feminists to demonize men and trivialize any discrimination men face as 'their own fault' even though women commit the same injustices.

May you be blessed with many, many daughters.

 

[Alceste]

He's serious. Ask him what he thinks about the severity of FGM around the world (as an example). I've debated with him on the issues surrounding feminism, and he consistently has maintained the position you're questioning.

I'm shocked - shocked! - that any person can walk away from a feminism debate with you without his opinion irrevocably changed for the better. Some people seem very committed to believing very silly things.

 

[Mathematician]

Equating gender roles with 'patriarchy' is a false premise. 'Patriarchal' system were adhered to by predominantly wealthy men from nobility: for most of history the vast majority of humans did not own property and thus the system did not apply to them. Yes, women lacked political and economic freedoms, but it was not set upon them by violence like slavery. There's no records of such gross violations of liberty. Cultural anthropologists studying the development of contemporary tribes have shown a more realistic picture: Thousands of years ago women were pregnant for most of their adult lives, and agrarian work requires a lot more work. Shifting from hunting and gathering - in which many cases women provided more sustenance - to horticulture places a tremendous amount of burden on men. To put it frankly, seasonal farming sucks. That's why we exported the work to slaves and today export it to illegal immigrants. It's grueling work, and impossible for someone who is 4-9 months pregnant. Out of this structured system where men were responsible for 90% of the tribe's sustenance there emerged rigid gender roles. Did it lead to women being politically and economically disenfranchised? Of course. It also lead to millions of men being slaughtered since it soon became their duty to protect the 'tribe' and later nation.

I've yet to see a viable, alternative theory about history proposed. You can criticize me all you want. I'm not a sexist. I have a different, informed opinion. Gender disparity was a sad fact of life because it was an economic necessity. Women were subject to less rights (but it was worse for upper-class women), and men were subject to harder labor and harder legal obligations - up to conscription and death.

When the economic necessity started to decline as the result of industrial labor, contraceptives, and birth control, the gender roles adapted and shifted. How is this hard to comprehend?

 

[Mathematician]

You're joking, right? You can't see how a system where a man has an implied responsibility to control his wife's actions would be considered patriarchy?

I'm having real trouble taking you seriously.

If you're defining patriarchy as 'rule of the father in the household,' you're right.

If you're defining patriarchy as 'all rights bestowed upon men,' then no, no such thing existed. Men had to follow certain rules and women followed others.

 

[Mathematician]

May you be blessed with many, many daughters.

I want daughters, in fact.