Jump to content

Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Welcome to the Patriarchy talk page

Hi friends, I've done a bit of work on this article and should be around for a couple of years or so watching it. So edit and comment away and there'll be at least one interested person to respond to you. Please note the talk header if you're new to Wiki. It's especially important on this page, because the article's subject is an emotional one for many people. Other than debating the cons or pros of patriarchy and other than personal attacks, let's go! :D Alastair Haines 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Meta-edit question

While I was researching this topic, it seemed there were three (3) groups that used the word patriarchy. The people who use patriarchy the most, and most recently, seemed to be feminist scholars. The next largest group who use the word are anthropologists. Finally, there are a smaller number of writers, but from a very wide range of different areas and interests who use the word too, this group includes writers who used the word before anthropology or feminism really started. (One such group is the eastern orthodox Christian churches, who have used it for more than a thousand years.)

When I arrived at this page, anti-feminists and feminists were removing one another's edits and it was a bit unpleasant for anthropologists, who weren't quite as passionately motivated as the others. One smart lady anthropologist started a new topic entry Patriarchy (anthropology), which meant the anthropologists could get on with things in peace. It also got me thinking.

Feminists and anthropologists know a lot more about patriarchy than most of us will ever learn. They do have some special meanings when they use the word though. Patriarchy in anthropology is slightly different to patriarchy in feminism, and both are much more detailed than the basic use of the word, which is really quite simple.

So, now we have a disambiguation page. Patriarchy (disambiguation) points to all three options:

  • patriarchy [+0] – the basic idea – literally, "father rule";
  • patriarchy [+anthropological] – special use – about male domination, socially, as scientific observation;
  • patriarchy [+feminist] – special use – about male domination, its causes and consequences, and how to deal with it.

I will be personally defending the free speech of feminists at the patriarchy in feminism page. POV tags are not appropriate just because a statement or quote expresses a POV. On a page describing a feminist point of view, you have to describe that view. (In fact, I was looking for information about patriarchy in feminism when I first found this page.)

On this page itself, both the anthropological and feminist uses of patriarchy are now explained briefly, and links point to the main entries ... but those entries need expanding! Please help by expanding those main entries.

Actually, I'm hoping we can do the same with the Biology of gender subsection. It also deserves its own main entry. In other words we could merge most of this section into a new article, there's just not enough writing done on it yet. Again, you will be helping if you can expand that section in the mean time. Alastair Haines 07:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alpha

"The status of the alpha is generally achieved by means of superior physical prowess, however, in certain highly social species such as the bonobo, a contender can use more indirect methods, such as political alliances, to oust the ruling alpha and take his/her place." From alpha (biology) Billbrock 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Type A theory is considered to be obsolete by many researchers in contemporary health psychology and personality psychology," from Type A personality, the human psychological analogue to alpha. Not sure what you're saying Bill, or how it is relevant. If you are implying there are matriarchal species you are quite correct. There are probably thousands or millions of them. Ants and bees are the best known. Biology only teaches us male and female brains are usually different in animals, nothing about patriarchy in sea-slugs as far as I know; but it also tells us that the human brain makes males more agressive. This explains the observation made by anthropologists that all known human societies are patriarchal. The bonobo is probably an example of a species where biology makes the female more aggressive, which would explain female alphas in that species. Dominance behaviour can probably be caused by things other than aggression. I don't think queen bees or queen ants dominate via aggression, haven't studied it. The point for this article though is, if we really want to change the human phenomenon of patriarchy, we may need to intervene genetically or chemically to do so. Scary thought either way, isn't it? Glad I don't have to take sides. ;) Alastair Haines 10:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Pulling together existing sources in a new way is original research. You are not the alpha here, sorry. Article is nonencyclopedic. Billbrock 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dr Bill, thanks again for your interaction. As an aspiring postgrad, I take your first sentence as a compliment. The second, however, looks like a personal comment, but I can live with it. You are welcome to view the article however you like, even delete it if you wish (but I will restore it, good ol' Wiki democracy). We can't work together to change things for the better unless you actually make a specific point. If your point is that you grant that the article presents existing sources, but does so in a way that makes a new point, which is, in fact, merely the view of the editor, please state what that point is. Alastair Haines 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your question can be answered by a close reading of the 2nd half of the article. (And seriously: what do the national flags add to the article? They, like the laundry list they decorate, undermine your attempts to present serious scholarly work in std enclopedic fashion.) Dirty secret: an article that is truly NPOV would be boring. But this is way too POV (even if the POV expressed is unideolgical truth) as a central thesis of the article is not confirmed.... Billbrock 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This is how Wiki define NPOV.

I must ask again, please be specific, what is the thesis of the article? I am not aware of there being such a thing. I do intrude editorial comment, namely arguments in favour of both science and ethics. These are provided precisely to ensure that well known and divergent views on the subject of patriarchy will be taken equally seriously by the reader in forming her opinion. The editorial comment adopts a point of view – the neutral point of view – which makes the text encyclopedic rather than a quote farm.

As it turns out, I think the article has a major flaw in that there is no "Writers who defend patriarchy" section. There are many such writers. American conservatives excercize their free speech too, only I haven't reported their opinions. Literally hundreds, many of them women, promote patriarchy. However, the feminist analysis is considerably more widely published – thousands of works. My current editorial judgement is to stick to the scientific angle as much as possible – etymology, history, anthropology and biology. I have kept the moral debate to a minimum, and chosen the writer who is least challenging of the feminist view, in fact, he doesn't really challenge feminism at all, only the extreme view that claimed gender distinctions are 100% cultural.

Regarding flags, some friends of mine were giving me feedback as I wrote the article. These included Australians, Indonesians, Turks, Brazilians, Germans, Indians and Americans. Several mentioned that names of people and titles of roles seemed familiar to them (before I provided the flags). The flags helped them locate which societies were ones they were likely to have heard about at school, or which fell into their areas of interest. For example, an Indonesian friend thought the Batek might be the Indonesian Bataks, but they are not. The Batek are actually from Malaysia, which is close enough to Indonesia linguistically to explain the familiar sound of names and titles. The same Indonesian friend was intrigued to learn (because of the flag) that the Iban are actually Indonesian. In fact, she and I were in Borneo studying a school with many Dyak children in January 2007.

The backhanded compliment that the article is too interesting to be POV offsets yet another overly personal comment regarding "laundry list". Personally, I find that list fascinating, however, it is not there to stimulate people, but as a reference (which is why it comes last in the article). When people read, as they often will, that Mead considered the Tchambuli to be matriarchal, or that the Minangkabau are matriarchal (this is taught in Indonesian schools), they can look these up in an alphabetical list and find references should they wish to check the facts.

Another reason the flags are there is to communicate that they are real societies. I added internal links for the same reason. Until I researched the section, I hadn't heard of any but the Iroqois and Filipinos/Filipinas. As far as I knew, people had just made up the societies, or they didn't exist any more. Some people are visual learners (in fact most), it is certainly true of me, the flags have helped me internalize the locations of all the fascinating peoples in that list. I greive that so many of these societies have had their unique cultures swamped by globalization. Can't say that in the article though. Alastair Haines 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the Iroquois appreciate the U.S. flag: adds to the authenticity of the article. Billbrock 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with you on that one, Bill. I admire what I've read about them very much indeed. Since you mention it, I will seek an indiginous symbol for them and add it if I find one. I won't take the US flag away though, many are Americans, I presume their fellow citizens are proud to be united with, because many fought for American independence. Their original homeland, according to the sources I read is New York state. Alastair Haines 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Canada and Quebec flags, can't upload the Iroqois own flags, probably because they rightly own the copyright. Alastair Haines 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Flags from the nations of Central Asia would be a fitting addition to the article. Billbrock 04:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Some feminists have argued that Kubla Khan's pleasure-dome was a matriarchy. Could you kindly refute this in the article? Could work another flag in that way, thus bolstering your argument. Billbrock 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
LoL, I actually quoted KK in a draft paper, but only to establish that culture-laden poetry can communicate universals transgenerationally. A damsel plays a dulcimers, Kubla builds a pleasure dome, where she might be part of the pleasure. Sounds more like classic patriarchal abuse to me, but I've not looked into it. Alastair Haines 05:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Biology of gender section

Gender is (generally) an anthropological term; sex is generally a biological term. One rather doubts that unpacking the causal relationships & distinctions between identity of the biological individual, the identity of the biological individual in culture, and the subject of this article belong in this article. WP:NOR and all that. Billbrock 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Bill. A small detail, beyond the scope of this article -- gender is actually traditionally a linguistic term.

The dichotomy sex=biology / gender=role is now largely out of date. Sex researchers use a taxonomy ranging from chromosomal, hormonal, gonadal, genital, physical, identity and role up to sexual orientation. This taxonomy follows the known development of sexual characteristics in humans. In other words, there are not two aspects to femaleness and maleness but many. Chromosomal and hormonal are at the biological "sex" end; and identity, role and orientation are at the social "gender" end. Published and accepted results almost two decades old discuss the causal relationships between all the levels. Thus there is no longer a clear, objective distinction between biology and sociology (see Sociobiology), so a sex/gender distinction is now an outdated, oversimplification, mainly useful in early classes in gender studies.

This issue is an important one, because there are a significant number of people with medical variation from the normal female body and female mind pattern. These people want to understand themselves and be understood by other people. If society insists (contrary to the facts now known), that gender is either purely biological or purely sociological, it makes life very difficult for these people (see Intersex and the tragedy of David Reimer).

The fact that one is not aware of research, does not make it original. The proof that research is not original is that it is already published, therefore not new. Dr Milton Diamond is probably the best known sex researcher, his faculty in Hawaii has a web-site with an archive of publications you can consult to verfiy all the comments I make above.

Addressing the issue of biology is necessary in this article for two reasons. Firstly, although it is old news to people familiar with sex research, it has not generally entered the public awareness. Encyclopedias are part of the process of making research available to the general public.

Secondly, since feminist criticism of patriarchy normally proceeds on the basis that there are no biological grounds for it, i.e. it is a cultural phenomenon that can be reversed, it is necessary to address the issue. There is an alternative, we can remove feminist criticism from the article. Personally, I think, since there is a criticism of patriarchy it should be recorded, and since there is criticism of that criticism, that should also be recorded. Alastair Haines 04:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What are your citations for the 2007 synthetic version of that criticism? Does Dr. Milton Diamond (e.g.) link his research to a theory of patriarchy? Synthesis is original research; whether it's a brilliant addition to scholarship, crackpot, or somewhere in between. WP:NOR (yawns) Billbrock 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a quote for a 2006 article before seeing this comment, that should answer your fair request for a citation. Mind you, the Harvard book citation that has stood since I first created the section is sufficient to establish almost everything stated (except the genetic stuff which is new). That whole section is still incomplete, though, (and flagged as such) it is just a stub for a fuller article at the moment. Only a summary will remain here I expect. Follow the internal links if you want to know more. The entries for Money and Diamond (kinda cute pair of names, lol) cover pretty much all the general things I've learned about them and point to some helpful offsite pages.

Diamond is not directly interested in patriarchy, nor are the other biologists, which makes them excellent objective evidence to confirm Goldberg's hypothesis. Goldberg is the critic of the critics, he predicted biology would provide an explanation for male dominance behaviour, he was right; but just as he said, it doesn't help our moral dilemma much, and it's ultimately the moral question that concerns people most. Interesting times ahead ...

Regarding synthesis, at another entry I wrote up for Wiki, I was awarded a "Quote farm" tag. I checked the Wiki style guide which recommended synthesis and paraphrase rather than a sequence of direct quotes. It said there were exceptions like lists etc. There's always room for personal taste in these things. The important thing is, everything on this page can be verified. It is factual. I'm satisfied I've used a variety of approaches suited to each context, regarding an approach to citations.

Comments like "(yawn)" make me <giggle> so I'll wave this second personal slight. Hope you get a good night's sleep Bill, cheers. Alastair Haines 16:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You are unsubtly collapsing the distinction between male biological dominance (Great Apes) and the subject of this article. Where's the social structure? Billbrock 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate this direct interaction with the logical flow of the material presented in the article. Yes, the logic is not made explicit in the article for two reasons. Firstly, because the Biology of gender section is explicitly incomplete, and secondly because not every i can be dotted or t crossed in an article, most logical connections must be left to the reader. In this case though, I agree with you in essence, that male gorillas are dominant is no argument that male humans will be dominant. That false argument is normally presented the other way though. For example, female bonabos are dominant shows female humans can be dominant. Of course it shows no such thing.

What consideration of other species shows is only that, the brains of species that reproduce sexually, have individuals of each sex (unlike plants and some worms), and have brains (unlike non-cephalic species) – these species also have sexual dimorphism of the brain. In other words, Homo sapiens would be extraordinary if the brains of men and women were not different. Now, it could be that the difference between male and female brains is real, but of little significance for behaviour. That is something that needs to be studied. In fact, we only have limited information on it at the moment. One thing that is clear though is that male agression and dominance do reside in a sexually dimorphic neuroendocrinological system. In other words, patriarchy has real biological components.

Male dominance among antlered deer is not patriarchy. Patriarchy is, by definition, a human phenomenon. What is important about species other than Homo sapiens is sexual dimorphism, not male domination. Male domination is universal within some species, Homo sapiens is merely one of those species. In Homo sapiens we call male dominance patriarchy. Hope that clears things up. Alastair Haines 02:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"In Homo sapiens we call male dominance patriarchy." And your source for this original research? Is monarchy domination of the "mon"? Anarchy, domination of the [m]an? How does your private definition account for Papa Smurf and Vito Corleone, patriarchs in an overwhelmingly male world? Why is the word "patriarchy" and not "virarchy"? Billbrock 05:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC) The first sentence of the current edit reads, "Patriarchy describes the structuring of society on the basis of family units, where fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of their families." Rather more than male dominance. Billbrock 06:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill, you have a great sense of humour and a quick wit, not to mention other obvious indicators of a keen analytical mind and social sensitivity. I really appreciate your comments and they have helped stimulate and clarify my own thinking, you have influenced more of what I have written than you might imagine. Also, let me say I really appreciate that you don't hassle me about bias, which you readily can see is not an issue. I take your original research line seriously and in good faith, like all your comments. Without joking about it as flattery, I appreciate defending against the charge because I think that is much more likely to be my weakness. Still, you have not convinced me of it.

The first line of the article repeats the standard definition of patriarchy – father rule. The third explains the feminist and anthropological extention to male dominance, i.e. public office, human "Alpha"s if you like. Anthropologists and feminists do not apply patriarchy as a description of animal behaviour. So, not original research, it is feminism that has taught me male dominance in human society is called patriarchy and I've acknowledged that source.

Monarchy is defined in this article, anarchy isn't, the "an" in anarchy is a negating prefix, so the word means no-rule, as I'm sure you know. Actually, "androcracy" (krat, being the Greek root for power), is used rather than "virarchy" (which would mix Latin and Greek); and yes, "androcracy" is the traditional word for formal power being vested only in men. Feminists have changed the terminology though. They have a very good theoretical basis for that too – one thing leads to another, state and family model off one-another. That is feminist original research, that I think is a helpful contribution to human knowledge. I'm not going to quibble over the feminist change of terminology, especially when anthropologists do it too, and did it first. Alastair Haines 13:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged matriarchies," Take Two

Encyclopedia articles have conventions. They are not books; they are not platforms for proferring original research or peer-reviewed research marginal at best to the article's topic. I have previously offered objections to this section here. A substantive response has not yet been received. Billbrock 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill, you have not provided any substiantiated objection to this article as it stands, or I would have changed it. The anthropological material is obviously related to patriarchy, every society mentioned in that section is a patriarchy. They are listed for precisely the reason that they are patriarchies. In other words, they provide a cross-cultural picture of patriarchy. If others find the heading confusing, perhaps it could be clarified by calling it "Patriarchies claimed by some to be matriarchies". This seems rather a cumbersome way of dealing with what most readers are, I think, smart enough to work out for themselves. It's a matter of how much faith we have in our readers. I will trial the heading "Patriarchies in dispute".

Personally, I find it hard to see why a list of patriarchies would be relevant at the matriarchy page, or I would place them there. It is especially odd because of more than a thousand cultures in the standard literature, near all are patriarchies, does that seem helpful to the argument of the matriarchy page? If you think the material is relevant to matriarchy, please copy it there, or link to it from there (at the moment that page tells only one side of the story, but tells it well and I like it). I will not remove what you copy to the matriarchy page if you do that, but nor will I restore it if people delete it there.

A wise Wikipedian pointed out to me, if you think an article is POV, correct that by addition, not subtraction. I personally am in favour of free speech and against censorship. The matriarchy page is POV, but done appropriately. Putting the case for patriarchy there would swamp the minority view. I want all points of view heard. The encyclopedic convention is to report each of all published views, without leading a reader to which selection is prefered.

I am against censorship of feminism, against censorship of patriarchy, against censorship of matriarchy, and against censorship of biological research. Alastair Haines 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"A wise Wikipedian pointed out to me, if you think an article is POV, correct that by addition, not subtraction." What new national flag would make an appropriate contribution to the Patriarchy#Patriarchies_in_dispute cutting-edge scholarship exhibited in this section? Billbrock 20:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh my! Thanks again Bill, but unfortunately I really don't think quoting the original ethnographers, several going back to the 19th century counts as being very original. It's a quote farm, i.e. not original, they are really old quotes, so not original, Britannica says "no known matriarchies according to anthropology", so not original, Mead said it in the 50s, so not original, sourced from published bibliographies, so not original. Love the sound of "cutting edge" though, tickles my masculine vanity perhaps, damn that testosterone. ;) Cheers again Bill. Alastair Haines 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Patriarchy (anthropology)

Hmm. Distinction between the articles?

Yeah, not much, please add some! :D Alastair Haines 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The correct WP solution is to merge. Billbrock 19:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The WP software is telling me the Patriarchy article is long and recommends some subsections become stubs for new main entries, retaining only a summary at Patriarchy. The longest section is the Patriarchies in dispute section. This material is all anthropological, so I copied that section to Patriarchy (anthropology) which was only a stub. If those who opened and maintain that section are happy to host the material, I will remove it from the main Patriarchy entry. Wiki is a team effort I am not willing to merge without consultation. I am willing to wait for comment from active, contributing editors. What is important is that sourced and verifiable content not disappear into limbo. Unsourced, unverifiable material can be deleted at any time, especially if it is slander of living people, or political or commercial advertising.

If you twist my arm hard enough, when I have time, I will write up a section sourced on the American moral majority to express the promotion of patriarchy angle, and win space for it by merging the Patriarchies in dispute section to Patriarchy (anthropology). That will have to wait, because I know what will happen. "Edit wars" will resume. Anonymous users will daily delete that section until admin are forced to place a "protected" tag on the material. The only time protection is necessary is when it is clear that deletion is regular.

I consider it a miracle that the anti-feminists have not been removing the Feminist criticism section. It was mainly to establish the stability of that section that I wrote this article in the first place. (I came to this entry while researching patriarchy in feminism.) That's why the article only has minimal criticism of the feminist position – just enough not to be guilty of feminist POV. The anthropological and scientific data only make the feminist position more urgent, though, they do not genuinely challenge it.

Anyway, the Wiki guidelines I read pointed out that erring on the side of having more information than less is preferable, as their storage capacity is not an issue, but voluntary contributions are a precious resource. Information is therefore duplicated, awaiting stability of Patriarchy (anthropology) subtopic. Alastair Haines 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nature and nurture?

Dear readers, especially Bill, please help me. I want to make a concession to Bill. I stand by everything I've written in discussion above, but want to move on from those points. What is important in the discussion above is that Bill asks all the right questions about the article conforming to Wiki encyclopedic policy, and I think I provide all the right answers. It is a good discussion, and it is good to have it documented.

What I would love to hear feedback on is the following. Above I deny that this article has a "thesis" or presents an "argument". This may seem strange and is a little technical. The important challenge Bill raises is that if the article does argue for something, then that makes it a thesis. It is then either original research or a point of view, and the opposing point of view should also be expressed, or we lose neutrality.

The obvious points of view regarding patriarchy are feminism, which is against it, and "conservative family values", which are broadly in favour of it. As it turns out, this article does not actually put the "family values" argument. Personally, I don't think that is too much of a problem, because the definition and related words and customs give a picture of those traditional values anyway.

However, the moral question for or against patriarchy is not the only issue related to the subject. There is a separate but related question. Are gender roles 100% determined by society and therefore changeable, are they 100% determined by biology so something we should learn to live with, or is it more complicated and something in between?

As it turns out, patriarchy is right at the heart of the debate concerning nature or nurture in gender roles, and has been since Goldberg was published in 1973. As it also turns out, we now know a lot more than we did 30 years ago.

Now here are my questions. Do we need more information regarding those who defend the moral advantages of patriarchy? Do we need more information regarding the biological influences on patriarchal behaviour in humans? Do we need more information regarding cross-cultural evidence of patriarchy? Or ... are these things sufficiently verified as the article stands? My personal instinct is to avoid the moral debate and stick with the history, culture and science, those things are merely a matter of reporting published results.

The other reason to focus on the science in this article is because that is what has changed most in the last 30 years. It is likely to trigger a lot of debate into the future. It is verifiable and important, without telling people what to think about how to organize life or society, it can inform them to make such decisions. What do people think? Alastair Haines 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic, POV, original research. Would benefit from more flags. Billbrock 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't see those things myself Bill, you'll have to help me and explain how you come to that perception. Alastair Haines 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There are 192 United_Nations_member_states. How many flags do you have? Q.E.D. Billbrock 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I counted them Bill, there are 20 distinct flags, including Quebec. Your point? Leaving out 172 flags is biased? ;) I'm keen to replace the flags with public domain pics of tribes, tribal areas or ethnographers, got any time to source those for us? Alastair Haines 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm confident you can work this into the article. Brevity and focus are virtues. Laundry lists are impediments to understanding. The addition of national flags are mere decoration, and would be considered cheesy on a junior high school poster board. Billbrock 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal slights, however witty, are not serious contributions to improvement. Let's ignore the domestic allusions re kitchens, laundries and cheese, to address relevent issues like brevity and focus.

First, focus: I repeat from above, each item on the list is a description of an authoritative source describing a patriarchy. Are patriarchal societies relevant to an article on patriarchy? I honestly can't find an argument against that. Second, brevity: again as recorded in the article, of more than 1,000 patriarchies only a couple of dozen are listed (2%) (of 192 flags, 20 are used -- 10%).

Returning to focus, the selection of the societies is simple, any society seriously claimed to be matriarchal is listed (non-serious fantasy suggestions like Amazons and Kubla Khan are excluded). Wiki can do better than the "no matriarchies" claim of Britannica, given the storage space available to an electronic reference work. Wiki can make the verification of authoritative sources available to her readers. This is also important because half the societies listed are claimed as matriarchies within Wiki. That's ok, 'cause those articles are simply reporting minority points of view. The natural place for the data, on which the majority report of expert opinion that "patriarchy is everywhere" is based, is Patriarchy, of course. What else do we do? Say there is so much evidence of this, but we can't show it to you, because some readers might get bored? I have relegated the data to an appendix for this very reason.

Now, there is an alternative, we could delete all the references to possible matriarchal societies across Wiki, and protect the secondary and tertiary citations that verify the majority view, and leave it at that. That would help brevity, but that doesn't make sense to me, as claims for matriarchies ought to be reported and space isn't an issue. If we keep those references though, we also need to record the alternative, majority view somewhere. Wiki has no policy of silencing the majority view on subjects, so the minority can be heard, especially at a page describing the phenomenon the majority and experts consider universal. There's something very wierd about that kind of suggestion. Alastair Haines 06:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Personal slights, however witty, are not serious contributions to improvement." I believe the slight was directed at the lame article. Every serious writer has produced utter crap; the trick is to recognize it as such. Namaste. Billbrock 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I'm sure you'll be pleased to know, Wiki have actually made a template to make it easier to recognize country references, by automatically providing flags! I'll get on to this right away. :D Alastair Haines 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So the Naxi Kingdom was Maoist? Billbrock 02:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Assesment March 30 2007

I have reassessed this article for the Sociology Wikiproject. I feel that a lot of work has been put into this article and that it is now a low B class article. I have the following suggestions for improvement of this article:

  • There is a lot of information but it is poorly organized. Related words and Related customs should be moved to the end. Maybe make it one section.
  • Patriarchy and Feminism. Give an overview and move most of the info over to the article on this.
  • Patriarchy and Anthropology section. Leave it in it's own article. Have a summery on this page.
  • Images. There are too many. Use no more than 1-2 images per section. Make them larger. Make sure that they are relevant. Also give the images descriptive tags. Rather than just a persons name also give a short description of why you have a picture of them or what your graph is illustrating.
  • Table. Should probably be moved to its own article. Maybe "List of possible matriarchal societies" or something similar.
  • Links. Don't use "see" to direct people to links. Write the links into the text of the article.
  • Research Ethics section. Not sure why this is here.
  • Tone. It is too conversationalist. Try to adopt a more formal tone.
  • The main thing is the article is suffering from information overload. A small amount of info well organized is more useful than a large jumble of information. I suggest drawing up an outline for the article on paper. Before adding any further information organize what you have and then look and find out what is missing. Let me know if you have any questions. Jvbishop 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Action

  • Related words and related customs moved to end. Made one section.
  • Patriarchy and Feminism moved to that article.
  • Patriarchy and Anthropology left in its own article.
  • Images. There are no more than two per section. All have been made larger. All are relevant. All have descriptive tags.
  • Table. Moved to its own article.
  • Links. Links written into text.
  • Research Ethics section. Removed.
  • Tone. More formal.
  • What remains of the article, is in places determined by the assessment. No information has been added.
  • Only one question. Has implementing all the changes and only the changes as per assessment improved the article?
  • If so, please explain how we nominate it for Good Article status.

Alastair Haines 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No reply

No reply received, article remained stable as it stood for a couple of months, have reverted most of the actions above. Alastair Haines 01:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Appears to contradict article Issues in anarchism

I have tagged this article because it appears to contradict something stated in Issues in anarchism: "Anarcho-primitivists point to the anti-authoritarian nature of many 'primitive' or hunter-gatherer societies throughout the world's history as examples of anarchist societies." (Note that I am not making any implied comment on whether one article is more reliable/credible than the other. I am about to tag the other article as well!)

However, if all known primitive societies were patriarchal - as asserted by this article, that implies that in all such societies, women were basically subordinate to men. Hardly "anti-authoritarian".

Which statement is right? Or have I misunderstood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greenrd (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello! Thank you for this good work! This is just what Wiki is all about. If we detect a contradiction, we can investigate and improve one or both articles.

The thing that first jumps to my mind here is how the anarchy page can verify that, "'primitive' or hunter-gather societies throughout the world's history" were anarchies and anti-authoritarian. Before 3,000 BC everyone is guessing, because we have no written documents describing society before that time. That's not too much of a problem, though, because we have plenty of documents over the last 5,000 years describing contact between literate societies and those without writing, who were often considered "primitive", and were indeed generally less complicated in social structures (which is what is probably meant by "primitive").

Now, I'm afraid my knowledge of the 1,500-2,000 or so known societies of human history is quite limited. I know the ancient near east, and I know about socities with high levels of focus on women, but that's about it. What I have picked up, though, is that even the most primitive seeming societies usually have strong social systems. There's enough for patriarchy anyway, but that's not necessarily enough to avoid anarchy. What I mean is, if every man and his family do what they like, without having clan chiefs, that's pretty close to anarchy, while still having patriarchy, if you see what I mean.

Both patriarchy and anarchy are not ON and OFF switches, they are more like volume controls, they slide from 0% to 100%. Yes, at a family level, 100% anarchy would mean 0% patriarchy, and that probably never happens; but let's say 50%-50% seems likely. Say children tend to put their own desires second to their father's wishes about 50% of the time, that'd probably be true in a lot of pretty normal patriarchies. I guess though, you'd need to have 90% anarchy though for it to really count as anarchy.

I think what anarchy is about is at a higher level than the family though. The anthropologists say all societies have marriage, family and an incest taboo. Obviously those are all family matters. I'm sure anarchy is still anarchy even if families are pretty stable, if there's no government, it's anarchy.

There are two main reasons I think there's no contradiction here though:

  1. this article says there are no matriarchies it doesn't say all are patriarchies
  2. the anarchy article says some people claim some primitives societies were anarchies, it doesn't say that is a fact

These might seem funny points to make. The theory of patriarchy is that IF there is a heirarchy, men will jump for the top jobs ... then you get patriarchy. BUT if there is no heirarchy, there's nothing for men to go for, so there's no patriarchy, just anarchy. Can you see how that resolves the apparant contradiction?

Also, although it would be nice if everything in Wiki was true, actually that's not the aim of an encyclopedia. What an encyclopedia does is record what people know and think about things. Hopefully this will include lots of true things. However, sometimes people don't agree about what is true, so we are careful and record both views and the reasons for those views. Usually those views are both given within the same article, but sometimes they are given in different articles.

I'm going to check out the anarchy page, check that this article doesn't say all societies are patriarchies, find some sources if necessary, and remove the tag. If you are unhappy with my answer here, please return the tag and we can talk some more. Alastair Haines 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I checked the anarchy page, I'm happy the sentence you quote actually contradicts itself. If anarchist societies have no authorities, how can they be anti-authoritarian? ;)
Here it is again: "Anarcho-primitivists point to the anti-authoritarian nature of many 'primitive' or hunter-gatherer societies throughout the world's history as examples of anarchist societies."
Cheers Alastair Haines 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagged Cleanup

I believe this article may need some cleaning. For example, who is this Margaret Mead? Her picture is there, but no details.

That's because the article was edited inappropriately today (specifically, in violation of policy - it replaced documented assertions with unsourced ones). I've undone the offending edit.—greenrd 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the first image is captioned "Patriarchy" but it fails to show HOW it represents patriarchy. Christophore 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add captions and edit text in the article. I've expanded the caption. It now spells out that because the man is standing, he appears to be responsible for his family. The age of the photograph helps people think back to a time when this kind of social structure was the encouraged "norm". Alastair Haines 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
that photo made me laugh so hard. to start with the woman is at the center of the photo, and the caption claims that the man is. nor is he standing, i can see his bent leg. second, it has nothing to do with patriarchy as far as i can tell. Slamorte 09:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Patriarchal Page needs more research

I believe that this page needs a complete rewrite. While some of the information is accurate and helpful, reading it makes me feel that there is much more research to be done. There is a biased voice in the author which should not be so evident since this is an online encyclopedia.

There should be research done on cultures prior the Christian-Judaism-Islamic faiths.

Have you even read the page you are complaining about?? Perhaps you meant from pre-Abrahamic times, but the Appendix certainly does look at cultures that had not (yet) been colonised by Christianity, Judaism or Islam.—greenrd 14:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Prior to that there were indeed matriarchal cultures. I would suggest looking at past "myths" in antiquity. The representation of Gods and Goddesses rather than one God shows a mixture of matriarchal and patriarchal ruling. In many ancient cultures women's power of childbirth was revered. I would suggest starting with Celtic, Scandinavian, Egyptian cultures and branching out from there.

Also, I believe that the article should be expanded. As a teacher the words patriarchal and matriarchal are also used in refering to teaching styles or even the way a business functions. In regards to the classroom: a teaching style which is authoritarian, has seats in rows, and teaches in a linear fashion is often referred to as patriarchal EVEN when a female is teaching. A classroom that teaches in a more holistic and connecting manner, has students seated in a circle or cooperative learning groups has been referred to as matriarchal. The terms are of course changing and morphing as studies into teaching and learning styles deepens, but I believe that this is important to note here in this article. 207.127.241.2 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is called "Patriarchy". Not "Patriarchal". There is an important difference. A teaching style is not called a patriarchy, is it?—greenrd 14:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello 207.127.241.2, greetings. I'm not sure what kind of bias you see in this article. One edit of the current form of the text accused other editors of being "g**dammed feminists". It is true that there is only criticism of Patriarchy documented on the page, and no record of the substantial advocacy of it among sizeable groups of educated Western people.
I also agree that most societies throughout history have given high status to the role of motherhood. Several writers have noted a connection between the mutual dependence of social values given to patriarchy and motherhood. Devalue motherhood, and patriarchy is also devalued; devalue patriarchy, and motherhood is also devalued.
I have personally been researching gender in the Ancient Near East. Egypt did have some female Pharoahs. Hachepsut and, much later, Cleopatra are two famous examples. Their cabinet ministers, governors, priests, generals, merchants and landowners remained men during their rule. The Egyptians valued hereditary monarchy and "royal blood" so highly that Tutankhamen was succeeded by an uncle who married a grand-daughter, because they had the purest bloodline. Egyptians, like every society, consider incest taboo, but they were willing to make exceptions for their "higher ideals" concerning royalty.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are quite recent religions, all from the Middle East and after our oldest written records from the region. It is now common knowledge that many features of the religions we know include aspects of both the cultures that preceded and the cultures that surrounded Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul and Mohammed. I'm not aware of any current respectable scholars who would argue that these religions invented patriarchy. What some scholars do suggest is that these religions plagiarised what was common thinking and practice in their part of the world, at that particular time.
I do not know much about Celts or Scandinavians, but I'm sure others do. Since there are many people who have looked for matriarchal societies, and they are very smart, I'm sure they have proposed the best possible examples. Those are all dealt with in the table. A detailed listing of the evidence is currently available at Patriarchy (anthropology).
I am responsible for deleting all that evidence from this article, and I can see my error now. I will return it shortly. Alastair Haines 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing clean-up tag. The research section has been returned to the article to address point one above. Article is close to recommended maximum length as it stands. The software recommends starting new articles. Patriarchy (education) would be an great new article to add to Wiki to address point two. Please just click on the link to create that article. Alastair Haines 05:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

matriarchy?

Why are two out of three paragraphs in the lead concerned with matriarchy instead of patriarchy? --345Kai 04:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the hypothetical concept of matriarchy is unrelated to patriarchy? Are you suggesting that saying "all societies everywhere have always been patriarchies" is better than saying "no societies have ever been matriarchies"? Paragraph two is Britannica saying the second. Paragraph three is Margaret Mead saying the first.
To say there are no matriarchies is highly relevant to patriarchy, it is another way of talking about the universality of patriarchy. There are only two facts about matriarchy presented in this article.
  1. It is the female equivalent of patriarchy.
  2. There is no evidence of matriarchy ever having existed, in other words, patriarchy is universal as far as we know.
I'm sorry but I can't see your point. The word matriarchy only occurs the second paragraph, and in a way that explains the scope of patriarchy. We can't change what Britannica said. Alastair Haines 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is an over-focus on the concept of matriarchy that is inappropriate here. The subject is "patriarchy" and should be primarily focused on that; a mention of "matriarchy" as an alternative model and a link to that page should suffice. Generally, there are several gaps that need filling in this article that have specifically to do with patriarchy.



"research and ethics" and Appendix/Table

Despite being sourced material, the discussion of gene expression is irrelevant to patriarchy--it appears to be present simply to sugar-coat the misandrist views of Pierre Bourdieu, and speculative fantasy about medical emasculation. This is very biased, and not at all encyclopedic.

Also: The Appendix/Table section is redundant to the Patriarchy (anthropology) page and is really quite messy anyway--I suggest it should be changed to a short summary with the Main Article link. -[[User:]] 09:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The first half of the section is irrelevant -- although the one line about disease research could be moved to the previous "Biology of gender" section since it could be interesting if further explored. The second half is starkly anti-patriarchal. Stdarg 15:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Both sections exist in the article to answer criticisms of patriarchy.
Regarding the List
At a previous point I removed the long list of alleged matriarchies, and simply refered readers to the Patriarchy (anthropology) article.
After that there were many incidents where people dropped in to this page and removed the lines in the lead-in regarding "no matriarchies". Someone said matriarchy is irrelevent to patriarchy and shouldn't be discussed here. There is also a comment above about there not being enough research to support such a strong claim about matriarchy. There have also been several requests for information about the history of patriarchy, which is a huge topic, but is actually addressed in summary by the table. The solution to all this was to return the list of evidence.
When the list is in the article, people complain it is long and ugly. When it is not in the article people challenge the whole article because it is not grounded in sufficient cross-cultural fact. The latter seems the more disturbing issue. The way forward seems to be improving the presentation of the table.
Suggestions
Redundancy, is not necessarily an issue across articles, but obviously always is so within articles. If "messiness" is an issue, we can tidy, rather than simply leave the mess at another article. There is also the option of making information "collapsible" -- i.e. the data stays at the page, but is stored in a table which only opens if people click on it. This seems to be something people are more likely to do than following internal links to other articles. I will make the existing table collapsible as an example. It would take some work to format the list in a similar way, I am willing to do it, but it would have to wait until I have the time. Obviously I'd support someone else doing that work.
In summary, if the real objection to the list is mainly the comment that it is long, and that people who do not object to patriarchy don't need it to convince them of anything, I agree with those comments. However, there are too many people who object to patriarchy and want the list to go because it undermines their POV. The list needs to stay in a place where people can find it. Ultimately it is the most significant thing in the Patriarchy article -- the objective evidence that patriarchy is universal.
Regarding Research and Ethics
There are two ideas behind this section. Firstly, an objection to the biological research is that it is misogynist and a tool of the patriarchy to keep women in their place. Apparently there was a television program where a panel of feminists were asked to respond to biological research results. Their consensus was that such research is immoral and should not receive funding. Perhaps this should be explicitly written into the article.
The second idea engages with things that Goldberg says, but are not written into the text of the article, as yet. He makes the comment that patriarchy is not truly inevitable, it could be prevented by biological intervention. If you ask me, that would be horrifyingly unethical, Goldberg implies that, but doesn't say it, so we can't say it in an encyclopedic entry. Hence, it is presented in the mouths of the misandrists.
Suggestions
Again, I'm happy to put some work into reconstructing this section, or supporting someone else who does so. We could cite info from the TV show with the feminists, a review is available online. We could also quote Goldberg on biological intervention. This can be integrated with the other POV that is already expressed in the section.
For normal people, who are not gender politicians, I think it is very positive to know that medical researchers keep proving feminists wrong, simply by accident as they try to find cures for diseases. These diseases are not subject to EEO legislation and so sometimes discriminate against one gender or the other, as they see fit.
There are people who are pro-patriarchy, people who are anti-patriarchy, and people who are neutral (med research). The neutral people say anti-patriarchy is wrong, so the article doesn't even need to present a pro-patriarchy position.
The case for patriarchy is so strong it doesn't need to be made, just described. Even alleged matriarchies support it, so it doesn't need glowing reports of the most macho societies in history.
I've lived with this article for a long time, I'd love others to be involved. I'll adopt some of the suggestions prompted by the criticism if I don't hear more from you, but it'd be great if either of you wanted to do some of this yourselves, or if you wanted to make other contributions we can think of. Cheers. Alastair Haines 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There we are, I've had another go at it.
I see your rationale, perhaps the bit about that panel of feminists can go into the feminist criticism section. I find their complaints about the fact that biological reality doesn't coincide with their ideology very amusing though, and terribly, terribly sad. That's the difference between scientific theories and political theories though. Scientific theories are synthesised from the empirical data, to build a working explanation and when something is found that conflicts with that, the theory is modified or discounted--political theories are built around preconceived conclusions and all the evidence that conflicts with it is to be ignored or suppressed. Just downright vile, truly. --[] 15:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. As you can see, I also changed things in line with your suggestions. Yes, I think there are serious issues with the politics of this subject -- bad logic and errors leading to damaged people, all for the sake of oiling squeaky wheels -- i.e. political expediency. IMO democracy fell on its own sword in this area, but the nice thing about democracy is it can always change its mind. Alastair Haines 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside this lengthy, extremely ironic discussion of "normal" people (i.e., vs. feminists), the problem still remains that an article on patriarchy doesn't need a long, rather conspicuous, discussion on the biology of gender. This belongs rather on a separate page on--say--the subject of gender.

In re: the above comment "For normal people, who are not gender politicians, I think it is very positive to know that medical researchers keep proving feminists wrong..." The irony of this statement is that it is extremely, blithely political and smacks very much of gender based ideology. Someone with such an overt bias has no business contributing to an encyclopedic article on the concept of patriarchy. Perhaps he can save it for his weblog?

Hello anonymous, a very late reply from me. There is nothing political in suggesting that Jill Average would be relieved to hear that some breast cancer researcher earned her Nobel Prize demonstrating correlations between hormones and behaviour as an accidental finding of her research. Rather than some left wing women's rights group telling her, rather than some right wing male supremicist group telling her, nice health professionals accidentally stumbled on some important biological data ... male and female biology are different and it affects how they behave. It's no longer a matter of opinion, or of who you trust, or what lobbyists can get through the political system ... it's a matter of what can be repeated in laboratories and confirmed. Phew! says Jill, I'm glad that's all clear now, it was driving me crazy.
I think you are mistaking the fact that I certainly believe gender to be strongly influenced by biology (that's what the scientific and informed literature say), for some other thing. I am quite sure some people have ideologically motivated positions regarding gender, who do not consider themselves accountable to such negligable details as the work of white-coated lab technicians. The kind of people who think funding of gender research would be immoral. For the rest of us, we believe things because there is evidence for them, not because we want things to be that way.
You have me totally wrong. Notice, I'm far too polite to document the mistakes people make, to discredit them and hope that wins people for some alleged agenda of my own. That some well-known feminists handle a question poorly doesn't say all that much about feminism, and it certainly says nothing about patriarchy.
Are you suggesting that people who believe 1+1=2 should not be involved in an article on addition? That the only people who should write articles are people who don't have sufficient grasp of the issues to have come to any conclusions? Or are you saying, more likely, that unless one understands the evil of patriarchy, one is not yet released from its insidious power to deceive?
I repeat, "for normal people, who are not gender politicians, I think it is very positive to know that it is medical researchers who keep proving feminists wrong." Of course, what would be even better is if feminists responded to criticisms and reformed themselves ... and in fact there is quite a bit of that around. Alastair Haines 07:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous POV edit

This text was entered to replace first paragraph. My problems with this text are:

  • unequal is a value term, POV, not clearly defined and discussed later in the article

--Au contraire, mon frere: "unequal: adj. not equal; not of the same...rank" (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, 2001). This is not a value-laden, but descriptive term.

Equal is clearly defined in 1+1=2. However, in the context of gender, it is far from clear what equality means, as is widely noted and two sources are cited in this article. Justice versus injustice is usually what is intended (or used), the terms are obviously not impartial, but are necessary in expressing opinions in the debate. Distinction or difference is the usual objective terminology. For example, many propose establishing different criteria for men and women, in order to achieve equality of outcomes or equality of participation.
  • patriarchy is primarily about family units, only derivitatively about society, and then only in anthropology, feminism and theology

--"patriarchy: n., 1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe. 2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization" (ibid).

A lot depends on the dictionary you consult. Thanks for quoting one that makes precisely my point. Definition 1. family. Definition 2. community.
  • although I agree with the use of gender here, most who hold the POV of this edit would use sex

--interesting!

The usual definition is that gender is a set of anachronistic, culturally imposed norms of behaviour and values expected of and distinguishing between each biological sex. The argument is that these differ from society to society, which shows there's nothing universal or necessary about any such expectations. Furthermore, it would be unjust for an enlightened society to continue such impositions of gender on people based on their sex. The proposed ideal is a gender-free society, where biological sex determines no social expectations of roles or behaviours. Another way of describing it is removing sex based stereotyping -- boys don't cry, girls always change their mind, etc., etc.
This is a POV definition, but notable because of its fairly wide acceptance in literate circles in Western, English-speaking culture. It is far from uniformly accepted, however, and doesn't quite work in many other languages, which only have one word for sex/gender. It also seems contrary to the evidence of history, and the recent findings of medical research, which show patterns of sexual dimorphism in human brains that do influence stereotypical behaviour in men and women.
Of the two words sex and gender, the latter is used by many to refer to the big picture of social and biological distinctions, when no sharp boundary needs to be drawn between biology and behaviour. Sex is used by almost everyone in purely a biological (or erotic) sense. The main difference in usage, then, is some insist that gender only refer to social distinctions, without reference to the biological. With every year, the usefulness of such a definition weakens as evidence mounts to suggest the social can rarely be completely isolated from the biological, with any degree of certainty.
  • male and female are adjectives describing sex, men and women are nouns whose referents are distinguished by natural gender. It is neither more scientific, nor more politically correct to use male and female it simply shows both insensitivity to language and confusion in terminology.

--Wrong again, my friend: "male n. a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man" (ibid).

Actually, this is a substantive use of an adjective. Other examples are: "radicals propose we ..."; "the young believe ..."; "the curious can visit ..." etc. etc. There is a growing movement in English grammar education to name adjectives and participles used substantively as nouns. This has grown out of the power and simplicity of functional grammatical analysis of language. However, there are many cases where understanding substantive use of adjectival forms is of assistance in understanding language use, so traditional terminology is far from vanishing. In my own field of dead languages, traditional terminology is decidedly dominant. Personally, I use whichever has greater explanatory effectiveness in a given situation. So, by all means, male can be used as a noun and this is useful when teaching ESL. However, male can also be used as an adjective -- "a male cat is called a 'tom'". In any case, the adjective or noun is not restricted to human referents, and is therefore less precise than using man when denoting humans.
  • female heads of house (by default) is a statement that assumes patriarchy, that is, the man is absent (separated, dead, incapacitated, in prison, itinerant worker, ...). Such situations are not considered evidence of matriarchy, for good reason. As it stands, this text is the only pro-patriarchy statement in the article!

--I am not sure what your point is here, but I gather that you're presuming an attempt to prove the existence of matriarchy in the above corrections, which is not at all the case. This is purportedly an article about patriarchy, not matriarchy.

The point is that the patriarchal nature of our society is revealed in its persistant assumptions. We still assume the man is head of the home if present. There is a lot of feminist literature pointing out that women are frequently the ones demanding certain roles of men, and hence perpetuating patriarchy. Many women seek partners who will adopt the "breadwinning" role, and complain if the men do not fulfil this role. The parenthetical comment "by default" is technically redundant. Either the woman heads the home or she doesn't. "By default" does provide additional information, it specifies that the man is not actually attempting to head the home. To provide the extra information reveals the writer believes readers will find this significant, and the writer is correct. It seems odd to have a female head, and so the reason is concisely provided -- the female headship is by default, there is no man attempting to head the family. In a society where women were expected to head the family, or in one where it could be either man or woman at random, or in a society where there were no family heads, in these cases the comment "by default" would be poor communication, as it stands however, it expresses what it wants to refer to very nicely indeed.
  • patriarchal values are considered by most to value women highly, but specifically and stereotypically in matters related to sexual fidelity, reproduction and child-raising

--Again, your point is unclear. How does your discussion of patriarchal "values" fit in here? Who is this majority that considers patriarchy as valuing women, and how do you back this assertion up? What is your point?

Your questions prove the point I was making is clear. The majority of women choose family over career and hence appreciate men who invest in providing the financial resources for them to devote maximum attention to child-raising. Show me statistics that say otherwise. Few feminists would deny this. Find me one that does. The main battle is not stopping women from choosing reproductive roles and consequent financial dependence on men, the concern is to allow women to have an alternative if that is what they want. It is not that patriarchy devalues women, but rather than it only values women who adopt a certain stereotypical and traditional, but popular, role. Pro-patriarchy advocates have pointed out that patriarchal societies will simply out-breed non patriarchal societies, and that there may even be evidence of historical trends of this kind. There are extreme views among radical feminists, several have suggested societies without men or without reproduction. Interesting as these views are, they are far from mainstream.
  • feminism started in the early 70s

--interesting take, but...relevance?

You haven't read the article you are commenting on. Simone de Beauvoir is quoted on this in this article. She is not the only source I have on this, it's a standard dating. Relevance is that the edit dated challenges to patriarchy to the 60s. Not a big difference, but no sources were quoted, seemed the editor was just putting down what he thought was common knowledge.
  • it promoted alternative female roles to those traditionally promoted by patriarchy -- working for own money rather than beneficiary of a man's income, sexual freedom over life-long binding marital commitments
  • it is argued by many third wave feminists that the second wave actually disadvantaged women by removing these priveleges patriarchy accorded them (in fact it's hardly surprizing men allowed what suited them), but that this is good because by feminists reducing the status of women it has actually now brought equality. Mature women do not need to negotiate on the basis of vulnerability (patriarchy) or victimhood (2nd wave feminism). See Katie Roiphe et al.

--Okay, that's enough arguing with your ideology for me. I suggest further reading on your part. Also, as a side note, the word 'surprising' doesn't have a 'z' in it.P.S., "anonymous was a woman." -Anonymous.

I will certainly be reading further in this area. I started about 15 years ago and don't intend to stop. I'll be submitting a literature review in a short while and hope to publish a few articles soon. Until then, no one knows my personal ideology. Have a nice day. Alastair Haines 08:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From the sentence beginning "Still ..." onwards, I agree that everything that is said is not only verifiable, but also true, and definitely also worth saying. Which is why those facts are already stated, with sources, in the Feminist criticism section of this article, or the Feminism article itself.

I would love for Wiki to have more of Louis Althusser on his theories of the ideology of patriarchy. However, the question is where to put them. Under Feminist criticism in this article? In Patriarchy in feminism? In both? Whatever is decided, his ideological theories are not appropriately placed in the lead-in, nor its second sentence.

Alastair Haines 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic ramblings

This article has far too much on subjects other than patriarchy, and very little on the subject of patriarchy itself. Every article needs expository sentences, which are supposed to lead to a better understanding of the subject at hand - but too much of this article is written like an essay, assuming first a particular definition of "Patriarchy", after a long discussion of its linguistic origin, and then discussing subjects related to it. I remember a long time ago this article was a mish-mash of feminist propaganda; but now it says virtually nothing in very many words. RedRabbit1983 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the primary editor is a graduate student. I used to be one, too: "say[ing] virtually nothing in very many words" was my job description. The scholarship would be improved if the many flags that once decorated the article were restored. Billbrock 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead Image

I don't see how the lead image illustrates "patriarchy". The caption reads "Patriarchy — father-centred", but the father isn't in the center of the image (the mother is) and there is nothing in the image to indicate the father has the most central role in that family. I suggest the image be removed and a another image from the article be moved to the lead. Neitherday 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to go ahead and make this change. Neitherday 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either of the effectiveness of that image at the lead, the Abraham one is probably more meaningful. On the objection on the central role of the father: if the daddy was at the top of the piramyd, that'd have been better.--SummerWithMorons 01:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved Abraham image to the lead. Neitherday 14:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Where will we live?

While I understand the intent behind the bride picture, I think it and its caption adds more confusion than understanding to the article, and think the article would be improved by its removal. Neitherday 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll remove the image in a couple days. Neitherday 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Neitherday 19:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC

Fair use rationale for Image:Inevitability.jpg

Image:Inevitability.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patriarchy/Archive_2&oldid=756855936"