Talk:Patriarchy

	This Gender related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Another incorrect link?

I am unable to understand as to how this article: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/patriarchy/ 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}

Evidence?

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

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

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!🎄 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)

Ignorance of paternity

"In fact, no human culture has been discovered that is ignorant of paternity..."

What about Trobriand Islanders? They are known to be unaware of the concept of biological fatherhood.

https://studycorgi.com/do-the-trobrianders-have-fathers/

This is a fact known from anthropological research of Bronisław Malinowski, for example. Dayron (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)