"Patriarchy"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I'm defining patriarchy in the normal, standard way: a system where women are generally excluded from power.

If you think that men having to follow rules implies a lack of patriarchy, would you say that Britain has lacked a monarchy since the Magna Carta?

 

[Mathematician]

I'm defining patriarchy in the normal, standard way: a system where women are generally excluded from power.

If you think that men having to follow rules implies a lack of patriarchy, would you say that Britain has lacked a monarchy since the Magna Carta?

Nearly all British citizens were excluded from power. Are you trying to say that the average yeoman had more power than Queen Mary?

I'm arguing against a very narrow, black and white picture, not some generalities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nearly all British citizens were excluded from power. Are you trying to say that the average yeoman had more power than Queen Mary?

No, I'm not saying that. If you'd like to know what I'm saying, please actually read my post.

I'm arguing against a very narrow, black and white picture, not some generalities.

I think the term you're looking for is "straw man". You're arguing against a straw man.

 

[Alceste]

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?

It's not hard to comprehend. But you are tilting at windmills. Nobody is saying patriarchy emerged by "violence and slavery". Why do you imagine that distinction would be necessary for it to be a reality? Also, nobody is saying "patriarchy" means men don't have to follow rules.

Since your definition of patriarchy is... unique, to say the least, we "comprehend" your argument but find it unpersuasive. If you want to argue that patriarchy doesn't exist, and never has, anywhere on earth (an amazing opinion, IMO) you might first want to learn what it is.

 

[dust1n]

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?

I'm not an anthropologist, and I certainly take your opinion here to heart.

I just don't under how 'patriarchy' is a myth. I disagree on the nature of patriarchy regarding some aspects of it, and certainly some go to town with it, but I don't see any indicator that 'patriarchy' was a myth, but I don't think patriarchy is inclusive with gender roles.

 

[credance]

The thread stated out as Patriarchy,a term for the male species.
Males and females are not only different in physical body. We are different in many wonderful ways.
There is a saying that behind every great man there is a great woman.
To seek only your own counsel is to leave out many possibilities.
Women were created as the perfect partner for men.
Men should not be allowed to use their physical strength, political, or economic control to subdue their female partner.
Any man who requires his woman to completely hide herself from the world is a very insecure example of the male species.
Love and respect starts in the home.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The thread stated out as Patriarchy,a term for the male species.
Males and females are not only different in physical body. We are different in many wonderful ways.
There is a saying that behind every great man there is a great woman.
To seek only your own counsel is to leave out many possibilities.
Women were created as the perfect partner for men.
Men should not be allowed to use their physical strength, political, or economic control to subdue their female partner.
Any man who requires his woman to completely hide herself from the world is a very insecure example of the male species.
Love and respect starts in the home.

Perfect timing, credance. Some of us were just wondering if patriarchy even existed in the first place.

 

[dust1n]

I guess a better way off putting what I said earlier this morning. There are certainly a lot myths about patriarchy, but patriarchy isn't a myth.

 

[WyattDerp]

It is gender inequality that favors and disfavors men and women depending on the context. Why then charge it with a male quality?

Because when we look at the context, instead of just sweeping it under the rug of calling it a context, we see that it's mostly women doing the suffering and men doing the exploiting.

 

[Mathematician]

Because when we look at the context, instead of just sweeping it under the rug of calling it a context, we see that it's mostly women doing the suffering and men doing the exploiting.

Tell that to men who are victims of paternity fraud, biased family courts, harsher jail sentences, female-on-male rape (that wasn't even recognized by federal policy until last year), and domestic abuse.

This thread reminds me of the quote Hillary Clinton made a few years back about women being the primary victims of war because they had to lose their husbands and sons: spinning any issue to be exemplified 'patriarchy' suppressing women. Even if it's men dying, the women are the victims. Crazy logic.

 

[Me Myself]

Tell that to men who are victims of paternity fraud, biased family courts, harsher jail sentences, female-on-male rape (that wasn't even recognized by federal policy until last year), and domestic abuse.

This thread reminds me of the quote Hillary Clinton made a few years back about women being the primary victims of war because they had to lose their husbands and sons: spinning any issue to be exemplified 'patriarchy' suppressing women. Even if it's men dying, the women are the victims. Crazy logic.

Is it my misinformation or are there still many countries where female to male rape is not recognised?

I dont agree with you that no patriarchy exist(if that is what you were saying) but I do propose (as both of us do I believe) that both men and women have had advantages and disadvantages oer the centuries because of their genders.

I am not playing at who got it worst here. I am still very confused at why some people want to pretend sexism towards male is not important given there has been worst sexism towards females, I think thats like saying rape diesnt matter because murder exists or that women being raped is not importantecause there are also children being raped.

I dont get the either or mentality, but with this thread what I wanted to clarify is that "patriarchy" =/= all differences in gender roles since ever.

While patriarchy is a probblem, it is not by far the only problem and not by far the only way of sexual dicrimination. Most discrimination gainst men if not all is simply not accounted for in the term patriarchy, while I amot arguing that this negates the existence of a patriarchy I do am saying patriarchy is just obviously not what causes most sexism against men.

There are deep sociocultural reasons for this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Tell that to men who are victims of paternity fraud, biased family courts, harsher jail sentences, female-on-male rape (that wasn't even recognized by federal policy until last year), and domestic abuse.

This thread reminds me of the quote Hillary Clinton made a few years back about women being the primary victims of war because they had to lose their husbands and sons: spinning any issue to be exemplified 'patriarchy' suppressing women. Even if it's men dying, the women are the victims. Crazy logic.

So you're arguing that on the whole, men suffer worse impacts from gender discrimination than women? Am I getting you right?

 

[Me Myself]

So you're arguing that on the whole, men suffer worse impacts from gender discrimination than women? Am I getting you right?

Sigh*

Why is it the only thing you people care about is who is suffering "more"

Is it so impossible to just accept both suffer discrimination?

I dont get it with you people and your obsession on making this a silly competition.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sigh*

Why is it the only thing you people care about is who is suffering "more"

Is it so impossible to just accept both suffer discrimination?

I dont get it with you people and your obsession on making this a silly competition.

Hold up, it was YOU who brought up this silliness by suggesting that the suffering men face is just as bad, only different. Your detractors are showing you evidence of situations where you're wrong.

If you had two kids, one straight and one is gay, and you hear your gay child coming home with stories about harassment while your straight child came home complaining about not getting enough attention, or that your gay child came home repeatedly being beat up just for being gay, while your straight child came home talking about a single bully; you'd be silly for thinking that both your straight child and your gay child were simply suffering different kinds of discrimination and ignoring the magnitude of the discrimination each faces. Your gay child needs better protection, better education for those who bully him, and more rights to speak up about the abuse than your straight child.

YOU brought up how as a boy you didn't get food because girls got to go first. And then YOU suggested that examples like yours are comparable to discrimination girls face.....and either ignoring things like acid being thrown in their faces, honor killings, or being shot in the head for demanding an education....or you're downplaying them suggesting that they're really not all that bad as people think.

AND you refuse to read feminist writings unless they're spoon fed to you.

Roll your eyes and act indignant all you want, MM. But you're refusing to learn about what girls and women around the world experience at the scale they do, and for whatever reason I don't know. But kid, you got a lot of gall to suggest that people who fight for women's equality are "obsessed with who has it worse."

 

[Me Myself]

Hold up, it was YOU who brought up this silliness by suggesting that the suffering men face is just as bad, only different. Your detractors are showing you evidence of situations where you're wrong.

If you had two kids, one straight and one is gay, and you hear your gay child coming home with stories about harassment while your straight child came home complaining about not getting enough attention, or that your gay child came home repeatedly being beat up just for being gay, while your straight child came home talking about a single bully; you'd be silly for thinking that both your straight child and your gay child were simply suffering different kinds of discrimination and ignoring the magnitude of the discrimination each faces. Your gay child needs better protection, better education for those who bully him, and more rights to speak up about the abuse than your straight child.

YOU brought up how as a boy you didn't get food because girls got to go first. And then YOU suggested that examples like yours are comparable to discrimination girls face.....and either ignoring things like acid being thrown in their faces, honor killings, or being shot in the head for demanding an education....or you're downplaying them suggesting that they're really not all that bad as people think.

AND you refuse to read feminist writings unless they're spoon fed to you.

Roll your eyes and act indignant all you want, MM. But you're refusing to learn about what girls and women around the world experience at the scale they do, and for whatever reason I don't know. But kid, you got a lot of gall to suggest that people who fight for women's equality are "obsessed with who has it worse."

I never said those were serious cases, I said that humorously. Why do you ignore female on male rape not even being recognised in a lot of countries? Why do you ignore the serious cases out forth?

I never said "as much" either. I am only pointing out it happens and it happens enough for it to be at least CONSIDERED.

Yet you come and say it deserves no specialised consideration because "women"?

I am not talking about all women who figght for equality nor or circumstances, I. Am talking aout peopple in this thread that somehow think you must ignore the problems of a group to tend to the other one.

I am sorry, I dont get that either or mentality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sigh*

Why is it the only thing you people care about is who is suffering "more"

Who said that this is the only thing I care about? I was responding to a point made in the thread. When other points are made, I'll respond to them as I see fit too.

Is it so impossible to just accept both suffer discrimination?

I dont get it with you people and your obsession on making this a silly competition.

It's not a competition; it's a matter of recognizing reality for what it is. Knowledge informs our actions, and the better we know the situation, the better we're equipped to improve on it.

I have major problems with "accepting" discrimination. Combatting discrimination - whether against women or men - requires identifying it. And in practical terms, knowing what sorts of discrimination have the worst effects is important to prioritize where we can get the best bang for our buck in our efforts to make things better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not talking about all women who figght for equality nor or circumstances, I. Am talking aout peopple in this thread that somehow think you must ignore the problems of a group to tend to the other one.

I am sorry, I dont get that either or mentality.

Exactly who in this thread do you think is exhibiting this mentality?

 

[dust1n]

Because 'feminism' only has good girly dictations and 'patriarchy' has bad manly dictations, feminists ignore equal rights for men.

This is all I gather after 170 something posts.

 

[crossfire]

This might be a good read for participants in this thread:

Minimisation (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I never said those were serious cases, I said that humorously. Why do you ignore female on male rape not even being recognised in a lot of countries? Why do you ignore the serious cases out forth?

Baloney, MM. I have read masculinist material before (including "The Myth of Male Power"). I have listened to men discussing their desire to spend more time with their kids after divorce settlements and have fought with them against the justice system. I have even in threads on RF BROUGHT UP cases of why young boys are not taught how to protect themselves against rape by men and women and think it's an atrocity.

Don't even suggest that I've ignored it. I have. Your accusations are bunk.

I never said "as much" either. I am only pointing out it happens and it happens enough for it to be at least CONSIDERED.

Yet you come and say it deserves no specialised consideration because "women"?

Stop twisting my words, young man. I never said it doesn't deserve consideration. I said that to ignore the plight of what women face because of what men face, or to think that pooling resources equally between male and female discrimination, is folly. Men don't face what women face around the world every day. White Europeans don't face what people of color face around the world every day. Straights don't face what queers face every day.

You're still refusing to acknowledge the plight that others face. THAT is the reason why you're getting so much opposition in threads like this.

I am not talking about all women who figght for equality nor or circumstances, I. Am talking aout peopple in this thread that somehow think you must ignore the problems of a group to tend to the other one.

I am sorry, I dont get that either or mentality.

Again, you assume that because we place more importance on fighting against girls having their clitoris cut off than boys who had to let girls go first in line means that we're ignoring male discrimination. You need to get over yourself.