Talk:Patriarchy/Archive1

Examples
I was wondering, do you think we could find some examples of a patriacial society, and some of the negative effects it had because of the male domination, or is that impossible to find and significantly link the cause and effect? I just think this idea might help the article a bit... 00:40, 27 August 2008‎
 * Examples aren't hard to find (virtually all nations of the world, most sects of the Abrahamic religions, etc.), the C & E part is harder to "document", although one can certainly make the link between all the powerful figures in the news, history, etc. being male and the effect on a growing woman's perceptions of what her possibilities are. Oh, and killing women for being raped isn't good for them, either. The "slut vs. stud" dichotomy comes to mind.  We could fill pages with this stuff...  ħ uman  20:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Links to Wikipedia
Should these links be restored? Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Тy Bother me 12:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Patriarchy and empiricism
Men have had to live with women all along. If our culture has formulated beliefs about men and women which tend to support patriarchy, I would call those beliefs a product of empiricism, not superstition.

In other words, men didn't invent patriarchy out of the hardness of our hearts. If anything, patriarchy "invented" men, and women, because it works pragmatically in keeping the human species in business in our harsh and dangerous world.

For example, consider the traditional patriarchal belief that women's promiscuity spoils them for marriage. We didn't just imagine this:

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut.html

Advancedatheist (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That blog seems to attract some seriously disturbed misogynists. And the above post is one of the most hateful and stupid things I've read in ages. Please fuck off now. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 22:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A poor explanation?
First line: "Patriarchy is a term for societies in which male is the favoured gender"

Isn't the problem that a favoured gender exists at all, and that modern societies place a bizarrely high importance on gender? This would explain the following:

"The effects of patriarchy are not limited to women. Patriarchy works to limit the legitimate roles that men can play in a society"

If [something] supposedly places limits on "males" then how can [something] favour males? If you replace "patriarchy" with something like "gender stereotypes", most of the contradictions disappear. Doesn't this make it (the patriarchy) a poor explanation for the observed effects? Or, does it only "sometimes" place limits on males and "sometimes" favour them? (But wouldn't that also make it a poor explanation?) It almost seems like some kind of catch-all.

Am I missing something? It just seems...almost too obvious that "the patriarchy" isn't the real problem here, that it is somehow missing the key point. When I see obvious flaws, I've either missed something major, or I'm looking at something that's completely unscientific. If "the patriarchy" is unscientific (ie. irrational) then a "rational wiki" ought to point this out. --WilderG (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * --ZooGuard (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't the problem that a favoured gender exists at all? Yes, it is.  The favoured gender in a patriarchy is male, by definition.  If "the patriarchy" isn't the real problem here, where are you suggesting the problem is?  14:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he means to say that since men are also disadvantaged by our putative patriarchy then patriarchy can't exist, which is incredibly stupid. And something about "unscientific." 15:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think so too; I'm just trying to get him to stop JAQing & get to the point. I'm starting to think we should we should have a FAQ page on feminism, MRA & gender issues to address all these objections in one place, since we seem to be dealing with the same banal MRA arguments on the talk page of every related article.  16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "If 'the patriarchy' isn't the real problem here, where are you suggesting the problem is?"
 * My main point was the second one - that the problem is modern societies (still) placing high importance on gender. Any apparent patriarchies or matriarchies, if present, are symptomatic.
 * "I think he"
 * Why do you assume that I'm male? If I come across as a "men's rights activist" (and especially one from the "herp derp traditional values" camp), then I suppose it would explain the tone of hostility.
 * "means to say that since men are also disadvantaged by our putative patriarchy then patriarchy can't exist, which is incredibly stupid."
 * That is not what I meant. I was suggesting that apparent contradictions are indicative of a poor explanation. It's plainly obvious that huge gender biases exist in society. I'm only saying that "the patriarchy" may be an incomplete or poor explanation that is heavily over-used.
 * "And something about 'unscientific.'"
 * If "the patriarchy" is the best explanation for current gender issues, then the evidence should logically support this. If it does not, the "the patriarchy" should be replaced with a better explanation. If you treat something as if it is immune to criticism, then that is irrational and unscientific.
 * "I'm starting to think we should we should have a FAQ page on feminism, MRA & gender issues to address all these objections in one place"
 * This is a good idea.
 * WilderG (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We can say that patriarchy is symptomatic of the high importance placed on gender, or that the high importance placed on gender is symptomatic of patriarchy; it comes to pretty much the same thing. We assume you're probably male because patriarchy denialists usually are, since it's a position of privilege blindness (like when middle class people argue that from their POV there does not appear to be a class system anymore).  Re "apparent contradictions" and "the evidence not supporting patriarchy", you haven't produced anything to indicate that this is the case, and since you are claiming that patriarchy is "a poor explanation", the burden of proof is on you to do so.  As per what Blue said, the fact of men being somewhat limited by their gender roles & society's expectations does not at all negate the fact that men get an observably much better deal out of the gender roles assigned by society than women do.  17:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "We can say that patriarchy is symptomatic of the high importance placed on gender, or that the high importance placed on gender is symptomatic of patriarchy; it comes to pretty much the same thing."
 * Well, I would call it conceptually similar to (say) white supremacy coming from the idea that race is important, not the other way around. The evidence for that would be racism forming independently in a wide range of cultures. The more specific (white is better) comes from the less specific (race is important).
 * "the fact of men being somewhat limited by their gender roles & society's expectations"
 * The expected observation in a society where men hold most or all of the power is that they would not be limited by women at all. Instead we observe that both genders are limited by the expectations of both genders. Yes, the amounts vary between genders, but this observation suggests a different fundamental problem. If we still call the result a patriarchy, then the definition of it is being heavily watered down.
 * WilderG (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The expected observation according to whom? I don't know what you're looking for here, as you're still not bringing any specifics, like examples.  Are you arguing that patriarchies exist or have existed in some cultures but that our society is not one?  If so, please cite an example of what you consider a legitimate patriarchy so that we can see how the limits on men in this society differ from ours.  Or are you simply arguing that there is no such thing as a patriarchy at all?  21:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Victorian-era England comes to mind as perhaps being closer to a patriarchy. I guess I'm more saying that we have a society that's still gender-obsessed, that shares some elements with a patriarchy, but has a lot more going on.WilderG (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gender roles & expectations in Victorian-era England were more restrictive for both women and men than modern western societies are, so your suggestion that a patriarchy wouldn't restrict men at all doesn't work. 13:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"I'm starting to think we should we should have a FAQ page on feminism, MRA & gender issues..." Done. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good link. Innocent Bystander (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I started reading some of it, then looked at the comments & got a profound sense of deja vu.  Same old one-note MRA quarrels.  23:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just stopping to point out that just because a system doesn't benifit people in power perfectly, doesn't mean those people aren't in power or that the system doesn't exist. Really, the criteria that a system not cause any detriment to the people it benefits most is a ridiculous demand and hasn't worked for any system, ever. At the end of the day, men are in fact guilted and hurt. But they are guilted and hurt by being compared to girls. They are guilted by being told that they don't deserve to be like the 'rest' of the men at the top, and belong with women on the bottom. I am not sure how OP can even say that patriarchy doesn't exist when it basically tries to exile anyone it doesn't consider 'man enough' out of basically what amounts to a ruling class.±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR longissimus non legeri 00:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Must it be either a complete 100% patriarchy or not at all? Is one not allowed to say "okay, it's kinda like a patriarchy in some ways, and kinda not in other ways, but overall it's better described by X"?WilderG (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "" No, but isn't that what you've been arguing?  You seem to be the only one here arguing in terms of absolutes (e.g. "If [something] supposedly places limits on males then how can [something] favour males").  The rest of us recognise that some patriarchies are more absolute than other, and we have been progressing towards a less patriarchal society in many parts of the world during recent decades, but as long as society actively & culturally favours men above women it is still fundamentally patriarchal at some level.  Making up some new term X to describe it instead really doesn't serve any purpose.  13:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "No, but isn't that what you've been arguing?"
 * Not at all; inconsistencies imply incompleteness. Stereotypical MRAs unfortunately take a similar line of reasoning to argue against a patriarchy outright while failing to explain the obvious disparities.
 * "Making up some new term X to describe it instead really doesn't serve any purpose."
 * Sigh. I think I'll just miss my own point next time.WilderG (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cut content
I pulled the content on "radical feminsts" cause it's really a shot in the dark by a few writers. Probably worth focusing on, but not as written. the "christian patrarchy" doesn't even make sense to me. men are the weak ones? women have the power? Perhaps framed *only* in the context of sex and temptation, but that's not what this section said. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And a major re-write as well! I have a few quibbles:
 * 1. In 'Gender roles and discrimination in patriarchies', aren't 'chef' and 'fashion designer' job positions? Now, like with any job positions, there may be a bias towards males, as there often is (citation and statistics please on male vs female numbers in the job). This would constitute an imbalance within the job type (male vs. female chef or fashion designer), NOT an imbalance between titles (cook vs. chef, seamstress vs. fashion designer). Am I right, or am I just missing the point? I don't know a whole lot about the fashion industry, but at least in cook vs. chef I have the impression that cook refers to a different job type than chef.
 * 2. "Modern statistics, especially regarding student achievement, college graduation rates, and the political power of women's groups" - Whoever wrote 'statistics' must have had easy access to a statistics source, right? If so, why not put it in the article as a reference?
 * 3. Spell-check is your friend. It won't catch everything, but it will catch a lot! When you do major write-ups/re-writes, run it through the spell-check. Nullahnung (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticism not allowed?
I added the following criticism of the feminist claim with a lot of references and it was immediatly deleted "because they do not materially undermine the notion that the societies in question favour men". Because of the credible citations i provided, it is an obvious sign of bias and thus a disgrace to a rational wiki.

Deleted section:

Empirical criticism of patriarchy claim
There is some empirical evidence that contradicts the feminist claim that men are favored over women in western societies.

Happiness
According to two studies Women are more happier than men especially in western countries: "Women around the world are happier than men, regardless of which happiness question is used." "[...] the gap between men’s and women’s happiness is highest in the rich countries" (ref)Graham, Chattopadhyay (2012). "Gender and Wellbeing around the World". Human Capital and Economic Opportunity: A Global Working Group.(p 9)(/ref) "In most advanced countries women report higher satisfaction and happiness than men. In our Appendix,women report higher life satisfaction scores than do men in all three of the data sets analyzed. But this finding is dominated by advanced countries." (ref)John Helliwell et al. (2012). "World Happiness Report". The Earth Insitute, Columbia University. p. 78.(/ref)
 * And what has happiness got to do with it? Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you claim that women are biologically more happy than men, it is evidence for favorable treatment.--37.4.25.149 (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Suicide
With the exception of China, men commit suicide more often than women. In the Western world, males die three to four times more often by means of suicide than do females. (ref)Country reports and charts available, World Health Organization. Retrieved March 16, 2008.(/ref)
 * Again, totally irrelevant. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since men do not seem to be inherently more prone to suicide, it is another symptom of the fact that women have it better than men (more ressources...)--37.4.25.149 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Life expectancy
Today the average life expectancy of males is in all western countries shorter than that of women. In 2005 the US male life expectancy was reported to be 5.3 years shorter than womens. The reason as to why this is the case, is not yet fully understood, one known reason is that men are more likely to die from injuries, whether unintentional such as occupational or war or car accidents or intentional suicide. (ref name=worldhealth) (/ref)
 * And what possible bearing does this have? Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Another evidence for favorable treatment of women. More state money in womens health issues... --37.4.25.149 (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Justice system
Women consistently receive favorable treatment in all western justice systems. In the US women recieve 63% less sentence length than men for the same crime.(ref)Sonja B. Starr (2012). "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases". University of Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper, No. 12-018.(/ref) --37.4.25.149 (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally a section where women may be seen as being at an advantage. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Taken together
So women are happier and live longer. This has nothing to do with whether they are disadvantaged or not. The one area where they may have the advantage is the legal question but, when compared to the major disadvantages in the wage gap, the lack of promotion prospects, the "glass ceiling" this is a small recompense. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 1.) The Gender Pay Gap. Most often a raw gender wage gap of around 20% is mentioned. But controlling for some nondiscriminatory factors, like the higher percentage of women that choose to work part time which pays less, results in an adjusted wage gap of 4,8 - 7,1%. But even the adjusted gap might not be due to discrimination, because the lack of statistical data doesn't allow the elimination of all nondiminatory factors. Thus the 2009 CONSAD Report for the US Department of Labor concludes: "[...] the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap." If there is discrimination it is less than 4,8 - 7,1%. 2.) The glas ceiling might also be due to lifestyle choices. Can Gender Parity Break the Glass Ceiling? Evidence from a Repeated Randomized Experiment Review of Economic Studies (2010) 77 (4): 1301-1328. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00601.x --37.4.25.149 (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But where do these lifestyle choices originate? 12:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally think there is evidence for a personality difference between the genders. Like the gender paradox phenomena, that concerns choices of professions. Data shows the more you enable women to make free choices of professions the more they tend to choose the stereoptypical women ones. So should women be compensated for wanting to work in less paid jobs? --37.4.25.149 (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to see that data. Anyway, the whole notion of there being men's jobs & women's job, with the men's jobs more highly paid, is a patriarchal one.  Whether or not there's some sort of "personality difference" behind it as you claim, you're now arguing in favour of the thing you claim to be refuting.  15:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The notion of differences is an empirical observation, that might be explained by biology. While the patriarchy concept claims a priori differences between men and women are cultural, without any convincing evidence for this claim. The patriarchy concept is in its validity completly unsubstantiated and pure ideology and should thus be rejected.--37.4.25.149 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is certainly very selective when you attribute career choice & wage disparity to biology and life expectancy to "more state money in women's health issues". Plus there are a whole bunch of solid examples of cultural patriarchy, like laws severely restricting women's legal, financial and social independence only a few generations ago in the western world & still ongoing in other places like the Arab world.  21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What i meant was that the claim of the existence of a patriarchy in western democracies today, that on average suppresses women and favors men, contradicts the empirical evidence. I think one can make a strong case that women are in fact favorably treated (privileged) over men in western democracies.--37.4.25.149 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally. Just look at how roughly half of all millionaires, billionaires, elected officials, tenured professors, attorneys, doctors, labour leaders, and public intellectuals are women. They totally control a proportional amount of the wealth and power of the West. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 01:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally dishonest arguments! 1.)millionaires, billionaires : women on average do not want to work in high paying tech jobs thats no discrimination, 2.) tenured professors, attorneys, doctors : women now makeup 60% of university and college students is that discrimination against men? 3.)elected officials : women are in fact overrepresented in public offices, if you compare the number of all women who are members of a political party with those women that are holding a public office. 4.)public intellectuals are women : how are women kept from being public intellectuals? If they have intelligent things to say people will listen to them. But if they hear unfounded stuff like patriarchy or hatefull rants on how all men need to be exterminated than they rightly don't want to listen to it. You have to look at the facts and be honest else this gender war will escalate quickly into violence and irrationality.  --37.4.25.149 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Straw feminists - they'll get you every time. 05:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And, yet, so often they actually match reality. Many feminists will proudly declare that they have no interest in men's issues whatsoever.  This is nothing more than a reversal of the old crimes of patriarchal systems.  At the very least, a sternly feminist society has simply ignorantly forgot that there is another sex as well, and, at the worst, it's an open declaration of intent for apartheid.  There are dozens of feminist authors who can be cited stating men ought to be culled, or exterminated, or forcibly reduced in population (I've actually taken Women Studies courses).  I dare you to find me any such declarations in serious thought of older "more oppressive" patriarchal societies.  They don't exist - because - as oppressive as patriarchy might have been - men actually like women for the most part.  Third wave feminist thought, and a good deal of its predecessors, is rife with the intent of subjugating men - its declarations are often openly espoused.  Where they are not openly espoused, they are implied by suggesting that society doesn't need men in any way shape or form in keeping silent on any ethical disposition towards them other than ostracism or extreme punitive behavior.  Hey, maybe a society without men is possible, but at least somewhere down the road there will be someone writing about how the world was silent when feminist philosophers produced apartheidic sexism.  A straw feminist is only a straw man if it doesn't actually represent the person's argument - which it does. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "There are dozens of feminist authors who can be cited stating men ought to be culled, or exterminated, or forcibly reduced in population [...] Third wave feminist thought"
 * You'll have to forgive me that I find this hard to believe. Can you give examples of these so-called 'third wave feminists'?Nullahnung (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't try to argue against feminist thinking. Feminists protest only when their class in society (white middle-class women) suffer setbacks. They don't argue against any situation that negatively impacts other classes of gender, because they don't truly care about men or women. They are like Communists in the 1960's, only protesting western intervention against communism, never protesting communist military aggression.--92.236.212.150 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) --92.236.212.150 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Empirical evidence contradicts feminist claims
It seems obvious to me that in the western world women in fact are priviledged over men. Life expectancy 5 years higher than men. World happiness and gender happiness report both state that women in the western world are happier than men. Suicide rate for men is 4 times higher than for women. Lots of government programs to support women, none for men. It seems "funny" that a "rational Wiki" accepts feminist claims uncritically as dogma even though the empirical evidence contradicts them. Someone should oust unfounded feminist claims from the sceptic, atheist movement, because what is going on that at the moment is shamefull hypocracy. --37.4.25.149 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're cherry picking then look at the wage gap, or the ratio of, for example UK MPs, or senior military personnel, or CEOs of top companies. Someone should oust your unfounded claims.... Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't read BoN's citations so for the sake of argument right now I'm going to assume that they're accurately cited. You have yet to explain how greater life expectancy, lower suicide rates, sentencing disparities, or even happiness is evidence that the patriarchy is a feminist lie. You've cited a bunch of facts with very weak and mostly implied correlation. If you want to argue that women are treated superior to men in western society, why don't you mention how child custody cases almost invariably find for the mother even in absurd situations where, for example, the mother is abusing the child and calls child services and reports a kidnapping when the father tries to rescue the child? Why don't you mention how it's practically taboo in North America for a male to teach very young children thanks to the total hoax that was the Satanic daycare sex abuse scare of the 80s? You could make a real argument, but instead you cite a bunch of irrelevant stuff that looks like it was badly rewritten off Wikipedia. And then you get all defensive about it and scream bias the moment someone touches it. Insert coin to continue.
 * Also, this belongs here. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon  12:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * None of this looks very empirical. My favourite part is this: "Someone should oust unfounded feminist claims from the sceptic, atheist movement".  Someone like who?  Oust in what manner?  What would that process even look like?  19:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "What would that process even look like?" As always a rigorous scientific process of finding out the truth by looking at empirical evidence and ignoring (feminist) ideology.--37.4.25.149 (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't appear to be what you're doing here. Making simplistic & wildly speculative conclusions based on bare statistics really isn't very rigorous,  empirical or scientific.  10:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as suicide goes, men commit suicide more but women attempt suicide more. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This article seems like precisely the type of whitewash rationalwiki usually rips down, and it's disappointing to see here. Men being generally advantaged doesn't change that many strands of feminism describe patriarchy as half all-persuasive brainwashing force, half cabal akin to joos or lizardmen. I came to laugh at cranks, not read their edits.
 * Any examples? 01:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's two major issues from where I'm standing. The first is the complete lack of any critical consideration given to the concept, especially the differentiation between Patriarchy as most would mean it and the circular definition used by much of modern Feminism. I would expect RW of all places to point out that the "Privileged-Privilege Backfire/Oppressed-Benevolent Sexism" form of Patriarchy is a fallacy because it's completely unfalsifiable. The second is best exemplified by footnote 1. RW essentially treats gender politics overall exactly in the way the RW article on MRAs and Feminism claims Feminism is treated. Arbitrarily excluding men who seek (and take productive steps towards) a redress of legitimate grievances and prejudices they face from the definition of MRAs is literally playing No True Scotsman to preserve a purely-negative definition. One could just as readily rewrite the articles to define "Feminists" according to the Dworkin/Solanas archetype and ignore intersectional lib-feminists. TLDR: RationalWiki has a number of sections on Snarl Words, and a number of article which basically ARE Snarl Words Shadowex3 (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(For reference, footnote 1: "It must always be pointed out that MRA groups are not the same as men who seek to make laws more balanced in areas like child custody and criminal charges for violence. MRA groups are extremists that tend to focus on the alleged evils that women do.")

Chefs, cooks, fashion designers, seamstresses
In the article the first two terms and the last two terms are compared as the same work, but one being a distinguishing title. I think that's a bit of an oversimplification there and we should have far better examples than what is given, maybe, or at least cut these two example comparisons.

The first one - a chef is a professional cook, typically the chief cook in a restaurant or hotel. It is not exclusive to one gender in principle (there are female chefs), though I don't really know what goes down in practice as far as statistics or difficulty. Anyways, that is a bad example that I feel like warrants cutting, if only because 'cook' and 'chef' should be distinguished through profession, not through gender.

The second one - a fashion designer is someone who designs clothing, whereas a seamstress (or, the more general term is dressmaker) makes clothing. I feel like they're not really doing the same thing, so stating it as such is kind of a gross oversimplification. I would suggest cutting this on that basis.

Opinions on why I shouldn't go ahead and cut? Nullahnung (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there's an interesting distinction to be made, in the second case at least: many (I don't know about most, because I know nothing about fashion, buying almost all of my clothes at the local Army-Navy shop) fashion designers are men. Most people who make the clothes that designers design are (largely underpaid, largely non-white, largely in the "developing world") women. So, yeah, the terms describe different things, but they also say a lot about the gendered nature of capitalism as it plays out in the rag trade. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe a rewrite using an argument about statistics instead of an argument about labelling is the solution, then. Nullahnung (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking through it again, I realize it may be interpreted as not necessarily an argument about labelling, but rather an argument about how men receive higher positions than women in the same industry. I think a rewrite is nevertheless a good idea just to clarify that and avoid the confusion that may befall people like me. Nullahnung (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Rational Wiki?
The concept of 'patriarchy' appears to be a shibboleth with whatever meaning anyone wants to assign it. If this is rationalwiki then where is the rationality here? What evidence is there for patriarchy? If it's a theory, there should be confirmation of its hypothesis. If it's a theory it should be falsifiable. Something that can't be done if the argument is that 'everything bad that happens, even to men, is patriarchy'. So how would one falsify it?

'Rational'Wiki should not take sides or automagically assume a radical feminist perspective to be true. A more reasoned approach (as with the fallacy of redefinition that is the activist version of *ism (prejudice plus power) should be engaged in. That or describe it as an idea found in feminism, rather than something which is factually true. 00:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * New sections go to the bottom, not the middle of the page. Also: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)'Patriarchy' appears to be a term used by sociologists as well as academics in Women's Studies, not just radical feminists (and what do you know about the difference between radical feminism and feminism anyway?). As you should probably know, many social theories are not falsifiable in the same way that physical theories are due to the nature of social science and the difficulty of studying human behaviour. How do you falsify the claim that bank robbers rob banks primarily due to wanting the money? You can't, but if you find enough who fit this description, then the theory is supported. If you find some bank robbers who deny that, then the theory is not automatically rejected, because they could be lying or missing out knowledge. This does not mean that we should shun sociology altogether, of course, as long as it has a basis in statistics.
 * If I had to make a complaint about our article here, it would be that nobody has bothered to put in any references or sources... (not that I can force everybody to source everything they write, that would be quite hypocritical of me) Nullahnung (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidence for patriarchy isn't so hard to find, & would be easily falsified if the evidence did not support the 'hypothesis'. Look at the history of pretty much any society & note that most leaders, traders & workers were male, while women's roles were generally confined to home-making, child-rearing & menial work.  Note that marriage vows in most societies have required wives to serve & obey their husbands.  Note that women rarely had independent legal rights until well into the nineteenth century, and received voting rights much later than men (and are still denied them in some countries like KSA).   15:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * None of which constitutes evidence for patriarchy. There are also many disadvantages for men, from which women have been historically insulated and protected - yet we don't call it matriarchy. That a term is used doesn't make it valid (consider Deepak Chopra's cosmic consciousness) and since anything and everything seems to get blamed on or wedged into Patriarchy it seems to have no real meaning. Much like the term 'spiritual'. Overall there seems to be zero rational basis upon which to conclude that patriarchy actually exists in any meaningful sense - at least in the west. It's a failed hypothesis and as such I can't see that it has any place being endorsed or treated as true by RationalWiki. The whole article needs to be rewritten to reflect this IMO. 83.104.178.128 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to confuse what Patriarchy is, and set up a straw man to argue against. Patriarchy means a gendered hierarchy in society, with certain social expectations on people purely based on what their gender is, and with men generally in the leading/socially more prestigious positions. This social setup of course can also hurt men, and both historically did and still does now. And the article does mention that (see second paragraph in the first section after the introduction). There is no notion that patriarchy would be a paradise for men. Have you actually read the article? Basically all its assertions can be proven by plenty of historical or even contemporaneous examples. Octo8 (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidential data
Patriarchy denial. It's common. It's really common. I'd like to incorporate data that shows how systemic bias against women still exists, and I was reading the news on sciencemag.org, and came across a relevant paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074959781400048X It gives one example of how systemic discrimination and assumptions about women drive actual negative behaviors with economically harmful consequences in well controlled experimental format. Namely that negotiators are more willing to lie to women, apropos of no other attributes in negotiations, with a strong correlation to belief in related negative stereotypes about women.

I want to incorporate a new section on this kind of scientific/experiment driven observation of patriarchy at work, but I'm not sure what the best framing for a "snarky POV" might be. Ikanreed (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The survey began, “Imagine you are selling your used car."" Heh. --Someon (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case I'm all for throwing snark out the window to get all the relevant details along with the evidence through to the reader in the most clear form possible. Nullahnung (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another great one: this is about how "sexual economics" are pretty much just a fantasy of sexist men. Just read the abstract, it makes more sense than I do.  Ikanreed (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem of scale
This article has the general problem of conflating two completely different ideas under the term "patriarchy" and then implying they are the same thing. The two ideas are:

1) A government system in which political power is (at least primarily) specifically and explicitly vested in men alone. Women are essentially not allowed to participate.

2) A mostly unconscious social system which defines specific gender roles for men and women in society.

These are obviously not the same thing.

There are many real-world examples of #1. Saudia Arabia, ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups, fundamentalist Muslim groups like Boko Haram and the Taliban, etc. The defintion of #1 above really is not controversial, even among fundamentalist groups. The article actually says that:

And formally, the government is controlled by men, be it a theocracy, a monarchy, dictatorship or (still for many developed countries) democracy.

But in the USA the government is NOT formally controlled by men. What the article is implying is that Western democracies like the USA, Canada, Sweden, etc. are exactly as sexist as Saudia Arabia, etc. 72.48.77.225 (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * To help with your confusion: 1) is dictionary Patriarchy, 2) is the social phenomenon called patriarchy. It might have been better to give it a different name, but there you go. However, 2-partiarchy is a consequence of 1-patriarchy and 2-patriarchy helps maintain 1-patriarchy. So the two are linked. When the article says 'and formally', it's supplying that dictionary 1-patriarchy. At no point does anything in this article imply that Western democracies have the same level of either 1-patriarchy or 2-patriarchy as Saudi Arabia. I'll go in to make the 'and formally' sentence clearer, though. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Patriarchy was not necessariy a bad thing

 * Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Appeal to tradition? Sounds good bro. 66.168.223.86 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OP needs to brush up on more history, neither Rome nor Sparta gave women equal rights, more rights than other societies of those times yes, equal rights no. SolPyre (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Minor criticism
I'm going to keep this short. Some things mentioned in the article seem lacking. The one I'm most concerned about is the question of why there's no female POTUS. This statement seems like whoever wrote this has a poor grasp of how the US elects presidents. Many women have ran for president. The fact that none have succeeded is not proper proof of a patriarchy. They are perfectly capable of running, and no known laws prevent them from taking the position if they do win. At best, it's proof that sexism was enough of an influence to prevent them from winning, which in itself is not a patriarchal structure. WittyUsername (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How is that sexism not patriarchal? 08:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the sexism is not pervasive enough within society. On the other side of the coin, large masses of people had enough of an influence to give them a large chance of winning. Of course, I also did say "at best", and we all know that extreme-case scenarios are unlikely. WittyUsername (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You admitted it's pervasive enough to be effective, hence the -archy. Peace. Walker Walker Walker 13:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The "at best" strikes again! Or are we arguing about what the case in the "at best" would be now? WittyUsername (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "At best" is a meaningless escape hatch. Aside from there having been no female POTUS so far, women make up only about 20% of the US senate & congress.  Globally, this is about average for women in parliaments. At the top end of the scale are a small handful of countries that come close to a 50-50 male/female split in parliament, and at the other extreme are numerous countries with less than 10% female members of parliament.  So overall women are under-represented in government in the USA & worldwide.  Are you going to handwave this all as random & circumstantial or acknowledge that it might be a result of patriarchy?  20:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually a perfectly valid statement to make - after all, for the argument I'm going against, it is the best-case scenario. Looking at your statistics, it truly depends on where, and what else it goes along with. By its lonesome it is not enough to say that there is a patriarchy or not, which is in itself a question from country to country, and even portions of the countries themselves. It can be a helpful supporting argument if and only if other signs are present. But I'm getting off track. So far off track I almost forgot what point I was trying to make. Oh, right. The USA doesn't have a patriarchy. I checked back to the main article, and, well... "The formal definition of patriarchy as a form of government is of one controlled by men by designed limitation, be it functionally a theocracy, a monarchy, dictatorship or partial democracy with limited enfranchisement." Call me out on a fallacy all you like, there is no "designed limitation" of which I am aware of in the United States preventing women from succeeding at politics. And if there is, it's probably really clever, because it allows lots to succeed anyway. WittyUsername (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're equivocating. The section of the article which references the lack of a female POTUS is about patriarchy within society & people (like you) who deny it's existence, not about legally defined patriarchy as a government model.  22:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Life expectancy
"that the higher life expectancy enjoyed by women since the early 20th century (when death from childbirth became less common"

This sounds like you're only talking about an increase in life expectancy, while I would expect the argument to be more like "women live longer than men, proving that they have it easier". Hmmph (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Longer life expectancy is a measurable indicator of one aspect of cultural favor and privilege.Shinola (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Correlation != Causation. Women are naturally healthier, that and shorter people tend to live longer, no further explanation really required. CorruptUser (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Patriarchy Neurosis
To recapitulate the main article points of definition: "Patriarchy" (derived from patriarch in Greek) is a term for societies in which (1) male is the favored gender, and in which (2) men hold power, dominion and privilege. (3)That position is reinforced by societal and cultural norms, religious teachings, media portrayals of gender roles (specifically female inferiority), the use of perceived feminine characteristics as insults, and even formal definition of gender roles, including laws limiting women's rights.

"Male power in a patriarchy can be found at family, community, social and governmental levels. For example, in the family realm, fathers could have dominion over their unmarried daughters, husbands over their wives, and sons over widowed mothers. The "man of the house" makes the ultimate decision on everything from size of family to the family budget to methods of discipline. In the community, businesses are generally run by men and local leaders as well as respected elders are men. The social rules and norms are set and enforced by men.

"The formal definition of patriarchy as a form of government is of one controlled by men by designed limitation, be it functionally a theocracy, a monarchy, dictatorship or partial democracy with limited enfranchisement. Colloquially,

"any government comprised disproportionately of men can be described as a patriarchy, even full democracies." But it must be added that the so-called patriarchy may have no other typical characteristics of Patriarchy. In this case we might well call it a pseudo-patriarchy. This condition occurs in America where religious elements of Patriarchy are isolated from the constitutional government and the main characteristics of patriarchal society are no longer accepted as necessary. One can just as easily argue that today women are the "favored gender" in America. The assignment of privilege is also questionable as women may possess privileges men do not possess. We see in America a culture in transition wherein the main, most significant characters of patriarchy, have been disavowed, repealed, or simply discarded. And yet many people are triggered by the vestigial remnants of the once vital and dynamic American Patriarchy as if the old order still were in place. This is the Patriarchy Neurosis.Shinola (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe that will be true in 50 years. Anecdotally and statistically, females still face disproportionate wages, harassment, and religious involvement, among other issues. At worst, men face the cult of masculinity. As such, a pseudo patriarchy (as you call it) can be said to exist, and the neurosis is not yet a valid diagnosis. 04:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This class thinking is unscientific. Anecdotally and statistically men face similar inequities. Females as individuals do not face wage discrimination, as is well known. Young educated woman are wage leaders in their chosen fields. The neurosis diagnosis is applicable only to those who see the things that are no longer there, such as discrimination due to statistical anomalies. I agree that there is a pseudo-patriarchy that is comprised of remnants of an extinct patriarchy. What can be said of the rump structure of the old patriarchy is that religious patriarchy is still present. Unfortunately it is not an issue that can be dealt with by women as a class. The catholic patriarchy, for example, can only be dealt with by catholic people.The sexist disparities in Catholicism may be with us for the next thousand years.Shinola (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on...Oh, you seem to have forgot any data that supports your assertions. Also, anecdotes are not data. Anecdotes are points of data. Also, this is a speculative discussion. I will gladly consider any valid data that you may present. The arithmetic averages of male and female earnings are not determinative. http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html Shinola (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What's this? Pseudo-intellectual posturing claiming that a sociological phenomenon is merely a delusion, based on nothing more than strong assertion and the fervent belief that flowery language is a good substitute for evidence and logic? Must be Tuesday. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Young educated women are wage earners? The AAUW would beg to disagree. 14:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, again their conclusions are from non-determinative data averages over non-equivalent fields. Unfortunately neither of the authors are evidently skilled at interpreting statistics. There are many people suffering from this very real neurosis that amounts to a sexual inferiority complex. It quite often manifests itself in anxiety and the inability to face the problem squarely through disinterested argument.Shinola (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They know more statistics than you, apparently. 'Non-determinative data' is not a real statistical term. The regression in the report is about as comprehensive as you could hope for, in the field. Don't try to pretend you know much about statistics; it's not working. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously people who spent years getting educated in the subject, got hired to do so professionally, and have years of experience doing it professionally are not skilled at it because a random person on the internet disagrees. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just gonna quote the report:

17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect reference/footnote
The first link/footnote pointing to a wikipedia article about sexual assaults in US military is completely irrelevant to the topic of Patriarchy.

It talks about how both men and women have been sexually assaulted, men were sexually assaulted more often than women and senior women officers did take part in the assault of men.

I edited it out but someone reversed it. I am going to edit it out again as it's not in line with the goals of rationalwiki.
 * It's not particularly clear but equally I think you're being deliberately disingenuous. The article states that 25% of women and 1-2% of men have been sexually assaulted. It's obvious that the raw numbers are because there are many more men than women in the US military, and in the past the figures were even more unbalanced. As for the claim "it's not in line with the goals of rationalwiki" - what does that mean? Try and argue rationally yourself not make vague insinuations. Annquin (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if the number of men and women are unbalanced, there's nothing in the article that suggests it's because of the patriarchy. Some men & women in power are sexually abusing other men & women. That's it. Incorrect reference is not in line with long term goals of this website. That's it. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)