From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

The Patriarchy Neurosis[edit]

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in America a culture in transition wherein the main, most significant characters of patriarchy, have been disavowed, repealed, or simply discarded.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. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 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.,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. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 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:

In estimating the regression equation, we defined the dependent variable as the natural log of average annual earnings. The resulting regression coefficients can be interpreted as the percentage change in annual earnings for a one-unit change in the independent variable. For the regression, we specified an equation in which log annual earnings one year after graduation are a function of the employee’s characteristics, including job and workplace, employment experience and continuity, education and training, and demographic and personal characteristics. We selected model variables from those examined in the bivariate analyses on the basis of preliminary tests of multicollinearity. We entered multicategorical variables in their entirety even if some categories were not significant. We analyzed earnings for all full-time workers and those with multiple jobs. Variables that were not significant were not included in the final model (see figure 13 for a list of the variables used in the regression equation).

We combined earnings for women and men and used an independent variable of gender to see whether women’s and men’s earnings were statistically significantly different after controlling for other choices and characteristics. The regression coefficient of gender (see the top line in figure 13) can be interpreted as the remaining percentage difference in earnings when taking into account the other variables in the model. This model shows that in 2009, women working full time or multiple jobs one year after college graduation earned, other things being equal, 6.6 percent less than their male peers did. This estimate controls for differences in graduates’ occupation, economic sector, hours worked, employment status (having multiple jobs as opposed to one full-time job), months unemployed since graduation, grade point average, undergraduate major, kind of institution attended, age, geographical region, and marital status.

Throughout the report, earnings are reported for full-time workers only. In figures in which full-time employment status is not indicated, we include all 2007–08 graduates. In the regression analysis, we include full-time workers as well as those with multiple jobs. Hours worked per week and having multiple jobs are both signifi- cant coefficients in the regression analysis.

The regression analysis of earnings one year after graduation for the combined sample of women and men shows a gender pay difference of 6.6 percent, controlling for education and occupational choices as well as demographic and personal characteristics (see figure 13). That is, when we include all the selected job and workplace, education and training, and demographic and personal variables, women earned 6.6 percent less in 2009 than men earned.

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect reference/footnote[edit]

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.[1] 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)

Another incorrect link?[edit]

I am unable to understand as to how this article: is relevant here. It's written by a guy who doesn't believes that Patriarchy actually exists. Anyhow, I don't see how it talks about "crisis of their loss of power" or about a woman doing something that generally only men do - as implied by the footnote, "OMG a woman gets do something a man does for once! We're all gonna die!". I believe that this article can be linked to this page - somewhere, in support of some statement talking about patriarchy, but right now, it's an incorrect link.— Unsigned, by: Rukmaniahuja / talk / contribs


Okay, so we have a section titled "Evidence", which talks about how women have to face tougher negotiations in comparison to men. This is an excellent example of unconscious bias against women, anyhow, it's not an "Evidence" when it comes to "Patriarchy". It's no where related to men holding power over women in family and/or politics. The whole section needs to go. — Unsigned, by: Rukmaniahuja / talk / contribs

All links are irrelevent[edit]

We have 6 links.

3 of them are about matriarchy.

1 says that some people do not believe in it's existence

1 says that patriarchy is a "oversimplification"

This is a mess. We should delete this article. — Unsigned, by: rational1 / talk / contribs

Counterpoint: no. We probably ought not to. That it's not particularly well cited is a good reason to expand the citations. That it couldn't be well cited because no one talks about it would be a good reason(untrue). That it's unrelated to our mission would be a good reason(it's not). That it needs improvement is a reason to improve it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Having just read some stuff on this topic. I would say that the concept of "Patriarchy" is an oversimplification, as it doesn't takes into account the historical struggle black men/women have had against white men/women. It groups all "men" into one category and all "women" into another. Do you really think all "men" and "women" were ever united? Even now, I see divide between poor men/women and rich men/women. I think we should take the approach of "Patriarchy" being only one out of many problems facing women.
Major re-write needed. Rational1 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is bad[edit]

Patriarchy "skepticism" is common among "men's rights" advocates and other critics of feminism.[6] Their basic argument seems to be "Feminism has been massively successful so far, and women make up 50% of the population, so they must already have equal power." (Bold textOh, we're sorry, where's the first female POTUS? Oh, that's right; until 2012 only 8 women received more than 1,000 votes in a presidential primary and far fewer women have run than men.Bold text) To which, their counterargument would be: "Then, or somehow just a very small percent of women have voted, or women themselves have chosen men to represent them, even when a woman could have been elected." Anyhow, it's to be noted that even if a woman does gets elected as POTUS, that wouldn't mean we have got rid of Patriarchy, as the problem runs a lot deeper. Or even better, some generic, odd idea that women actually control society, as Bold textevidenced by the cries of their loss of power.Bold text There are some aspects of society in which men do have certain disadvantages, such as in the criminal justice system, or in certain historically female-dominated professions such as nursing; however the MRAs make the mistake of attributing this to the evils of feminism, rather than realizing that it is precisely because of patriarchal attitudes that such disadvantages exist.

This paragraph is so sexist it's not even funny. Cries from their loss of power is not good. (Not having a member of your race/sex is not proof of discrimination. Asian Americans don't have a president, nor Mexicans, nor Indians. Does this mean all of these groups are underprivileged?)Doublethink (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doublethink How is the quoted section sexist? "...Asian Americans don't have a president, nor Mexicans, nor Indians. Does this mean all of these groups are underprivileged?)" Actually yes, those groups are indeed underprivileged. So are most minorities. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
How so? What right do men/Europeans have that these groups don't?Doublethink (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Doublethink First, to the main topic. How is the section you quoted sexist? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it is very condesending to call critics of feminism "cries of their loss of power" Or saying that just because they don't have a president we live in a patriarchy. After all Hillary ( A very polarizing figure) won the popular vote.Doublethink (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Doublethink Perhaps it's because of a language barrier, but I fail to see how calling "critics" of a movement who's purpose is to empower women to rise above being mere objects, slaves, and second class citizens (and that would be the historical order by the way), well, to put it bluntly, sexist, is, in and of itself, sexist. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)::::
Historically yes feminism was good. The first and second waves did great work. But, they succeeded they won women are equal. The third wave.... Well have you seen them? Have you seen how many people (women included) hate them?Doublethink (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@DoublethinkWe have an entire section on this soundbyte, and multiple variants thereof. And you still haven't explained how the section of this article, which you quoted, meets the criteria for being classified as "sexist". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Which part?Doublethink (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Elaborate, vague questions such as "Which part?" are not conducive to a conversation. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I believe that this paragraph is sexist because it dissmisses men's arguments as whining.Doublethink (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Doublethink Allow me to explain via a digression. Obama was elected president, does that mean that Obama's election ended racism in the U.S. in and of itself? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No, but I don't see your point?Doublethink (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how the paragraph is sexist either. Break it down to the most basics: what is the patriarchy? What is patriarchy skepticism? I find it difficult to believe patriarchy skepticism as patriarchy is prevalent throughout history. There is little doubt about it. Every major civilization women had less rights than men. Women are treated like rewards in the Bible.
It's true that MRAs "cry" about their loss of power because they view the world as a zero-sum game where egalitarianism means fewer rights to them. We can get examples, but this echoes the persecuted Christians and the cries about "white genocide". Once they see minority groups getting rights (women are a minority despite there being more of them in, say, the U.S. because of less political and economic power). I'm not sure how mocking MRAs and their zero-sum worldview is sexist. We're not denigrating men, we are denigrating people (who are majority men) who lament their illusion of their lost dominance from a changing world that's expanding more and more rights to people. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the ripostes to idealized opponents are sexist. Defensive, maybe. Everything depends on what you want this article to do. When viewed as a sheaf of statistical inequalities, patriarchy is a scientific construct that is as real as human descriptions of climate change. This article has 93 distinct authors. That tends to lead to a wobbly presentation. Someone should reorganize the whole article (not me).Ariel31459 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario What? I think, You are mistaken. Quite a bit of feminist hate men. Doublethink (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Doublethink And how are those speciy feminists supposed to be representative of feminism as a whole, which I might add has many different internal divisions that have frequently been at odds with each other? Even if they were representative, that does not change the overall point that men have always had more power over women and still do to a considerable extent.--Logos (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Patriarchy" is another of those doubletalking political slogans that masquerades as a description of the way things inevitably are. Nobody who talks about 'patriarchy' says that patriarchy is a good idea, despite its being a human universal. Men make violence their profession because men are the disposable sex: kill three quarters of the men and the remaining quarter pick up the slack and the band may soldier on; kill three quarters of the women and the band has suffered a catastrophe it is unlikely to recover from any time soon. So on the one hand, patriarchy is a "scientific construct" and a human universal. On the other hand, patriarchy is another slogan that just means 'men are pigs'. Most people who want to use the word mean the latter; but when challenged they have the 'scientific construct' to run back to. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Then why is it that the "disposable sex" has always had significantly more power and influence over the history of human civilization? By that logic, patriarchy as it is commonly understood could never have existed to begin with.--Logos (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Because 'human civilization' is not what we are programmed for. When some of us reached the stage of the beginning of agriculture and urbanization, the scope of social hierarchy exploded, and so did the need to defend the stores made possible by agriculture. These had the perverse effect of making the male monopoly on organized violence a much bigger deal, made women the producers of a future labor force, as well as setting up King of the Hill social structures that favored men over women. In that moment, "patriarchy" was invented, and to the extent we live in stratified societies defended by military organizations it will always be with us. We can give women the vote, and allow them to serve in combat, but they will never really take to competitive hierarchies or combat roles the way men do. Men are hard coded for those things; women, for something else. What moral or political arguments against these facts show is that life itself is unfair, and therefore evil. Then again, you already knew that. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
That does not make it an inevitability in itself, and what you are saying neglects the fact that for much of history women never had the chance to engage in those hierarchies in the first place. And where in our genes is it "hard coded" that male dominance is either the natural state of affairs or inevitable? In any case, it certainly does not excuse the excesses and flaws of the system that have nothing to do with anything that you said. --Logos (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
And for most of human prehistory, the scope of hierarchy itself was sharply constrained by the relatively small sizes of human communities. Again, agriculture and urbanism are the culprits. But it remains the fact that warriors in every society tend to be overwhelmingly male, even in the absence of formal barriers to entry for women. There has never been a human society complex enough to form formal hierarchies that has not been a patriarchy. That in itself is enough to strongly suggest that patriarchy is a human universal, and as such something innate, an inevitable part of being human. This does not mean that it is invalid to formulate ethical or political arguments against it. It does suggest tempering your expectations about what those arguments can hope to achieve. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
That still does nothing to prove it is a human universal, only that we as a species have lacked the will (or perhaps the desire) to implement anything else. And who are you to know what is and is not innate to humanity? Your claims reek very much of an inability to understand that the status quo often exists only through sheer inertia, and warriors most often being make can be explained by plenty of cultural factors as well as biological ones (e.g. testosterone promoting greater aggression). On that note, need I remind you that soldiers are not always the top of the social hierarchy as you assume? In any case, I suggest you drop the deterministic clapteap until you can find evidence stronger than "because it's always been this way".--Logos (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Counterpoint: people do indeed say the literal exact words "patriarchy is a good idea" and mean it. Many many many many more support the thing feminists call patriarchy without using the terminology. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Some opinion-makers, claim the "so-called" patriarchy is responsible for most of the benefits of modern civilization. Certainly some credit for both good and bad developments could be associated with the influence of patriarchy. But "patriarchy" as a term referring to a scientific construct is more elusive to the general understanding than a simple synonym for the real gender inequality that exists in a variety of quantitative formulations. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
And when the term is used in a negative manner it most frequently refers to the aspects directly relating to the inequality aspects. Besides, how can we be sure it's really a universal? Smerdis's example is at best workable only in a scenario where inbreeding is arbitrarily made impossible- losing three-quarters or any sex in a population is never good for genetic diversity, to say nothing if incest taboos and other such factors. --Logos (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)