Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

=====

Good morning, folks,

While the cat’s away, the mice will play . . . Carol Moore, Kaldari, and dab -- how about it? Can we consider making changes without Alastair’s approval? I have dutifully read all those Wiki references you steered me to, and have made up my own mind about proper Wikipedia manners (see my User page). In fact I sent them to Jimmy Wales, though he denied the charges and appears to be unimpressed. Accordingly, I’d like to suggest the following replacement for the two introductory paragraphs:

Patriarchy describes societies where men are in charge, both in public and in private life (1). Male aggression has made all societies patriarchal up to now (2), but over the last hundred years the Women’s movement has progressively feminised the West (3) -- weakening its patriarchal nature. Yet matriarchy, the female equivalent of patriarchy, is a myth: there has never been a society ruled by women (4).

Strong patriarchy still survives in parts of the Middle East and Asia, where men control women through leadership and courage, and women control men using manipulative skills and clever insight. These differences are programmed in the genes (5) -- biologically determined -- so sexist behaviour happily and naturally permeates every level of such societies (6).

113 words

1 Margaret Mead, Red Book, 1973 (Review of Steven Goldbergʼs “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”). 2 Steven Goldberg, “Why Men Rule”, 1993, Open Court Publishing Company. 3 Francis Fukuyama, 'Women and the Evolution of World Politics', Foreign Affairs, Sept. 1998 4 Margaret Mead, Red Book, 1973 (Review of Steven Goldbergʼs “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”). 5 Sex and Cognitionʼ, Doreen Kimura, MIT Press, 2000. 6 Innumerable Feminist Tracts!

Here's a link to it in PDF form, if that is more convenient: http://sites.google.com/site/duncanbutlin/Home/patriarchy

If you can spare the time, I’d be delighted to hear any comments, Carol Moore, Kaldari, and dab. Duncan Butlin (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion can hardly be taken seriously considering it presents only a single point-of-view, namely that of strict biological determinists such as Steven Goldberg. (Not to mention that it is blatantly insulting to women.) Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Benefits of Patriarchy"?????

Patriarchy is advanced as being beneficial for human evolution and social organization on many grounds, crossing several disciplines. Although biology may explain its existence (see below), arguments for its social utility have been made since ancient times. These include elements of Greek Stoic Philosophy and the Roman social structure based on the pater familias,[7] but are also found in Akkadian records of Babylonian and Assyrian laws. George Lakoff proposes an ancient dichotomy of "Strict Father" as opposed to "Nurturing Parent" models of ethical theory (SFM and NPM).[8] In general, the main lines of argument are either pragmatic—namely, the reproductive advantages of male-as-provider—[9] or ethical—that any perceived male authority is contingent upon underlying perceptions of duty of care.

The constitution of Francisco Franco's Spain enshrined the principles of Patriarchy, for example in stating that in a referendum the vote should be given only to "family heads", and that their opinion in the matter under consideration should be considered as representing the entire family. This was abolished upon the resotration of Spainish democracy in 1975.

So this section needs to either: 1) miraculously come up with actually information supporting it (which it currently does not have) OR 2) be removed.

There are no "benefits" of this actually listed. It seems more like an argument for patriarchy, and that is fine, but it is very clearly mismarked.

To be honest, I'd love to be educated on exactly how patriarchy is beneficial to human evolution and how exactly it provides pragmatic reproductive advantages.... Hmmmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicsusi (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Stoic Philosophy and Patriarchy?

In the third section, which is titled the "Benefits of Patriarchy", the following assertion is made:

Patriarchy is advanced as being beneficial for human evolution and social organization on many grounds, crossing several disciplines. Although biology may explain its existence (see below), arguments for its social utility have been made since ancient times. These include elements of Greek Stoic Philosophy and the Roman social structure based on the pater familias,[7] but are also found in Akkadian records of Babylonian and Assyrian laws.

How exactly does patriarchy relate to Stoic philosophy? I can understand the connection between patriarchy and the Roman concept of "pater familias" (literally: "father of the family" in Latin), but not to Stoic philosophy.

If anything, Stoicism went against the common patriarchal thinking of the ancient Greco-Roman world. For example, in his letters, the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca specifically argues that women are as intelligent as men and that they should be educated in philosophy, just like men were. In fact, the very founder of the Stoic school, Zeno of Citium, may have argued for equality between the genders in his "Republic" (The Republic (Zeno)); unfortunately, this work has not survived, and the little we know of it comes mostly from criticisms or attacks against it in the writings of others. Anyway, I am not trying to start an academic debate here, but I do want to suggest that the connection between Stoic philosophy and patriarchy is not very clear. If the original author had in mind something very specific from the works of an actual Stoic philosopher, then that should have been directly quoted. Otherwise, I think that we should avoid ambiguous references or implied connections.

And what, exactly, are these Akkadian records of Babylonian and Assyrian laws that are mentioned? If this is a reference to the Code of Hammurabi, then the connection should be made explicit, not left as vague and ambiguous as it now is.

Someone should quote precisely whatever is being alluded to here or the reference should be removed.

Etymology

I am not happy with the etymology based on the web dictionary. I've copied this from my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It´s the same meanning you can find on Oxford English Dictionary. Jackiestud (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

pls do check the same source at the Oxford English Dictionary. Jackiestud (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The OED in my lap says the English word pater comes from the Latin word pater and that pater familias comes from the Latin meaning father of the family. It does not link either with the word 'pagan' which you are trying to do, it says 'pagan' comes from the Latin 'paganus'. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but where does pater come from? Comes from patris, which in latin and in my mother language, portuguese (latin), means country, village (pagus, pagan)!! In portuguese we say patria or pais (or paese, or pagus) for country! What for you may saound strange or new for me is obvious. Jackiestud (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But even your source does't back that up [1] -

the English word pater

derived from the Late Latin word pater (father)

derived from the Greek word pater, πατήρ (father; a 'father' (literally or figuratively, near or more remote))

using the Proto-Indo-European prefix pəter- (father) You still haven't undone your edit, and if you don't you will probably be blocked.

http://www.myetymology.com/latin/pater.html --Yes but you can slo see there are many derivatins, and they all point to patria (or country) or paese. Jackiestud (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC

Look again, you have it backwards, patria comes from pater. Pagan is from a different roothttp://www.myetymology.com/romanian/păgân.html Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.myetymology.com/italian/paese.html --As ou can see country for paese
2. http://www.myetymology.com/latin/pagus.html --For pagan --pagus (village; country district, community, canton)
3. http://www.myetymology.com/latin/paganus.html --And pagan from paese also --paganus (pagan; countryman, peasant; pagan; of a pagus; rural). Jackiestud (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.myetymology.com/latin/patria.html --Here, ou can see it better: the Late Latin word patria (native land; home, native city) derived from the Late Latin word pater (father) Jackiestud (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.myetymology.com/french/pais.html -Patria, pais (country) are synonymouswith pagan. Jackiestud(talk) 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Patria comes from pater, yet you wrote in your edits "The word pater comes from latin word patris so is this a change of mind? You then make a jump to paese which is not so far as I can see etymologically related to pater. You don't seem to have found an etymological relationship, and paesa comes from pagus, not the other way around. And right or wrong, you broke 3RR and I am asking you to revert so you won't be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no jump at all (first step)

1. pater (derived from patris) or pai is father;
2. paese or pais is country or village;
3. paese (country) is pagus or pagan

Do you agree with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiestud (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Second step:

http://www.myetymology.com/latin/patria.html --Here, ou can see it better: the Late Latin word patria (native land; home, native city) derived from the Late Latin word pater (father) Jackiestud (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

patria, pater >> country >> paese >> country >> pagus >> pagan (derived from the Latin word pagus (village; country district, community, canton (http://www.myetymology.com/french/pais.html)). Jackiestud (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Third step

country = patria = paese = pagan Jackiestud (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But from other editors at my web site: Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Patria comes from pater." Yep, just as the English word "fatherland" comes from "father" not the other way around. I know of no etymological relationship between "pater" and "pagus". --Folantin (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) [edit conflict] Hello, I saw this popping up on my watchlist. I am not sure what exactly this argument is about, but pater (and derivative patria) and pagus (and derivativepaganus) are not considered relatives of each other. The first is a basal word that appears in many IE languages (Greek pater, Gothic fadar, Sanskrit pitar etc.), while according to the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae the second derives from the same root as the verb pango (to fasten). Paese in its turn comes from pagensis, an adjective deriving from pagus (as does paganus). Iblardi (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pater is not etymologically related to pagus. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC) And one other thing. What is the point of the etymology in the article? Etymology does not determine the meaning of a word. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Jackiestud from my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The word pater also means territory --what we call territory is nothing else but country or paese. Jackiestud(talk) 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The link ibetween these two words is the LAND, the territory, the country --or THE EARTH. The jews were the first ever to appear with this word due to the religious persecutions they suffered (check Joseph Campbell) --they lost their territorial identity.Jackiestud (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Any links, any claims that (what?) word is Hebrew, need to have reliable sources making the claims explicitly. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Patriarchy" is Greek, not Latin, in origin: Πατριάρχης means "head of family, patriarch" (πατριά means "house, clan", derived from πατήρ "father"). --Folantin (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to check sources, but patriarchy coming from πατριά rather than πατήρ would be significant. It would show that the meaning of the word in current usage is quite clearly reflected in its etymology. πατριά is in LSJ and BDAG, meaning precisely what Folantin says. Etymology doesn't establish current usage of a word, but in this case it would confirm it. Later this year, if others haven't done it already, I'll fact-check and incorporate Folantin's helpful contribution. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchy: hebrew word

...but attested in the 4th century for the headship of a Jewish community, from the Hellenistic Greek term for such a community leader, πατριαρχης. Jackiestud (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see the source also please. And so what? Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish community bit is actually due to me, and is accurate. Of course it isn't a "Hebrew word", but it was a term attested in Jewish sources from the Byzantine period. The Jewish bit is relevant because the earliest attestation of patriarchia is from that context. --dab (𒁳) 18:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, tks! Yeah, page 20: http://books.google.com.br/books?id=k3NH7dv1OfUC&pg=PA17&vq=pagan&dq=a+pagan+becomes+a+pater+familias&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0#PPA19,M1 Jackiestud (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see on this page, the word pagans refer to tose who don´t worship Yaweh --thus GOD within a male conception. As you can see, reading this BOOK (reliable source???!!), the need of a NATION sentiment, the need of a NATION as a geographic reference excluded the pagans....because they didn´t worship GOD (as a male) or as a FATHER, or as a PATRIA POTESTAS...or a NATION, which lead us to conclude that pagans don´t worhisp god, don´t have a nation nor a father --or a patria. Thus in its origins, they were all pagans, "yokels" --until they could build a religous cult and a religous boundary. It took them a while to do that, as a said, a timeline. Jackiestud (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way there are a lot of people out there who believe that jews still don´t have a nation!! Isarel and friends.... LOL! this is history, basic history, ok? Jackiestud (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope this author, this book and the palestinians don´t bother you, Follantin. You need to learn a lot of basic world history. Jackiestud (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

yes... I think we have been more than patient enough with Jackiestud. This is going nowhere. --dab (𒁳) 19:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting find

Sorry I didn't keep my promise about February, I'll be back later this year I imagine.

But I did find this today, and it should be documented while I remember it.

Patriarchy

The structuring of society on the basis of family units in which fathers have primary responsibilities for the welfare of their families and, by extension, the responsibility for the community as a whole. There are no known examples of matriarchies from any point in history."

—Allyson Julé, "A beginner's guide to language and gender", (Multilingual Matters, 2008), p. 92. ISBN 1847690556

Compare with Wikipedia as at September 2008, stable for about two years.

Patriarchy is the structuring of society on the basis of family units, where fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of, hence authority over, their families. The concept of patriarchy is often used, by extension (in anthropology and feminism, for example), to refer to the expectation that men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole, acting as representatives via public office.

The feminine form of patriarchy is matriarchy. However, there are no known examples of historically matriarchal societies.

(Apart from the silly meaningless weasle "historically matriarchal societies"), congratulations seem in order for the team that built the prior version of this article. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's entry on patriarchy (and based on the attempts of many others, in both long form and short form) is indeed a good one, for such a difficult term. Many anthropologists believe there's no way to strictly operationalize the term, but that it points to a collection of social facts thatneed to be pointed to, including female infanticide, female mutilation, female slavery, women bought and sold, unconsenting marriages, etc., etc. One problem is - does the article want to stick to this more theoretical level (who defined the word) in the lead or close to the top, or does it also want to talk about what patriarchy is (and that it may have pre-existed any terms applied to it). This article seems to be finding balance, which is great. Difficult subject. I too applaud all the editors for giving it a go, it's very hard to edit/produce an article like this.Levalley (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

An irenic post, though removal of standard non-ideological sources on the topic doesn't strike me as an attempt to move towards balance but rather a move away from it (unless one is looking at the topic from a particular ideological POV). Disgusting immoral inhumanity, like that mentioned in Levalley's post, is hypothesized as a consequences of patriarchy within only an explicitly ideological usage of the word (and an extreme one at that). Patriarchy => female mutilation? Female mutilation => patriarchy? Says who? But I anticipate work I hope we will all be involved with at a later point. I concur with Levally's bottom line: it's very hard for co-operative effort to edit/produce articles where a topic has been politicised. But Wiki does succeed at this given time: watch this space. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to Improve

I have attempted to improve this article. Someone has deleted it each time. This is childish. You can insist on your own version of reality until you turn blue, but no one is believing you. Have you noticed? You don't even know the first thing about it. I have made the following changes. You better run your little frightened self right over and delete it again. The improvements follow:

One definition of patriarchy follows: Patriarchy can be defined as the structuring of society on the basis of family units, where fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of, and authority over, their families. The concept of patriarchy is often used by extension (in anthropology and feminism, for example) to refer to the expectation that men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole, acting as representatives via public office. Unfortunately, this definition, in its subtle and innocuous form does not differentiate the role of patriarchs from the role women play in all societies. For example, the following paragraph seems to say that there are no societies where mothers have primary responsibility for the welfare of, and authority over, their families.

It has been argued that Western civilization is predominately patriarchal, and has only recently gravitated towards a more egalitarian form under the influence of the Women's rights movement.[citation needed] The major non-Western civilizations in the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia remain pronouncedly patriarchal.[citation needed] But Hesiod wrote about the ancient Egyptians, "The Egyptians themselves in their manners and customs seem to have reversed the ordinarypractices of mankind. for instance, women attend market and are employed in trade, while men stay at home and do the weaving."1

In addition, pre-Islamic Arab women had more rights than they have today. [1]

The feminine form of patriarchy is matriarchy. However, there are no known examples of strictly matriarchal societies.[1] But if that is true, the fact must be considered that patriarchy, as defined in modern culture, never existed either. Or at least no one knows what it looked like.--Wikifan80 (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - User:XLinkBot is reverting your edits because you are adding inappropriate links. The bot is not a person; there is no "childishness" involved; the reversions are made automatically. I do think, however, that you should seek consensus on the talk page before making such major changes to the lede, even if you do find reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if I do find reliable sources? What a condescending remark. You could not have even seen the sources. Tell me what they were,--67.142.130.27 (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC) if you know.

The source that the bot had a problem with was geocities.com/realitywithbite/arabwoman.htm. Dawn Bard (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take a bot to have a problem with that source. Clearly not acceptable although it might be useful to find some sources that are reliable. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In reading some of the talk pages I have noticed very little real discussion. Also, this particular article has too many problems to even know where to start a discussion. It is obviously biased. I think I was doing you a favor to even try. I did find out which source was the problem. I don't have to indlude that one, as I have two good sources--a quote from Hesiod and also Yaffa Eliach's book 'There Once Was a World.' If you want to discuss my changes, feel free. --Wikifan80 (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good for you Wikifan in attempting to improve the article and provide sources. Please don't be discouraged.

You raise some good questions that have reliably sourced answers in the stable version of this article (look back to say October last year in the History tab).

Unfortunately, a very considerable amount of neutral, reliable and sourced material was deleted without consensus some time ago, along with an unfulfilled promise that constructive work was going to be offered. None was.

We will be sorting it all out in some several months time and welcome any work you do now and any help then.

One thing that might be immediately helpful though. In principle, any published work on the topic is reliable and you are quite correct to document such points of view. Hesiod and Eliach are published, of course you can add them. Wiki doesn't adopt any particular point of view, via consensus or any other form of editorial opinion, rather we document a summary of all published views. But what Wiki states as policy is not what fellow editors always practice. It's nice to see you making a brave attempt to stay patient, Wikifan. I hope you can stay "fan" by nature as well as by name. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is another problem and that is the style of his edits, which are at times unencyclopedic and at least look like WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH -

Unfortunately, this definition, in its subtle and innocuous form does not differentiate the role of patriarchs from the role women play in all societies. For example, the following paragraph seems to say that

Here we have a commentary within the article on another part of the article - including an interpretation ('its subtle and innocuous form') which again looks like OR.

We also have " But if that is true, the fact that patriarchy, as defined in modern culture, never existed either." (which is added to a duplicate entry) - this is definitely original research. I also don't think an encyclopedia is a good source for the claim anyway. But I agree that the article does need work. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I can work with that. I still think there is a problem with the definition. This is a confusing term and the history and uses and misuses of the word should be dealt with in greater detail. This article is an ideological statement, and may lead the discussion in the wrong direction. --Wikifan80 (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitions can be as bad as infoboxes. :-) The lead should be clear that there is no official definition. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Then use the same definition throughout. Yours seem purposely innocuous--men are responsible for the welfare of their families and the community, etc. Yet your denial of matriarchy is based on the idea that women have never ruled. You didn't say men ruled. If you talk about the feminist definition, feminism arose in response to laws, which made women's lives more difficult. Surely you don't mean to say it is better for society if women can't vote, work for a fair wage, etc? --Wikifan80 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand this may not make the subject any easier. I am sympathetic about the difficulties. It seems to me that feminism projected modern problems on to the Judeo-Christian tradition and that is why people think women have more rights now than ever before. I'm not discounting the real issues modern women tried to address with feminist theory, but I think the cause of the problem is entirely different than they think it is. Eliach says that Jewish women in Eastern Europe lost many of their rights after WWI. Then for those who immigrated to America, those rights disappeared completely. She does say that their culture was patriarchal, but judging from her book, the women were the breadwinners and were quite outspoken. Of course she wrote the book after experiencing American culture and was probably familiar with feminist theory. She also says that it was custom for the men to never write of the role the women played in their villages. So again, it is all about the definition. --Wikifan80 (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchy could be said to have three official definitions. In the 19th century it meant only what is mentioned in the first sentence of the article--the "family only" part of the definition. In the early 20th century it got scientific refinement via cultural anthropology--the "public office" definition. In the late 20th century it became a pejorative term for male dominance in feminism, and incorporated into several theories, notably being linked to misogyny.

The definitions are pretty much standard. A problem we face at the page is that some editors only know one definition (the most recent one) and expect that POV to be elaborated here. A more serious problem is the recent removal of all sources refering to any other definition.

What is the publication date for Eliach's book? Does she write as autobiography, historian, anthropologist or sociologist? She makes some interesting observations from a POV different to most I've read. It's really good to have sources like that. It helps break down oversimplifications of topics. The three traditional definitions of patriarchy don't preclude the value of insights from writers outside the usual traditions, so long as we don't try to make out they represent a major tradition. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The book was published in 1998 as '900-year chronicle of the shtetl of Eishyshok.' But she used interviews and oral history and included detail about customs and religion, although she is not an anthropologist. She is a professor of Judaic studies at Brooklyn College. Her Ph.d is in Russian intellectual history. Also, her ancestors lived in Eishyshok. I agree that this is not the place to push political views. I have also noticed that this topic might spill over with information belonging to other articles. It is a challenge...--Wikifan80 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's perfect! :) She's a top-notch historian, published recently (unless it's a second edition). That's a fine perspective. It's not a world-wide view. It's not one of the main threads of debate, but it doesn't matter. It's a reliable source, and you have actually read the book, which is a pretty good place to come from as you start writing yourself. Overshoot with information by all means. Surplus can be cut or copied to other articles or form the start of one. Sourced information should never disappear from Wiki. It's our lifeblood. Inject away. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If I forego arguing about whether it is a world view or one of the main threads of debate, some questions occur to me. What do you consider the main thread of debate? In what way is the clarification of not being a world view important to you, to the article, or to the topic of patriarchy? How would you complete the sentance, this source is not a world view, and therefore...Do you consider the article, as it stands, representative of a world view? And finally, is agreement with a 'world view' a criteria, as far as you know for contribution to wiki?--Wikifan80 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What? No answer? Don't bother sending the big 'world-wide view' sign again. It only answered the last question anyway, and didn't explain why you qualified my source by useing those terms. Try actually addressing something for once. No denial of the charges that were deleted either? Hmmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.146 (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff...where woman lead the society in Shillong in India!!!!

Geographically, culturally all the places in India differ from each other but there is another difference that can be observed in Shillong (Meghalaya). All the states in India have a patrilineal type of society whereas Shillong has the matrilineal society. As compared to other regions here in Shillong, women lead the society and have more status than the men.

The women have the freedom to work for themselves, though they do not have a say in the community matters. The women have a great respect in the society. The society in Shillong does not allow custom where bride has to pay dowry while getting married.

Here women are considered very respectful as they give birth to the new generation. They have to execute all their household duties. Men make the decisions for the family but they have to consult with the women in the household.

Laws of Inheritance in Meghalaya Society Some special rules regarding the inheritance of the property are observed in Shillong.

The maternal property is inherited by the youngest daughter, whereas rest of her sisters would be provided with some part of the property from it during their parents lifetime.

Also there are some practices observed by the tribal of the region. If the head of the tribe dies or retires then the son of his eldest sister will be his heir. It has been seen that women are held very high position in family as compared to social activites where men takes over everything.

Cheers folks!! jazzmand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.166.40 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. It deserves more discussion. For one thing it helps to discredit the idea that patriarchy is necessarily non-egalitarian, as the article states. Also important is the idea that women are honored for their childbearing and rearing role, among other things. Possibly the United States has lost this part of it. It is a very important distinction.

I want to mention another concern. I have researched patriarchia in the article and have found that 1.Two sites are empty--just a place-holders on the web. www.websiteoutlook.com/www.patriarchia.ur and www.alexa.com/data/main/patriarchia.ru One takes you to ancestry.com. One is Filmer's 'Patriarcha' written in 1680. www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm It is a defense of the divine right of kings, derived from Adam. He says the idea of contractual origins of government of original freedom and equality, are fictions. He is the first to apply the term to society in general--not Bacon. Note 2 takes you to answers.com, which is linked to the wikipedia site. This article is there, as well as here. These ideas can easily be refuted, in time. Right now my heart is beating too fast. It appears we are being taken for a ride.--Hammy64000 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Until the late 20th century, patriarchy was not considered to be in conflict with the ideal of respect for all members of society. That is only a theory (and ideology) of the late 20th century, which has never achieved consensus.

The current article suffers because one user presumed ownership of the article and deleted reliable sources despite multiple objections and without attempting consensus. Indeed people have been taken for a ride. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Filmer wrote in 1680 and was very clear that liberty was not the natural state of man. Also, we are not talking here about concensus about whether patriarchy is good or bad. He has defined it as the father holding the power over his family and the king holding all the power over the fathers. The basis of democracy is opposed to this idea. His being included as a source is terrifying. But then, he wasn't actually included, which is more terrifying. What I am trying to say is that this entire thing is aimed at loss of freedom. Not just for women, but for families--for everyone.--67.142.130.16 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the start of the modern story was with the English Revolution, or perhaps with the Reformation. Protestants overthrew Papal authority on the continent, English Protestants later led the way by overthrowing their king. It is mildly ironic that Oliver Cromwell and his Parlimentarians are the origin of modern democracy. Historians do not hold Cromwell up as an archetype of a democratic ruler.

But the point is, certainly modern writing, in English, regarding the value of men and women within society starts thinking decidedly outside the box from this time of social upheaval. It is a strand worth some attention in this article, especially in so far as it addresses antecedents to second wave feminist theories about, and challenges to, patriarchy.

I'm not sure I'm so keen on your thesis that anyone ever proposes social structures on the basis of robbing people of freedom. That's precisely what they often achieve, but not what they advertise, for obvious reasons. Even in Nazi Germany, they had to downgrade people to being Untermensch before justifying the theft of their dignity, property and life. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That is axactly what Filmer proposed. Read his paper. I don't understand how downgrading people is a mitigating factor. Could you expand on this idea? In fact in the book 'Picts, Gaels and Scots' (published in 2004)which deals with the archaelogy of Scotland I found that all the power was in the land. In order for any one person or group to control the land, it was necessary to take power away from the family. So it was the rule of the family vs. the rule of the state.--67.142.130.20 (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted my comments on Bacon. I don't know enough about him to comment about his post-nati arguments. In fact, I would like to know more about the English writing regarding the value of men and women within society and how it addresses antecedents to secon wave feminisim. Thanks for your patience.--67.142.130.24 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The bit about Untermensch seemed unconnected to the conversation. How did it come up?--67.142.130.24 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This article used to have a very summarised broad sweep of the way social changes that challenged established responsibility structures like landed, hereditary legislatures and racial segregation naturally led to questioning patterns of relationships between men and women also. It is probably still covered, in much better detail in other articles.

If you and I are to stand outside things, like other historians do, and pronounce judgment on what factors might be considered as mitigating circumstances for injustices perpetrated by others against others, I suspect we'd all agree injustice is injustice and downright unacceptable irrespective of the warped views that led to those things in various places and times.

But, without being drawn into that, the point I was making is that those warped views are actually actively promulgated where the worst abuses thrive. The concept of less-than-human Untermenschen is an ideology that rationalises man's inhumanity to man across all ages. "They are less than us, they deserve less than us."

Actually, one reason gender relationships have not changed much despite much ink being spilled is that men do not fight wars to defend their wives and children because they consider them Untermenschen. The gift of a diamond ring is not a gesture typical of most slave owners towards their slaves. The division of parental responsibilities is certainly not equable: few men take their turn at breast feeding. But is this a cultural construct? Is a woman's choice to invest time in pregnancy, child-birth, nursing and rearing children, and accepting financial support from a man to do it, an instance of him being slave to her, or her to him. Aren't they both slaves of their children? Our society endorses many ways of liberating parents from the onerous responsibilities of raising kids.

Is the role of father-as-provider (patriarchy) an evil injustice to be confronted, or a responsibility accepted far too rarely by men in modern western democracies? Will a female president of the US guarantee a reduction in single motherhood and women and children being raised out of poverty by responsible men at a grass-roots level?

The modern literature on this subject is extensive, empirically supported and economically and socially significant for the future. A good deal of it makes precious little reference to social theories of the sixties, seventies and eighties, and where it does, it is not to cite such ideas as authoritative.

But here ends the rant. Call it the glass ceiling, call it The Inevitability of Patriarchy or call it preference theory, Homo sapiens has culturally constructed its reproduction contingent on the female biology like other sexually reproducing species. Inequable? Certainly. Outrageous? I don't know. Ah! How difficult it can be to raise the topic of the "facts of life". ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the landed hereditary legislatures and racial segregation were the established responsibility structures, or that they were the challenge to these responsibility structures? Is there an approximate date you are thinking of? --67.142.130.27 (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check articles for exact dates, I'm not a modern historian either. ;) I'm speaking vaguely and generally because there's so much I don't know about it all, just the big picture (I hope). The English Civil War was a very major European turning point in challenging the "divine right of kings". If there's no king to delegate land and responsibilities to princes, dukes and so on, what right do they have to such holdings? If hereditary monarchs and nobles don't do the governing, who does and how? Someone has to govern, who will organise the postal system? Who will organise defence of the nation against ambitious neighbours? The nation needs servants, not priveleged power-wielders. Plato had written about The Republic, idealism (and experimentation) with large scale egalitarian systems is not strictly modern. The American Revolution, though, is one of the earliest and most successful modern attempts in the Western hemisphere.

The point is people didn't just have a revolution and just happen to write a constitution. They were talking and documenting their ideas for years beforehand and years afterwards. They had revolutions in order to implement idealistic constitutions they'd been planning for years. In all their talk, they challenged assumptions, debated controversial alternatives and tried to find principles that were true and good and so would serve all and win all. Some assumptions were not challenged, or not very much.

I can't remember which rather daring woman observed that she'd take some of these egalitarian minded philosophers rather more seriously if they were as willing to challenge the presumptions of husbands as thoroughly as they challenged the presumption of kings. I'm pretty sure that's 17th century and well known. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you would try to pin down the date. You must have a decade or even a century in mind. Also, I don't see here whether you think landed hereditary legislatures and racial segregation represent the responsibility structures or the challenge to those structures.--67.142.130.12 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I imagine 17th century is a good enough ball-park for something as imprecise as a tendency in the history of human thought. Legislature and segregation are structures, not challenges to my way thinking. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that we should stand outside of things, such as factors which lead to labeling people as Untermensch? Or do mean that certain factors might justify such labels? It is not clear what you are trying to say. In any case, it seems that condoning or condemning injustice would be outside the scope of an objective article. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)67.142.130.44 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I choose option A. We stand outside when we say either "Alex is bullying Joe", or "Chris says Alex is bullying Joe". In the first example we stand outside and express a subjective opinion. In the second we stand outside, remaining objective, by quoting a reliable (?) source. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You must mean the 1960's and 70's, the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement--isn't that the date for second-wave feminism? I think the article should include history like this as background, but without any value judgements. I also think it should include an accurate picture of the alienation between men and women. It might also include the nazi phenomenon, if it is agreed that it is an outcome of the idea of patriarchy. All those things should be chronicled, as well as the ideas that supported the divine right of kings.--72.171.0.142 (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the civil rights movement was pretty much concurrent with second wave feminism. I'm not sure men and women are alienated from one another more than, say, parents are from children, probably less so. And I don't know there's any consensus that men and women are more alienated now than they have been at any other time or in any other place. Perhaps high divorce rates would be some kind of measure of alienation, but perhaps not also. Cohabitation is not documented the way marriage is, and would seem to be an important (though far from the only) indicator of co-operative rather than alienated relationships.

I'm not sure divine right of kings or National Socialism are generally considered to be closely connected with patriarchy, except in some radical publications perhaps. I offered them only as illustrations of historical analysis you and I might agree on that forms part of the background to our thinking about how to approach the article, not as suggestions for the article itself. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that the article should support the divine right of kings--this is just one of the historical uses of the term patriarchy, and should be included in the article. Alastair, do think this could be worked out? signed, Hammy

I'm v. busy atm, but will return later to restore a lot of work already done at this page by many people, yet deleted by one user without gaining consensus to remove other people's work, including the accepted best reliable sources. It's OK, everything is still accessible via the article history. But, in the mean time, it doesn't hurt to have a blank and biased page, because it can draw more comment and contribution from people.

So yes, this page provided a lot of reliable information for a long time, and although there were healthy challenges and refinements from time to time, essentially lots of people contributed to providing sourced, objectively presented material from all significant points of view.

Interested parties can search for books with "patriarchy" in the title and summarise what those books say. The hits in Google Scholar give a good overview of feminist use of the word patriarchy. It is certainly the most common current use of the word. It does presume a certain point of view and a certain ideology. We need to report that view, not adopt that view in what we write. Certain things said are not ideological though. The so-called glass ceiling is ideologically named, but refers to a statistical reality that no-one denies. Older definitions of and theories about patriarchy would accept the glass ceiling as being evidence of patriarchy, though they provided different explanations of it to the ones proposed more numerously in recent writing.

Alternative explanations can be found in reliable sources like The Inevitability of Patriarchy and in Catherine Hakim's work. An interesting recent writer called Riddley-Duff proposes explanations based on patterns of human courtship. I'm inclined to agree with him for various reasons. Scientific evidence and theories to support that approach can also be found in Evolutionary psychology, especially work by David M. Buss.

Yes, Hammy, I think we can work everything out if we follow the Wiki idea of respecting reliable sources and including all published points of view. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that even though the 'glass ceiling' describes a statistic reality, it is not the place of this article to use that reality to derive a right or wrong place for women? I think it is this sort of logic that has caused previous objections in this discussion. Like-wise we would go too far to state a position, pro or con, on the feminist use of the word or on any other use. Also, I believe the mention of the alienation between men and women referred to your post about inflamatory statements by feminist writers. They should be reported, not debated. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, what conclusions can be derived by proving that patriarchal systems really exist, as in your post that "older theories about pariarchy would accept the glass ceiling as being evidence of patriarchy?" Has anyone denied that? If that is in doubt, what would be the point of this article? This is very confusing. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is feeling misunderstood here, it may be because there seem to be two different views about the purpose of this discussion, and of this article for that matter. It seems that one party would like it to be a discussion about a certain view of how things should be. But others are trying to contribute to an objective article and just get it done. I think discussions about revolutionary ideas can be valuable, but there is a time and place for them. I don't think that place is in an enclopedia. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Glass ceiling?

The glass ceiling is a nonsense. It implies we do not know why women fail to reach the top in organisations. Men are better at leading, they try harder, and few men or women trust women in power to be fair. Everybody knows it -- 5 out of 6 men and women in the UK hate working for a female boss -- and as Eugene Caruso so neatly showed in February, they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Both men and women are prepared to take a 22% salary cut, to avoid working for a woman.

Please consider my alternative top summary, to get back on track

http://sites.google.com/site/duncanbutlin/Home/patriarchy/Patriarchyfirstdraft.pdf?attredirects=0

As for Wikipedia traditions, I suggest you start ripping some of them apart, starting with anonymous contributors. If someone is not prepared to put his name to what he says, then he’s not worth listening to. Duncan Butlin (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem that challenges based on the anonymity of a contributor are like throwing rocks in a glass house? How did these discerning people allow so many bogus sources for so long? Especially while fighting off certain other contributors on the basis of their sources? It might be better to judge contributions on their content, rather than the name of the contributor. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Hammy

Still on holiday, but nice find Duncan, thank you. Reliable sociological sources are particularly useful at this article.

• Eugene M. Caruso et al., "Using conjoint analysis to detect discrimination: Revealing covert preferences from overt choices", Social Cognition 27 (2009): 128–137.

"In another study using conjoint analysis, we found that undergraduates behaved as if they were willing to give up $3,249 (22% of the available range of salaries) to work for a male, as opposed to female, boss..." (Caruso 2009: 136).

• Dobromir A Rahnev, Eugene M. Caruso, Mahzarin R. Banaji, "Conjoint analysis: A new method of investigating stereotypes", unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, 2007.

Alastair Haines (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

At first I was anxious to confirm to myself the integrity of wiki. Then I somehow got hooked into trying to reason with you. Then, when I realized that wasn't possible, I worried that you were a propaganda threat. These were idealistic concerns. Now I think you are either baiting people or you are frantic about the threat you see in women. Think about it. You would not exert all this energy to make sure that , say, Beagles stayed in their 'place.' "There have never been any societies in which Beagles ruled." Or "The glass ceiling is just a way to say we can't figure out why Beagles can't run as fast as Greyhounds." Oh, my word, you are no threat to anyone. This is just hilarious. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Hammy

I'm not sure if you're addressing Duncan or me. Either way, you'd do well to avoid personal attacks and stick to specific suggestions for improving the article. Glass ceiling is a modern and neutral way of describing patriarchy: men predominate in positions of extra-familial responsibility (and within families) in all known societies including our own. There are many people who "are frantic about the threat" they see in this, and they've written both books and legislation to try to stop it, but it hasn't changed. Others don't think it's such a bad thing or see any need for change. There are three issues: the brute facts of the way things are, the proposed explanations for that, and then the different ideological positions—yay! nay! and (the vast majority) who cares? Alastair Haines (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No response to the beagle analogy? Now I'm really worried about this discussion..:) Alastair, as I have read the discussion (in fact have printed 58 pages) you have semed like a threat to me. But I might have hurt your feelings, and that was wrong. Please accept my apology. No, that was not addressed to Duncan. Duncan, I would like to read your proposal, but I'm hesitant to download from an unknown site. Can it be put here? Thanks. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I already posted my suggestion above, but here it is again for clarity:

=========

Patriarchy describes societies where men are in charge, both in public and in private life (1). Male aggression has made all societies patriarchal up to now (2), but over the last hundred years the Women’s movement has progressively feminised the West (3) -- weakening its patriarchal nature. Yet matriarchy, the female equivalent of patriarchy, is a myth: there has never been a society ruled by women (4).

Strong patriarchy still survives in parts of the Middle East and Asia, where men control women through leadership and courage, and women control men using manipulative skills and clever insight. These differences are programmed in the genes (5) -- biologically determined -- so sexist behaviour happily and naturally permeates every level of such societies (6).

113 words

1 Margaret Mead, Red Book, 1973 (Review of Steven Goldbergʼs “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”). 2 Steven Goldberg, “Why Men Rule”, 1993, Open Court Publishing Company. 3 Francis Fukuyama, 'Women and the Evolution of World Politics', Foreign Affairs, Sept. 1998 4 Margaret Mead, Red Book, 1973 (Review of Steven Goldbergʼs “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”). 5 Sex and Cognitionʼ, Doreen Kimura, MIT Press, 2000. 6 Innumerable Feminist Tracts!

===========

I believe this avoids bias, while addressing the real sex differences that are behind the phenomenon in an open, if somewhat controversial manner. Duncan Butlin (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think that proposal was suggested quite a while ago--on March 1. Kaldari objected because it presents a single point-of-view, namely that of strict biological determinists such as Steven Goldberg. (Not to mention that it is blantantly insulting to women.) His words. I thought you had a new proposal. Now Kaldari and Carol are gone--it seemes to me that their suggestion were helpful, but they were fought off. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alistair, the beagle remark was not intended to be just a joke. It applies to this discussion in several ways. The main one is that this bickering about the primacy of men, inevitable or not, is often seen as part of the chase or even terms of endearment. But if you substitute the word beagles for women, one might be compelled to ask, 'What did beagles ever do to you?' This queston is never posed in the human gender wars, I think because the atmosphere is too charged. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Listen, it is not entirely the fault of modern men and women that we fight like this. I think we have been set up. Gloria Steinem was closely associated with the CFR. Sandra Day O'Connor also, among others. But the Council was founded by ambitious men. See http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna10.htm. Also, "Rule by Secrecy" by Jim Marrs. (published 2001) Alastair and Duncan, it is so important that you begin to really work with others here and give up your rhetoric. I pray you are not one them. I have never been a part of the feminist movement, but I think you have been suckered in and are continously charging the red flags they are holding up in front of you. (As well as maybe some of the chase thing...maybe..:) Please don't come back with the same dogmas as before. I don't know if I can endure that at this point. Also, does this page need to be archived? I don't know how, but please leave the current talk. Thanks. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss elimination of Encyclopedia Britannica as a source

I am ojecting to the Encyclopedia Britannica being used as a source. It may be connected with an anti-liberty agenda. (See CFR and Skull and Bones below) Also, it includes statements that are controversial and unsubstantiated. That combined with the unreal discussion on this page and the fact that at least one influential feminist received a scholarship from the CFR and that the bickering on this page is only a small part of the strife that has been perpetuated in the human family by this kind of duscussion, is too much of a coincidence.

In "Rule By Secrecy" by Jim Marrs it says of the Aspen Institute (just one of the tax-exempt foundations and alphabet agencies listed) "The institute was founded in the 1940's as the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies--the appellation regarding humanism was dropped in the 1970's. Founders included Walter Paepcke, a chicago industrialist; Robert Maynard Hutchins, president of the Rockefeller-dominated Universtiy of Chicago; Mortimer Adler, a philosopher; and CFR and Bones member Henry Luce, the powerful head of Time-Life publication. All of these men were closely connected to the University of Chicago-affiliated Enclopaedia Britannica, Inc."

Compare Mirriam Webster's definition of matiararchy; 1 : a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch 2 : a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line

Also, noun pl. matriarchies -·arch′·ies 1.a form of social organization in which the mother is recognized as the head of the family or tribe, descent and kinship being traced through the mother 2.government, rule, or domination by women Etymology: matri- + -archy Found in http://www.yourdictionary.com/matriarchy

Also, 1. a family, society, community, or state governed by women. 2. a form of social organization in which the mother is head of the family, and in which descent is reckoned in the female line, the children belonging to the mother's clan; matriarchal system. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/matriarchy

The Answers.com site includes the Wiki article on Matriarchy, so that would be like useing Wiki as a source. But the choice of Britannica was selective at best--there are too many other dictionaries that do not go into the feasability of the social system. --Hammy64000 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Hammy --- Please excuse the title, but I find it impossible to talk to you without assigning you a sex. You talk like a woman -- far too strongly, in fact -- so I will address you as one. Far from being extreme, Professor Goldberg’s approach is very modest, focusing as he does on just one parameter of difference. Doreen Kimura, the world expert in sex differences in cognition, enumerates many more. He also avoids mentioning the aggressive and violent foundations upon which dominance is based, out of deference to feminine sensitivity.

Men have never denied the influence of nurture, while women very frequently deny nature. It is thus women who are extreme. Nor is it insulting to identify sex differences -- you are just a little startled at being put in your place, after being allowed to roam free for so long. There are many things women are superior at -- including insisting they are equal to the opposite sex -- but I won’t bother to go into those, for you are very good at listing them out for yourselves.

Patriarchy is a good way of organising society because it recognises the sex differences and build them into its structure: family, community and nation. That’s why it lasted for so long. When women have too much power, sex differences are denied and nobody knows their roles anymore. Hence the demise of the traditional family, the rise in promiscuity, and the ensuing damage to our children in modern times.

So, Ms. Hammy, take a deep breath, calm down, and consider my proposal once again. Sex differences are real, men make better leaders, women are devious creatures, and to try to define patriarchy without mentioning these facts is an exercise in futility. Duncan Butlin (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You have already proven yourself either unwilling or incapable of working wth others. You can't be serious with nonsense like this. You obviously like the discension. I do not accept your proposal. Neither did Kaldari. The reasonable thing to do in this case would be to respond to such clear objections in a way that changes your proposal in some way. The idea should be to bring the article up to standards that warrant the removal of the warning tags at the beginning of the article--the ones about the neutrality being challenged and the sources being inadequate. You seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Am I to assume from your remarks that you consider women unqualified to take place here? On what planet is this kind of thing taken seriously?

If there is no discussion about the Encyclopedia Britannica, I will assume there is no disagreement about its questionable nature as a source in this article.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My last entry has been deleted twice. There is no discussion about this. Who is doing this? I will keep putting it back unless someone fesses up. --Hammy64000 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see a message when you edit saying that you have new messages (on your talk page)? I suggest you read what I wrote there - I assumed that you had. Also, look at the history, click on the history tab at the top of this page. We expect all editors to leave edit summaries explaining what they've done (no insults there either please). I've asked everyone to stop making personal attacks, and I've removed the last few. Please everyone, do stop. If it continues, it's likely that I or another Administrator will end up blocking someone. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't ever go to my talk page, and since my post was not insulting to my knowlege, did not suspect this was a disciplinary action. This is quite strange. --Hammy64000 (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of my comments

As I recall I stated that a contributor tended to disregard anwers to his proposals and then present them months later, as though they are new. Here is the discussion as found above on March 1. Good morning, folks,

While the cat’s away, the mice will play . . . Carol Moore, Kaldari, and dab -- how about it? Can we consider making changes without Alastair’s approval? I have dutifully read all those Wiki references you steered me to, and have made up my own mind about proper Wikipedia manners (see my User page). In fact I sent them to Jimmy Wales, though he denied the charges and appears to be unimpressed. Accordingly, I’d like to suggest the following replacement for the two introductory paragraphs:

Patriarchy describes societies where men are in charge, both in public and in private life (1). Male aggression has made all societies patriarchal up to now (2), but over the last hundred years the Women’s movement has progressively feminised the West (3) -- weakening its patriarchal nature. Yet matriarchy, the female equivalent of patriarchy, is a myth: there has never been a society ruled by women (4).

Strong patriarchy still survives in parts of the Middle East and Asia, where men control women through leadership and courage, and women control men using manipulative skills and clever insight. These differences are programmed in the genes (5) -- biologically determined -- so sexist behaviour happily and naturally permeates every level of such societies (6).

113 words

1 Margaret Mead, Red Book, 1973 (Review of Steven Goldbergʼs “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”). 2 Steven Goldberg, “Why Men Rule”, 1993, Open Court Publishing Company. 3 Francis Fukuyama, 'Women and the Evolution of World Politics', Foreign Affairs, Sept. 1998 4 Margaret Mead, Red Book, 1973 (Review of Steven Goldbergʼs “The Inevitability of Patriarchy”). 5 Sex and Cognitionʼ, Doreen Kimura, MIT Press, 2000. 6 Innumerable Feminist Tracts!

Here's a link to it in PDF form, if that is more convenient: http://sites.google.com/site/duncanbutlin/Home/patriarchy

If you can spare the time, I’d be delighted to hear any comments, Carol Moore, Kaldari, and dab. Duncan Butlin (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is Kaldari's answer

Your suggestion can hardly be taken seriously considering it presents only a single point-of-view, namely that of strict biological determinists such as Steven Goldberg. (Not to mention that it is blatantly insulting to women.) Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet Duncan is addressing me about the same proposal. No response to the previous reply by Kildari and no compromise. I chose not to say this the first time, as I assumed Duncan was aware of it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My comments are also being deleted, so I am retiring from the conversation -- at least for now. My brain cannot deal with such a chaotic environment. Duncan Butlin (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Retiring is wise Duncan, wait until I have time to invite a few people to moderate discussion here.

All that's happened is that late last year Kaldari removed sourced material without attempting discussion or consensus. Several other people, seeing that no one was upholding Wiki policy, removed even more material and added a little unsourced personal opinion.

Kaldari clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. I doubt he's ever seen a copy of any of Goldberg's books, let alone read them or any of the reviews. If he had, he wouldn't make such ridiculous unsourced personal attacks on the canonical source re patriarchy, namely Goldberg.

When there's time and people to do it, we'll restore the stable version of the article, with a few sourced additions that have been provided since Kaldari's unilateral censoring actions.

At that time we'll also seek to accomodate as much as we can of what you'd like to see in the article. In fact, you are ideal for us, because the one thing this article has always been really lacking is a case for the benefits of patriarchy. Duncan, you are just the man to guide us in that, if you can bear patiently with our insistance that your work is sourced and expressed from the NPOV.

In the mean time, you might like to build your experience as an editor by refining the Patent article, or any number of engineering topics where your expert knowledge of sources would be invaluable. Wiki willing, we won't keep you waiting for ever. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI for any silent listeners

This post is for the benefit of any silent listeners and not aimed at any recent contributors. FYI, Kildari, who is accused of deleting good information is an administrator. You can search for his contributions to this discussion on this page. He may also have posts on the archived pages. I will do a search later. You should determin for yourselves the value of these contributions to the discussion.

On the other hand, you can also search for Duncan's recent contributions. Especially instructive would be his post of May 17, at 11:44. I would consider this to be important information for anyone interested in the direction of this article. --Hammy64000 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kaldari's good contributions elsewhere are no excuse for poor behaviour here. To his credit he has 11,000 mainspace edits and a featured article.

It is, however, disappointing that the founder of Wikipedians against censorship should not declare his active membership of the Feminism Task Force when deleting scientific evidence that contradicts claims made by some early feminists. Systematic bias and conflict of interest are real issues.

Wikipedia must present all reliably sourced points of view neutrally. Capitalists cannot delete communist sources, nor religious groups delete atheist sources. Sources and readers rule. We cannot compare Kaldari and Duncan either, all editors are equal at Wiki. No editor is worth any more than the sources they contribute. Deleting sources is unconscionable. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Listeners--read the comments of these people and decide for yourselves. If you don't, you have no one to blame but yourselves. If you take the time it will all become very clear. --Hammy64000 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of speculating about editors, this page should be about understanding and summarising sources. I'm on holiday atm, enough has been said for the time being. Readers here are encouraged to consult reliable sources and contribute them, and discouraged from commenting on one another. That goes for you too Hammy. It's unlikely Wiki contributors can ever keep up with all the reliable sources being printed, there's always room for more contributions. Carpe diem ("Just do it", in Latin) :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Listeners, if you read you will see whether it is about sources or about editors' views. This is only a wise move for anyone considering investing time on this article. In any case, readers should be willing and able to see what has been said previously. You might start by wondering why it would be necessary to argue about this.--Hammy64000 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hedges

I "trimmed" this section that seemed off topic to me:

• During the 19th century, scholars such as Johann Jakob Bachofen advanced the idea that matriarchy represented an early stage in the development of human society. ref name="Bamberger" Bamberger, Joan. "The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society". Woman, Culture, and Society. Stanford University Press, 1974. /ref According to Bachofen, humans originally lived in a state of sexual promiscuity, where descent was traced exclusively through maternal lineage. This gave women a position of honor and power which was lost when human societies transitioned to monogamy.ref Bachofen, Johann Jakob (1861). Das Mutterrecht: Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur (in German). /ref This view, however, is now largely discredited, and both anthropologists and sociologists generally agree that human society throughout history has been patriarchal. ref name="Britannica"/ ref name="Bamberger"/

It's also covered in summary fashion in an earlier article section. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph about the earliest writing is a problem. The first pages that come up on a search for 'what is the first written language?' are WWW.ethiopianreview.com/content/2678. It is an unsourced document with no author listed. The comments on this article are derisive. Also, the Torah would not have been in written form at that time. Another search result is www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/sc.young-htm. The theosophical society is an occult organization linked to the religion of the nazi party. I propose deletion of the paragraph, or of part of it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The sections on Patrimonalism and Paternalism should both be deleted or moved to articles concerning those terms. Wikipedia isn't an etymology dictionary, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia. Right now we seem to have more text devoted to concepts that are related to patriarchy than we do about patriarchy itself. Kaldari (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the related words section

The reason that related words might be important here is that calling a culture patriarchal doesn't reveal much about that culture--only that fathers are the heads of families or tribes and maybe of a centralized government. Some patriarchs may not have paternalistic attitudes and agendas. Then, in the 17th Century the concept of patriarchy was honed to support political ambitions. (which can only be described by some of the related words, sich as paternalistic) In this case, any resulting government may not favor fathers, as a group, any more than it favors mothers, although that government might be served if men believe they will benefit. Today when patriarchy is discussed, it looks as if ordinary women represented by feminism are on one side and husbands and fathers are on the other--with no discussion of the political history and no way to really understand previous cutures, or our own culture. Comments?--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV (specifically WP:WEIGHT), this article should concentrate on the most commonly understood current definition of "patriarchy", which is a social hierarchy in which men have a dominant role in virtually all aspects (not just the family). I'm fine with having a small section discussing the etymology of the term and giving brief explanations of related terms, but any detailed discussion of related terms should be moved to separate articles about those terms. Right now this article doesn't even do a decent job of discussing patriarchy. We should concentrate on that before worrying about the related terms, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be brief. But if anyone is advers to including it it could be specified that the topic is limited to patriarchy as defined by, for example first or second wave feminism. I'm a little surprised about the turn this has taken. It seems to me that feminism objects to paternalism by definition--not patriarchy, although this has never been cleared up. --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Feminist literature rarely criticizes "paternalism" (at least not using that word), however, its criticism of "patriarchy" is ubiquitous. It is not our place to question the linguistic veracity of feminist criticism, merely to reflect what the sources state about "patriarchy". Some people have attempted to reclaim the word "patriarchy" from the connotations given to it by feminists, but the connotations (which involve concepts like paternalism) are still alive and well in both feminist and mainstream use of the term "patriarchy" (and with good cause). Kaldari (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Which sources are you using? Feminist or mainstream? It should be clear in the article--at least the relatively recent nature of the connotations should be mentioned. Do you think mainstream sources differ from feminism? In what way? It's fine with me which ever way it goes. I won't be devastated if I never see tis article again.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the feminist movement brought the term "patriarchy" into popular culture, there really isn't a huge difference between the feminist and mainstream definitions. The term was mostly just used in academic contexts prior to the 70s. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but this only illustrates the confusion inherrent in discussion like this. One point is that if you are presenting a feminist concept as a definition the whole thing is POV. Second, even limiting the discussion to feminist theory does not free you from discussing patriarchy in a historical perspective. Wasn't the feminist definition dependent on the Old Testament Patriarchs or what modern feminists saw as the source of modern problems, having influence on our society through the Judeo-Christian tradition? In this light, an artificial separation from historical uses of the word and from cultural comparisons is not an option.--Hammy64000 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Universality of patriarchy

Per the results of the AfD debate, I have merged in the contents of the article Universality of patriarchy. I've kept the wording from the original article pretty much intact for now. Please, feel free to edit and revise it. Kaldari (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchy is one of these universals: is there any truth in this assertion? I'm certain I've read about matriarchal societies, for example, in Africa.

Nuttyskin (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Patriarchy in feminism

I would like to propose merging Patriarchy in feminism into this article. Kaldari (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The unanimous result was merge into patriarchy. Kaldari (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Support

1. Support: Patriarchy in feminism is an unnecessary fork from the main patriarchy article and most of its content is simply a duplication of Patriarchy#Feminist_criticism. The section here should be improved and expanded before being split off as a separate article, per summary style. It still needs a lot of work before it is at that point, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
2. While I think that there is definitely scope for a standalone patriarchy in feminism article given the vast, vast literature on the subject, the current article is poorly written/verified and Wikipedia's coverage of the topic in general would benefit from a merger. I'd echo Kaldari's comments on splits and summary.  Skomorokh  22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Good idea. Keep the main ideas here until this article needs splitting. Would we lose any page history with this technique? That's my only possible objection. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Any text that is merged in from Patriarchy in feminism will be credited to Alastair Haines in the edit summary as he is the only significant author on the subarticle. Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Support. Duplication of part of patriarchy and it's harder to type. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Per my points at the Universality of patriarchy afd - the concepts explained here are central enough to Patriarchy for it to be a central part of that page. I see no reason for it to be spun off, at least at this point - right now it's just a content fork-Cailil ^talk 14:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Male dominance

I just googled "Male dominance," looking for sociology-related information on the masculine tendency to seek domination, and was a little amused at the Wikipedia article on Male dominance I found. Should Male dominance perhaps redirect to an article like this, and Male dominance be moved to Male dominance (BDSM)? Other sources on "Male dominance" do not seem predominantly to be about sexual practices. Sestibel (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed Male dominance into a disambiguation page. Thanks for the heads up. Kaldari (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, it looks like this particular article is going nowhere fast. There doesn't seem to be any opposition left--or maybe I should say any interest. I don't know why someone doesn't just go in there and make it say what they want it to say--finish it up once and for all. --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Easier said than done perhaps :) Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Then it must be a stand-off...:( --Hammy64000 (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no stand-off. Someone just needs to take the time to do the research necessary to write a better article. The problem isn't too many cooks in the kitchen, it's no cooks in the kitchen :) Kaldari (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove incorrect information

1. The second paragraph is incorrect. It is not known if patiarchy has been the dominant mode of social organiztion throughout history. Also the term and its use (to further political agendas) predates feminism. Finally, the claimed privilege of patriarchy was refuted before feminism. This paragraph should be removed. 2. The relative length of the 'Feminist criticism' section belies a derth of constructive criticism It is an embarrassment, and probably a big hurdle to the perception of neutrality. Put this in the feminism article. Feminisism is just not that central to this topic--except by rite of modern trends. Shorten this to a mention and reference the feminism article. 3. I haven't been able to find the quote attributed to Bacon. The post nati arguments took place in a court of law in a case brought to determine if a citizen of Scotland could own property in England. Even if this quote is there somewhere, and it applies to this article, Bacon was not the first to relate family organization to state rights. Remove this source. --Hammy64000 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Cut the last paragraph too. Cultural anthropology is notoriously biased, and this is not a patriarchy sales pitch. --Hammy64000 (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay...you could start something like this... Patriarchy

Patriarchy has been defined as:

1. (Christianity) the office of a patriarch a patriarchate 2. A social system in which the father is head of the household, having authority over women and children 3. A system of government by males 4. The dominance of men in social or cultural systems http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/patriarchy

Patriarchy also may include title being traced through the male line. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=patriarchy

Since at least the 17th Century the term, with the social organization it implies, have been at the center of controversy involving cultural, as well as social and political questions, from the rights of monarchs to relationships within the nuclear family.

Etymology and related terms

Aristotle said that the city-state developed out of the patriarchal family, although the two were different in kind as well as in scale. (Two Treatises of Government, p. 49)

The term patriarchy is used in Christianity as an official title, and derives from the Greek ‘patriarches;’ and from the Latin ‘patriarcha.’ However, the term was borrowed from the Jews and was, at first, merely a title of honor. In the Roman Catholic Church it is the highest office except for that of Pope. It became an official title denoting hierarchy in the 8th or 9th Century. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm

Jean Bodin agreed with Aristotle in his Six Livres de la Republique, that the family is the basis for the state. (1576)

Sir Robert Filmer, sometime before 1653, completed a work entitled “Patriarcha,” which was not published until after his death in 1680. Its intent was to defend the divine right of kings as having title inherited from Adam, the first man of the human race, according to Judeo-Christian tradition.

John Locke in “Two Treatises of Government,” published about 1688, refuted Filmer. His editor, however, made a note of his inconsistency in attributing natural law to the governance of relations between a father and his children, while stating that the law governing relations between a man and his wife is based on legality, or on Eve’s punishment after the Fall. (P. 49)

Also in the 17th Century, Sarah Grimke, questioned the divine origin of the scriptures and published the Woman’s Bible, which proposed a feminist reading of the Old and New Testament. Later, this tendency was enlarged by Feminist theory, which denounced the patriarchal Judeo-Christian tradition. (Google Books: American Feminism, Ginette Castro, pp 31)

In 1861, J. J. Bachofen, a German romantic and writer of the counter-Enlightenment wrote that matriarchy preceded patriarchy, and is superior to patriarchy on moral grounds. (17-18). Durkheim and postmodern culture

By Stjepan Gabriel Meštrović

Bachofen influenced Marx and Engles. However, in “Natural Women, Cultured Men” R. A. Sydie says that although Marxist analysis has been a basis for feminist thought, the current women’s movement was inspired by the disillusionment women experienced in the new left and civil rights movements of the 1960’s and early 70’s. However, the problems associated with Patriarchy still predominate in feminist theory. (115)

Today, anthropologists who mention Bachofen conclude that he was wrong in claiming that matriarchies preceded patriarchies, but they usually add that the issue can never be resolved. Meštrović says that while scholars will never have sufficient data to settle the question of whether matriarchies preceded patriarchies, the question is important on several levels, including that of myth. He says that while the past age may be dominated by the myth of matriarchy, our current age is dominated by the patriarchal myth. Durkheim and postmodern culture

By Stjepan Gabriel Meštrović

Related terms include patriarch, patriarchate and patriarchal. --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving all discussion of patriarchy in feminist theory to Feminism is a non-starter idea. The page is already 4 times the suggested length of 30 kbs as a summary style article and can't encompass any detailed coverage of anything. --Gimme danger (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Feminist criticism section currently takes up a disproportionate portion of the article. This is partially due to the fact that it was recently merged in from the POV-fork "Patriachy in feminism". Feel free to edit it down as appropriate. I'm afraid that I can't agree with the statement that feminism isn't central to the topic, however. Feminism wouldn't exist without patriarchy so I think the article definitely needs a section on how patriarchy is related to feminism. It shouldn't comprise the bulk of the article, however. What this article really needs, IMO, is expansion. The biology vs. sociology section is way too short at the moment, and there is very little discussion of the history of patriarchy, as you point out above. It definitely doesn't need more etymology though :P Kaldari (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This answer is helpful. I agree--feminism should have a section. I could edit it down, but maybe there is someone more qualified to do that section, using your comments to decide what parts are crucial to this article. I will work on the other sections and put my suggestions here for discussion. Thanks. --Hammy64000 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging in patriarchy (anthropology)

If you have any interest, please weigh in on the merger discussion at Talk:Patriarchy_(anthropology)#New_merger_discussion. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aristotle

I had a hard time verifying your information on Aristotle's views on patriarchy and government. The reference you cite in Two Treatises of Government seems to only talk about Filmer's views, not Aristotle's. It looks like there might be information about Aristotle's views in Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy, but unfortunately, I don't have access to the book. We're going to need solid, unambiguous references, or even better, quotations, if we want the history section to withstand scrutiny. (And believe me, it will be scrutinized sooner or later.) Also I should mention that I edited down a few sentences since the section is quite long. Still needs more editing though. Kaldari (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain

What views? Aristotle's or the critique of his views? Please be more specific so I know how to answer. Either way, it won't be hard to back up. For example have you ever read Thomas Acquinas' Summa Theologica? It can be compared to Plato and Socrates, as well as Aristotle.

Aristotle's views, as I said. Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I went to the web page referenced in the first change to the history section. It does not say that. I propose deletion of this change until sources are provided. Otherwise, anyone beginning to read the history section will think it is the same old stuff and never read it.

Also, on the Bible excluding women from the covenant, first of all, none of it was written until the 6th Century BCE. Second, the Adam and Eve story involves mythological characters. Josephus says that even Moses was speaking 'euphemistically' when talking of the patriarchs. The Hebrew mythology is comparable to other myths of neighboring people. Another source is 'The mythology of the Hebrews.' No Bible scholare I have read would dare say such a thing as this change has said. This paragraph needs to be deleted also. If necessary I will provide sources. But I can't believe this would be necessary, as this contributor added this information without discussion and I have never been allowed to add anything. This is original research. Delete it.

I will tell the contributor what I have been told--do not add this kind of thing without discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"None of it was written until the 6th Century BCE". Yes, I know, it says that in the article. 1st millenium BCE includes the 6th century BCE. Why is that a reason for criticizing the inclusion of the information? Of course the story is mythology. Maybe it needs to state that more plainly. Having an article about Patriarchy that doesn't mention the influence of the Adan and Eve story is a bit strange though, don't you think. It needs to be in there somewhere. If you don't like my version, feel free to write your own. And why do you claim that the section is unreferenced? It has 4 citations? What about it is unreferenced? Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I can include more information about Adam and Eve, but the last I heard the section was too long. Of course, the Jewish leaders after the destruction of the second temple participated in the downplaying of women's roles and of women period. This should probably be included--however, not much is known about women in the Jewish religion before that time. There are just clues about customs, etc. I have a source for this, but would have to find it. My objection is to the claim that women were left out of the covenant because of Eve's part in the Fall. This is an interpretation that can have no factual support. The Adam and Eve story does not say this. I will put a suggested treatment of this here--I don't have time today. --Hammy64000 (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The part about Aristotle saying the city state developed...etc. is in the notes at the bottom of page 49. Please tell me if you don't see it. I had a student edition from the library. --Hammy64000 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. The original version doesn't have any notes :) Please include the full information about the edition you have in the citation. Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I will give this information as soon as possible. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that the section I added, minus one sentence, was the result of the merger from patriarchy (anthropology). I just added the extra sentence so that there was some more specific information, as the existing sentence about the Hebrew bible was very vague. Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize this. I'm glad you didn't write it. It claims these things as facts, but if anyt;hing, it should be documented as opinions and sourced to the original theorists--also transition them into the article in the proper place on the timeline, after discussion here! But the content is outrageous, in my opinion. --Hammy64000 (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits should be discussed

The early leaders of the Church were not necessarily a product of Hebrew culture. Many had a background of paganism. And they were all--Hebrew and pagan alike--Helenized. Please discuss these things with me before changing the article.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Further, do not throw out objections based on a book you don't have or haven't read or made notes on. Get it through your library or through inter-library loan--that's what I did. Also, I don't see the point in telling me to tie down information that is already sourced in the article. If there is a problem with the sources, discuss it here. Thanks. --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem may be that the article is refering to Aristotle as quoted by someone else. I think I have found a direction for study to clear this up. This is why I put the article on my page and also put the history section here for discussion. This didn't need to take place this way. I really did want comments before the new history section was added. --Hammy64000 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll get Two Treatises again and make sure I have the right page numbers. --Hammy64000 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) In the meantime I changed some of the page numbers for Two Treatises--please see if that helps. Sorry--Hammy64000 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

I was simply saying that if we are presenting Aristotle's views in the article, we should source them to a work that actually presents his views, rather than merely a reaction or critique of his views. I'm actually curious to know what Aristotle had to say on the subject. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have a better source for Aristotle. I'll put suggested changes here--hopefully tomorrow.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered, there was something about patriarchy being documented from 3100 BC in the middle east. I believe it was sourced to a wikipedia article on the middle east--not to a scholarly argument for this claim.

And I never thought you wrote the new paragraphs--I thought I recognized the writing and the claims though, and it was shocking. I wasn't expecting to see that. I am relieved to know how the additions got there.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the section you're talking about:

According to English language professor Robert M. Strozier, historical research has not yet found an "initiating event" regarding the origins of patriarchy.(Strozier, Robert M. Foucault, Subjectivity, and Identity: Historical Constructions of Subject and Self p.46) Evidence of men exercising sexual and reproductive control over women can be found dating back to at least 3100 BCE in the Ancient Near East.(same reference as previous)

I checked the citation myself and it pans out. Is there anything wrong with this section or should I put it back in? Kaldari (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Foucault is a theorist making inferences based on other theorists already covered in the time-line. I didn't see where he argued independently for there being no initiating event--it was a quote of someone else or an inference based on a statement from somewhere else. His sources are the Stoics--or was it the Sophists--representing Greek philosophy, and Freud. So, to include it would give emphasis to these sources, rather than offer new information. In addition, it implies that the existing time-line is not accurate. Do you think it is not accurate? We could discuss this further if you are not comfortable with it.

If this source is important to you, and if you want it in the history section it should be transitioned somehow as an example of a contemporary writer arguing from one of the traditions already covered--in other words, from a combinaton of Greek thought and Freud's theories. I do not think the underlying claim of no initiating event will stand up to scrutiny, but it is an interesting illustration of this type of thought. If you would like to include it just the way it is, I suggest putting it in another section. It is a discordant addition in the history section.

That source only referred to the initiating event part, right? I went the the Ancient Near East Article and didnt see where it said the part about the exercise of sexual and reproductive control since 3100 BC. I may have missed it though... --Hammy64000 (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The citation is Robert Strozier not Foucault. I think it's useful to say at the beginning of the History section that no one knows how far back Patriarchy goes, which is basically what Strozier is saying. If you have information stating otherwise, please share. Kaldari (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not the point. We are working with the information we do have. Hopefully it is accurate as far as it goes. History sometimes involves putting clues together, but the clues must be documented somehow. These new paragraphs don't fit--at least not the way they are written. I have tried to explain this. Although I do not think they are of high quality, I am only asking for them to be rewritten to fit the style and organization of the history section--but only if they have reliable citations. You seem to be saying that you want some kind of disclaimer at the beginning of the section--or to say that patriarchy might go back further, even though we don't know how much further. Why? We have not claimed to know anything that is not documented.

The Strozier book is out of print but I can get it through inter-library loan if you still disagree. At this point I only know what I read on the Internet about Foucault.--Hammy64000 (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It was Strozier's book I was reading--it's about Freud and the Sophists. It should be treated as an illustration of that kind of thinking and not put like the only real authority at the beginning. And he is not saying we don't really know--he is saying that he and Freud do know

On page 21: What I have chosen to look at here are two narratives of subjective origin, by the Sophists and by Freud, in Totem and Taboo. The points at issue are two: That culture is produced by the Capital-S Subject; and that within these narratives gender is occulted.

It is all about how the primal horde consisted of bands of males and the sons killed and ate the fathers. It is a theory. But Freud is the guy who said anatomy is destiny. Or at least in the draft on my user page. This is only one theory among many.

I would like to add that Freud was a drug addict and prescribed cocaine for his patients, who also became drug addicts. (Cocaine, an unauthorized biography. Dominic Streatfeild) --Hammy64000 (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the record of Locke's Two Treatises according to my online library catalog. Both copies are checked out and the soonest I can look at the book is sometime after the 28th of this month. Do I put this information in the article in the same place--after the information cited or do I type it in the footnotes section?

Author: Locke, John, 1632-1704. Title: Two treatises of government / John Locke ; edited with an introduction and notes by Peter Laslett. Edition: Student ed. Publisher, Date: Cambridge [England] ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1988. Description: 464 p. ; 23 cm. Series: Cambridge texts in the history of political thought ISBN: 052135448X --Hammy64000 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Put it within the reference. So you're saying that the history of patriarchy should not mention (1) that the origins of patriarchy are ambiguous and (2) the influence of Hebrew culture/religion, particularly the Old Testament. I'm a bit confused by this. Kaldari (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's break it up into two discussions, so that it's less confusing...

Influence of Hebrew culture/religion

I think it is important that we discuss the influence of the Hebrew Bible and the mythical story of Adam and Eve somewhere in the history section. Right now you just randomly mention Adam in one paragraph and Eve in another paragraph without sufficient context. I know you didn't like the version I included, but I'm inclined to add it back unless you have a better version to offer. Considering how important the myth of Adam and Eve is to Christian patriarchal apologists (both modern and historical), I don't see how we can fail to discuss it whatsoever. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we do not want to come across as Christian apologists. But hopefully that is not the impression so far. If I were trying to sell something I would not have talked aout the uses made of patriarchy by Catholicism and Protestantism. If you want something about Adam and Eve, surely you can do better than saying women were excluded from the covenant. I have already argued against that and will include an argument in more detail in the next day or so. You didn't say you disagreed on that. If you have read my answers you know this is not the problem. The prblem is the particular paragraphs that were added. If it is so important, why have you not put them in another section as I suggested? I have already said I was working on this and that it should be included. This article has had some very serious issues for more than 2 years. I don't see the necessity of putting in questionable content this minute and before we have finished talking about it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. The covenant sentence wasn't mine, and I didn't like it much either. I'll see what else I can come up with. Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Origins of patriarchy

The current beginning of the history section seems to imply that Plato and Socrates invented patriarchy. How would you suggest that we improve this, or do you think we should just leave it as it is? Apart from it being misleading, IMO, it also seems to be systemically biased, i.e. playing into the antiquated tradition of Western academia in which all history originates with the Greek philosophers. Patriarchy doesn't just exist in the Western world, it is a global issue with diverse origins. The history section should not be limited solely to the classical definition of patriarchy. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of the history section also implies that the Greeks were already patriarchal before Aristotle. The Greeks were Indo-Europeans who invaded Greece in several stages. The people they invaded were not Indo-Europeans and had different customs. There is research suggesting that Indo-European customs came from the East. One complication is that there were different customs even among tribes of the same race--for example the nomads of Palestine and the Arabian peninsula. The Indo-European invsions of Greece begain about 4000 years ago. So obviously patriarchy could be that old--but I haven't seen any details about this. However, the first waves invaded people with a superior culture and were assimilated into those customs. Plato and Socrates probably didn't invent it. I didn't say they did. But they did influence the flavor of the Helenization of the most recently conquered people.

The antiquated tradition of Western academia fails to question the nature of Greek influence and its value to later cultures. This history section certainly does not follow that tradition. This is a beginning in the understanding of how we got the way we are. I'm flattered that you think I can explain it all in detail, but I'm doing the best I can. I am researching some things now and will put a draft here as soon as I have it finished. --Hammy64000 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Distinction

I think I can explain how I see the history section and possible additional sections. The history section deals with the history of the idea and uses of the concept. It includes major voices in this history, such as Greek philosophy, defense of monarchy, etc. I don’t see a place for assertions that arise from any one faction, unless it is to illustrate a view. We could go into the individual ideas more in another section. So, the treatment of Adam and Eve, if it is in the history section, should stick to whatever is known about the historical concept—the story was a myth made into history. The myth was probably quite old, but the use of it in the Old Testament was relatively recent.

Although I know you are not attached to the idea of women being left out of the covenant, it is a good example for what I’m trying to say. The most anyone could say about the story is that the writers of the Old Testament had this exclusion in mind when they gave the myth historical form. And that is not known—it would be an arguable interpretation. The history section isn’t the place for that argument. And to say the initial event resulted in the exclusion of women makes no sense. For one thing, the covenant was unheard of in the life of Adam and Eve. --Hammy64000 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So if our history section is a history of the idea of patriarchy, where do I put information on the history of the practice of patriarchy? Personally, I would prefer a more holistic approach that combines the anthropological, sociological, and philosophical aspects equally. If we were discussing the anthropological history, for example, it wouldn't mention Greek philosophers at all. Perhaps we can get more of a balance. Kaldari (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it difficult to discuss hypothethical information. Please put any drafts you have completed here for discussion. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Second section for 'definition'

This section is a problem. Your source, Wood and Eagly (2002, 2005) proposed a biosocial origin model This is not a cut and dried fact, but it is presented as so. And it was not originally written as as definition. See http://www.duke.edu/~wwood/evolutionary.html

On the 'Status of women in pre-industrial societies, Critics have questioned Whyte's conclusions. http://books.google.com/books?id=cshaqqoV-kMC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Whyte+(1978)+The+status+of+women+in+preindustrial+societies&source=bl&ots=xeOwZtvuT9&sig=Dofq1c3SAjAdjTqgh5I05jAvRa4&hl=en&ei=3L6RSqbwOpDOsQPk140M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Also, the new definition section does not mention this is a study of pre-industrial societies. I didn't see this edit discussed anywhere.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's from the merge. See the article history. Kaldari (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Merges can't be discussed?--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) The timing and placement of these merges are curious. I was under the impression that the articles to be merged were not worthy of a separate title. This makes sense. But the placement of the material, and the question of whether it fits here, both need to have a separate discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The merger discussion lasted for 2 years! After 2 years of discussion, the merger was finally agreed on, the content was moved, and then you promptly deleted it all. The merger discussion was advertised at the top of the Patriarchy article and at several WikiProjects. It is you who did not participate in the discussions. Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason why all of the merger discussions finally reached consensus is the same reason you are able to edit this article in peace now: an RfA decision which banned a problematic editor. There's nothing "curious" about it. You were welcome to join the merger discussions at any time. Complaining about them after the fact isn't helpful, however. Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You resurrected an old discussion! Why?--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Also, the deletions had detailed rationales on the discussion page. You did not respond to those. This is the first hint that you were indignant. --Hammy64000 (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to be rather oblivious to the history of this article, I'll try to sum it up for you. For the last 3 years a particular editor acted as if he owned this article and used it as a platform to promote the views of Steven Goldberg, who he was apparently obsessed with. Because of this unending conflict, the article split off into numerous POV forks: Patriarchy in feminism, Universality of patriarchy, List of patriarchies, List of matrilineal or matrilocal societies, Patriarchy (anthropology), etc. After going through the RfA process (which is extremely long and tedious), the problematic editor was banned. I've been trying to clean up the mess ever since. At first I tried nominating the forks for deletion, but since the forks had lots of citations and the POV was generally not obvious to outsiders, it was impossible to get consensus on the deletions. So instead, I started working on merging the articles. Cleaning up this mess is not a fun job, so I apologize if I seemed indignant. Kaldari (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll forget it--even the part obout my being oblivious..:) I was aware of the reason for the merges. But the sources were problematic and the additions did not fit into the article organization, as I said. I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I left the merge discussion to you but I couldn't have known how the material would be added. I explained how I saw the problem with the additions. Maybe we can use those things in another section for the expansion of the views. A dialogue sort of thing. We should make an extra effort if they represent bonifide views, not to mention the time you have spent and your good intentions. I'm sure it did seem as though you were abused, but intentions aren't always clear in the typed words. I took the additions very seriously, but I'm happy to discuss things further.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you put the additions here in the discussion? I will try to put them in a separate section to show you what I'm saying. Of course, we can discuss it before adding anything to the article.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

When I said the sources were problematic I meant that they represent views of various people but they were put in a section that was only about names and dates in the development of patriarchy--I did not mean that they are not published sources.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I just felt that the merged material should at least be considered since the consensus of the discussion was to merge it (rather than delete it). Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I have thought about Strozier since we talked about him. He uses Lerner, a feminist as a source to make his own points. I want to include this kind of thing--maybe in the socioological views. This seems ironic, but I think it happens a lot. Maybe a section about theories of history and the effect they have on this debate. I am still following up on the sociological theories you mentioned, but the books are not here yet.--Hammy64000 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for history and feminism sections

I've added more information about Artistotle's views. I would appreciated any comments or corrections. It is at [2] Also, I want to talk about the feminism section. First I guess it is technically true that patriarchy has been dominant througout history--or at least in the official history of our culture. But there is increasing evidence that there are entire races of people who have been erased from history. So I'm not comfortable with giving the impression that the human race just naturally gravitated to patriarchy. It also seems increasingly clear that political movements and sociological theories are part of the confusion--not part of real clarity. So it would be better to note the thoretical basis for any authors writing in this tradition, although it is useful to include the views. Also the historical period in which they lived...For example Mill followed in the tradition of Locke and others like him. He also shared the prejudices about women that existed in his era, even though he argued for women's rights. I'd appreciate any thoughts about this and will wait until later to discuss more of the feminism section.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that I should have participated in the merge discussion and if I have an opportunity, I will in the future. At this point I would like to work with whomever is interested on improving the feminist section, respecting the consensus that was reached to move it here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As we discussed some time ago, Aristotle's views need to be expanded or explained. Also, the sources were Christian, which was unnecessary and might cause some to think this is a Christian apology. I added information about Socrates and Plato. Also, I think I"ve improved the sources. Since this was already discussed and the changes are on my rough draft, I'm assuming this won't be a problem, but I'm open to further discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The history section has been wikified. Let me know if it needs more. --Hammy64000 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I added information on the story of Eve to my rough draft. I have a lot more material but don't know where to put it. Maybe in the Eve article? The draft is at [[3]] --Hammy64000 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Might need a source for the St. Augustine bit though. Kaldari (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--I fixed the source--that paragraph should have been with the one following it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider feminism postmodern?--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time, check out the biology/Culture section on my rough draft. It's a rough, rough draft. I would like to do it better, but the theory is complex and there is so much of it. The sources will be added later. They are Durkheim and postmodern culture by Mestrovic and Natural women cultured men by Sydie.--Hammy64000 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a great essay, but I'm not sure it's great for an encyclopedia article. Particularly, it is overly detailed and somewhat argumentative. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be general summaries, not in-depth analysis. Also it seems to be venturing into POV territory. You should be presenting all sides of the argument without favoring a particular one. In this case it seems you are discrediting the sociobological point-of-view. As much as I agree with that, such arguments are not appropriate for Wikipedia. For example, you can't say "Some of the problems with this approach are" in a Wikipedia article. Instead you need to say, "According to such-and-such, the problems with this approach are". Otherwise it appears that Wikipedia is taking a position on the matter. Kaldari (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, try to keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should be accessible to a general audience. You seem to be writing for a college-level audience, not for the general public. You might need to explain things on a more basic level. Your paragraph about Freud, for example, would be very difficult for an average person to make sense of. Kaldari (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I was dealing with information overload and made several starts before I got this down. It can be changed. As far as the feminist critique goes, argument would make sense I think, but I will look at it again.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The trick is to present the arguments of others (and properly attribute them). The article itself, however, cannot make any arguments, per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I think you've got some great stuff to add to the article though. I hope my response wasn't overly negative. Just trying to give some constructive criticism :) Kaldari (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I made quite a few changes but the page isn't working. Part of the text is missing when I save the page. It also says at the bottom that it was last modified with tomorrow's date--unless I'm too tired to read it right. I'll check it tomorrow and see if it's better. Thanks for your suggestions..the sociological theory was a lot more work than I thought and for some reason the section wouldn't go together. Everything had a source but I deleted a lot of it. I thought you were saying it was just too much and then it started to seem mean--so it's gone.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to share some thoughts about the direction of the biology section. Feminism is more central here than I realized. It is the only voice that addresses the male-centered ideas about sex roles. Engels and others talked about a matiarchal period, but Engels gave the problems of women second place in his theories of class struggle. The others had their own agendas too. Add to this the evidence that sociology didn't take feminist ideas seriously, and it becomes clear that their criticism must be stated clearly in the article. Then, although Mestrovic may have some constructive ideas, he wants to stress the feminist tendency to be combative and their call for female power. He's calling for peace but, from the evidence cited in this article so far, the war was not declared by the feminists. In this light a rebuke to the fiminists is absurd. I think feminism does have some issues, but I can't say that in the article until I see them described in an unbiased source. The feminist material I have read is concise and addresses the ideas in a responsible way. Also, their basic premises about this struggle are repeated in, "Modern Sociological Theory". I agree with your comments about the section, but you have also helped me to clarify these points. Does this explain my direction, even though it was probably too strong on some points?--Hammy64000 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

At this time I am requesting that you fix my user page so that all of the material in the edit page shows up in the rough draft.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the broken references. Was there anything else that needed to be fixed? BTW, I know you're probably getting sick of me criticizing your work rather than helping to write it, but it looks like you have completely replaced the sociology section in your version, i.e. your version discusses sociological arguments about the theory of patriarchy, but it doesn't mention anything about the actual sociology of patriarchy. For example, that patriarchy is more prominent in cultures with less economic development. Also your version mentions that there are "theories about gender", but don't mention what these theories are, and just says they aren't "completely integrated into sociological theory". Since gender theory is actually very prominent in modern sociology, this claim seems a bit absurd. Sociology has a lot to say about gender and gender identity and that should be explained in the article rather than completely glossed over. As Wikipedia editors, we need to be presenting all sides fairly and equally, not presenting them based on our own judgements. Kaldari (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think your Biology v. social construct debate section is too focused on the history of the debate rather than what modern scholars have to say on the subject. It basically reads like an extension of the history section. Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps your "Biology v. social construct debate" should be added into the history section and we should retain a separate Sociology section devoted to discussing what modern sociology has to say about gender relations and patriarchy. Kaldari (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted things last night and then when I couldn't read the text I stopped working on it. First on the criticism, I prefer criticism to silence. I haven't read the section lately, but I"m sure it's pretty toothless. I will be working on it today. On the theory about patriarchy--this section is first about the biological argument justifying patriarchy--not about patriarchy. I'm sure your impression is correct there too, as I changed it without adding anything new. This is part of the problem with this section--the fact that patriarchy is important, but it is difficult to address it without adding too much information. On gender in sociology--Gender theory did not exist until feminism developed it. Both my sources say that it is still not integrated, etc. Any real work on this is going to cite feminist theorists. On the history focus, it was more about theory before I changed it. I will be fixing that. NO, I think the history section is long enough. But please do not stop giving me your impressions--they are important. I would like to talk more about this after I have fixed the draft. --Hammy64000 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that feminist writers largely developed gender theory, especially in regard to patriarchy, but that was 20 years ago. Sociology has largely caught up in the meantime. You might be surprised to learn how closely modern mainstream sociology agrees with the feminist analysis of patriarchy (sociobiology excepted). Gender identity/roles as a social construction is the consensus view these days, not an obscure theory. Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, then the short and sweet route would be the way to go. I've spent too much time just getting acquainted with the arguments and the participants and it's been really hard to narrow it down. I am in agreement that the social construction consensus makes more sense. I even see that it has more support in sociology. But presenting the arguments is not that simple. Is sociobiology all put in a slot now, nice and neat? I'm assuming it is still being pushed. I took a cultural anthropology course as an elective in 2000 and I see now it was word for word sociobiology text book stuff. Also, I have one book that is feminist perspective and one that is general sociology and they agree. So I know it is not obscure theory just because it is feminism. Personally, I am more interested in the study of culture, which I see as more reliable than theories which depend on evolution to explain culture and to outline history. If a sociologist would like to write this section that would probably be better.--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a short and sweet version on the rough draft.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We could also leave what is already in the biology section--just add to it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Hope I don't sound snappish--I didn't know this would be so complicated. The paragraphs that are already there bring in Darwin, who was influential, and are well stated. There is no reason why they shouldn't stay.--Hammy64000 (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it seems a bit odd that the history section doesn't mention coverture or women's suffrage. Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for biology vs social construct debate

Starting from a foundation in the theories of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin, many 19th-century scholars formulated a linear theory of cultural evolution. One hypothesis suggested that human social organization "evolved" through a series of stages: animalistic sexual promiscuity was followed by matriarchy, which was in turn followed by patriarchy. This description was later refuted by most experts studying the subject.

However the biological justification for patriarchy did not begin with Charles Darwin, and work is currently being done on biological theories of human behavior. Today these theories have proponents in the field of sociobiology. Sociobiology regards the genetic structure the prime motivator of social behavior. It follows that natural selection favors individuals who maximize their genetic fittness. A key factor in maximizing genetic fittness is the parental investment in the offspring. Since females have a greater investment than males they behave differently than males. Also, this investment in offspring leads to mutual exploitation between men and women. Conflict arises when both partners try to persuade the other to invest more time. According to R. A. Sydie, sociobiolgists believe that these theories explain female coyness and male philandering and aggressiveness. D. P. Barash thought they illustrated the biological necessity of women being relegated to the nursery and men deriving satisfaction from their jobs.

The most fundamental critique of sociobiology has to do with its tendency to comtinue the partiality that plagued the discipline of sociology at its inception, when only the male view point was represented. Biology was used to explain women's social roles by Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

Originally, it was the feminists who called attention to this partiality. Sydie argued that as long as female reproductive capacity is seen as an essential difference, affected very little by social relations, then even Marx's theoretical equality of 'true love' is mythical. (Marx and Engels thought that when private property was abolished, patriarchy would be abolished also. But monogamy would not necessarily disappear; it would be transformed into "true sex love".) Speaking of sociobiology in particular, Sydie said that its theories challenge the subject matter of sociology, because they propose a biological determination of behavior, the source of which is individual genotypes. In its claim that anatomy is destiny sociobiology is also seen as a challenge to feminist theory.

Most sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that social and cultural conditioning is primarily responsible for establishing male and female gender roles. According to standard sociological theory, patriarchy is the result of sociological constructions that are passed down from generation to generation. These constructions are most pronounced in societies with traditional cultures and less economic development. Even in modern developed societies, however, gender messages conveyed by family, mass media, and other institutions largely favor males having a dominant status.

--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. A couple comments...

• "It is thought these theories explain..." Thought by whom? Sociobiologists? Some writer in particular?
• "...even Marx's theoretical equality of 'true love' is mythical." This part went over my head. Perhaps it should either be elaborated or removed.

Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the sources and explained the true love comment. I"m not sure if parenthesis is the best way. What do you think about shortening the feminism section--it doesn't all apply to this topic. And it's long. --Hammy64000 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, it begins with that assumption about patriarchy being dominant throughout history, which is not proven--and that particular sentence has no source. Then there is the paragraph that says it is only because feminism is considered the opposite of patriarchy that the word has a negative connotation from the feminist point of view. Also, the article mentions de Beauvoir only to relate her denial that she started second wave feminism. Finally, I"m not sure what is meant by the 'blame it on the patriarchy' paragraph. The section has potential as an aid to better perspective, which may be what the author hoped to do. It could bring in the postmodernists a little more--maybe have a different title, like feminism and postmodernism. I think it could be done without discounting any participant in the discourse. On my sources--would a postmodernist perspective from 1992 be obsolete for any reason?--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That section is a total mess. I imagine anything you replace it with will be an improvement :) Kaldari (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an evolutionist I find the dichotomies presented between cultural and biological evolution to be false. No-one within evolutionary theory holds this either/or position. The interplay between proximate and ultimate evolutionary causation is the interplay between biology and environment, i.e. culture. To present contemporary Darwinism as biologically determinist is innacurate.

Also some inclusion of the work of feminist evolutionist Barbara Smuts is essential here - 'the evolutionary origins of patriachy' http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6116ut1287632t3/ Also the work of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. MariaGloriosa feb/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaGloriosa (talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific wording you would like to suggest for the article? It definitely needs improvement, but I don't think anyone currently involved in the article has expertise in this area. Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of patriarchy

Were you saying to just go ahead and add the new material? If not, please look at the postmodern section on the rough draft. I had the sources in there, but there was a blocked source, which deleted all the new section, so it has to be done again. I'll fix it when I add it to the article. --Hammy64000 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reply at User talk:Hammy64000/Patriarchy. Also, have you abandoned your idea of doing a section about both postmodern criticism and feminist criticism in favor of treating them separately? I don't see anything about feminist criticism in your draft. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The challenge with writing a "Feminist criticism" section is that all feminist writing is criticism of patriarchy. Thus you would have to distill the sum of all feminist writing, from Mary Wollstonecraft to Julia Serano. Ideally it should almost be a summary of our feminism article. Kaldari (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Sorry, I haven't checked this page lately. I'll get back to you soon. --Hammy64000 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There are aditions to the rough draft. Assuming the technical stuff will be done for the sources, I'm hoping it can replace the feminist section. I printed that section and looked at each paragraph.

The first one--the "throughout history" stuff already mentioned is a problem. Then useing John Stuart Mill--he shouldn't be used without qualification. He was like Locke in his agenda--according to Marxist analysis they only wanted to replace the status quo rulers. This explains their denial of property rights to women. The next paragraph--if you could relate the slavery stuff more directly to patriarchy it would work better, but it would still be sort of rambling I think. It sort of sounds like there was the attempt to define feminism as an offshoot of Marxism, or at least of the civil rights movement. Also, de Beauvoir is only taking up space--it is hard to see why she is mentioned at all. There is no detail about her thought. And I'm focusing on thrid wave feminism as the clearest opposition to patriarchy--I think it says this in the feminism article.

Next paragraph is nonsense. I won't waste space on that. The next paragraph is ok, but I really don't think we still need to argue that patriarchy has been hurtfull. Also, I am making the point that it hurts everyone.

NExt, Dworkin's argument about equality is beside the point. Plus it might have value, but needs a lot more discussion to tie it in. I think this is a discussion for a basic feminism article--not for this article.

Finally, a discussion about women's rights and how far they still have to go is only indirectly about patriarchy. Also, it assumes that we are talking about something that all feminists find relevant.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The tag on this article still says it need additional citations. If this is true, please list the problems here so they can be fixed.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Universality of patriarchy

If all we're going to have in that section is a quote, can we just ax that section? It seems like a POV-magnet anyway. I don't think the article losses anything by removing it. Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing section per WP:SILENCE. Kaldari (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The bibliography and external links belong to the older version of the article. I would like to update those sections. This would involve deleting some entries.--Hammy64000 (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please include sources for additional material

Jimtaip, can you add your source for the following addition? Thanks. "These words derive from the Latin word pater ("father")." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.33 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed above quote from Jimtaip, as the source was not provided--67.142.130.44 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

inevitability of patriarchy

Alistair, are you making a point with this long table? The title, "Inevitability of Patriarchy" suggests that you are attempting to claim inevitability rather than illustrate an argument. If so, what is your point? I propose that you make a shorter contribution in the patriarchy article and link it to the inevitablity of patriarchy article that already exists. I also propose a change of heading.--67.142.130.44 (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

correction: universality. My arguments remain the same as with inevitability. I would also like to point out that universality was not denied in this article, so your purpose here is not clear. --Hammy64000 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

There was an additional, short article on either inevitability or universality of patriarchy when I looked earlier. I can't find it now.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a new section

It might be a good idea to present and analyze the anthropological arguments justifying patriarchy. I kept the most recent addition proposed for this article and have a direction in mind. For one thing, it might be helpful to clarify the differences between societies termed patriarchal. If, for example, even ancient Egypt could be called patriarchal by current definitions, and lumped in with Aristotle's defamatory explanation of society, then an important part of this discussion is being ignored. I can put any proposed material on my rough draft for review.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Change to first paragraph

This paragraph had two sources before it was changed. I believe the editor did not sign in when making this change. As it is now, the source only refers to the last sentence. Please provide a source for 'eldest male' sentence and the first part of the definition or remove your change.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The citation that was removed was a citation to Wiktionary, which does not meet WP:V. I've added a citation for 'eldest male' as requested. In general, citation are only required in the lead for controversial or questionable assertions (see WP:LEADCITE). It doesn't seem like the 'eldest male' addition would be controversial, but since you have challenged it, I suppose a citation is warranted. Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My first source said nothing of descent being traced through the male line so two sources were used. We might as well use the new source alone since it includes all of the ideas.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was necessary to research anthropological claims of patriarchy, so I've done a little research on Alistair's table. I believed his addition must have had sources making these claims--but it seems to be a copy of a table on wikipedia with columns added by him claiming the majority of the societies are patriarchal. Here is one source that Alistair said defends patriarchal culture, but it looks like the opposite is true.[4] This doctored information is on at least 2 other websites, so his insistence on putting it here as well is just eerie. Given this editor's interest in patriarchy I'm sure this will have to be addressed again in June. I am aware of some archeological arguments and will work on the new section based on new information.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he was mostly relying on the work of Steven Goldberg. I remember seeing some discussion of Goldberg's sources in American Anthropologist, but I don't remember where. Regardless, I don't think such a table would be appropriate for this article. Apart from it's questionable assertions, it is far too detailed and specific for a general encyclopedia article such as this. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is too long--I can use part of it as an example of that argument. Now that I see the source it will be easier to make sense of it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did Steven Goldberg go to school? There is nothing about it on the internet. Also no mention of his birthplace. Did he go to the Chicago School?--Hammy64000 (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have done some more research. I can not get any information by calling City College of New York. I get recordings and people who dont' know anything. I left several messages but have not had returned calls. I called the mayor's office, the Stste Department of Education--that was weird. I called a number in Albany and got LaGuardia College, a part of the City College system. I have left a message at the governor's office. There is an article on the web about the Mayor giving additional funds to the college system--creepy. Is New York occupied and no one told us? You said you saw his sources in American Anthropoligist. That is part of the American Anthropological Association. This organization has a review of Goldberg's 'The Inevitability of Patirachy' and it is scathing. They don't take it seriously at all. I saw the first page on Jstr. I'm going to the university here today to get a copy of the article.

Maybe you should try to find those sources. In the meantime I will delete any material that I find to be from Goldberg--even indirectly. I have ordered his book, so I will know. If someone has information about his credentials, then please share them and if they are verifiable, then he can be used as a source.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the sources were mentioned in Eleanor Leacock's criticism. Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I called the university. They have that one and another one I did't know about. I'll get them both and see what I can find out. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've calmed down--if everyone was having fun seeing shocking statements pop up in the article once in a while, I just didn't get the joke. To me Goldberg's stuff is the opposite of fun. I think if he's been treated well enough to be reviewed by anthropologists and allowed to intrude here, for example, and he is not an expert at all--he's had it pretty good. He's hardly a pitiful character at this point. Yet people have been giving him such thoughful answers, as though he's for real. I don't get it. --Hammy64000 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be restoring Goldberg to this article in a few weeks, since he is widely acknowledged as best secondary source on the objective data.

No one's interested in your opinions Hammy. Wiki does not provide the "sum of human knowledge" by censoring reliable sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find information about him--I started out thinking he may have gone to the Chicago School of sociology but could find nothing about him. I did not set out to discredit him. Since I made calls and sent emails I've had spam in a new email account, and other odd things have been going on around here. The last Goldberg info you put in the article was not sourced to him. It was a table of anthropologists that I later found in wikipedia. But there was a column added claiming the societies were all patriarchal. I have discussed additions before adding anthing, and also before deleting anything. The source for the Akkadian records was requested long before that part was deleted. I insist on the same consideration from you. Stop being such a renegade and maybe you can get something done.--Hammy64000 (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Bradv (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (hammy64000)

....I didn't see this request before now. I can only say to read the discussion carefully. Alistair Haines, 1. Is obstructive, although individual comments sound impartial; (he was involved in more than 2 years worth of the discussion and the article was still incomplete and in dispute.) 2. Will not discuss changes he makes to the article, although he has been told by administrators to do so. 3. Has threatened me that my editing actions would be used against me. See the article history. I'll provide the date if necessary. 4. Has used fake sources and has doctored sources.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs and/or discussion regarding Alistair Haines using fake or doctored sources. SpigotMap 15:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

SpigotMap, are you speaking for Alistair Haines? First you were on the side of Ari, and now you are asking about Haines? What is your interest here? I thought you were taking the part of an unbiased authority--or at least appearing to. Why would you declare yourself in this way? Any evidence I have will be presented in an official inquiry. You can read it there.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The third opinion process is for helping out with two different points of view, or resolving a potential edit war. What you've provided is a complaint about another editor. This belongs on wikiquette alerts instead. If you have a specific issue with the article I will gladly help with that. Brad 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are too many issues to keep them all straight. Sorry. The complaint about an editor is connected with the article. I thought because you querried in two separate articles that this had a different focus. I was right in the first place not to start with this. Please read the discussion. It is pretty clear. I can't explain it in a sentence, especially if you are asking about the underlying ideas. That is impossible. Are you saying you are going to figure out the sources and material and scholarly positions? I can't imagine.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry again--confusion of issues again. This article doesn't have issues--only potential ones connected with a questionable source and the corresponding editor's refusal to discuss additions and deletions. Apparently, this is the wrong avenue for this problem. Thanks for trying.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Alastair Haines)

Hammy is a valuable contributor to this article. The article has a complex, but not too complex history, I believe the best way forward will end up being to merge a reviewed version of the article, stable for two years, with the small quantity of information that has been added since. It may or may not be decided that the resulting text needs trimming. It may or may not be decided that it needs expanding. It's an important enough subject that it should be brought to featured status, which would also force the involvement of a very broad range of editors of all kinds of interests. Discussion at this talk page should probably be moderated, and editors reminded to address text and sources, not the subject itself or other editors. This should probably be done without threats of conduct processes. I am busy with other things at the moment. But since I started at Wikipedia thanks to a tag on this page saying "Please help", I have some affection for it, and am willing to work with others to get it to a form that has neutrality written all over it. That is likely to take some time, and certain to need a diversity of people. I would appreciate replies to my talk page, because I simply don't have time at the moment to check my watchlist. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Hammy64000)

I did not see that Alistair had added his viewpoint. Please compare this article with his version and decide if his opinion that a "small quantity of information" has been added since he had the article to himself, represents reality. This is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard. Or ask Kildari. He knows exactly what this article was like before. I just can't believe how I worried about being too hard on him and all the time he had written this nonsense and still planned to try another takeover. It is pathalogical!--Hammy64000 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion by Bradv

....

Regarding Third Opinion

I originally came to this article from the Third Opinion page. I decided not to take it because there was no clear statement about what needed a third opinion. I see third opinion has been requested again. The request consists of "Check the edit histories" or "Read the Discussion" and "You will see". That is not really acceptable for the use of third opinion as other editors are not familiar with this article. You need to lay out what the issue is regarding the content dispute. Third opinion is not for the conduct of another editor. SpigotMap 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I contest your claim that you came as an official third opinion. You did not say that is what you were doing and you provided no forum for duscussion. You are apparently connected to two editores, Alistair and Ari. How can you think this is making sense?--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, although I have no past editing history with either said editor and no history editing this type of article. I didn't take the Third Opinion here, I merely chimed in on the edit war going on here and your attacking other editors. SpigotMap 16:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I responded to the third opinion request, along with several other requests at the same time. It appears that a few of these requests involved some of the same editors, which has caused some confusion. To clarify: I am not here to engage in any discussions about editors, but I am willing to help with content disputes. Brad 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Brad, I hadn't questioned you yet. However, in view of similar claims made by various editors, I would like to ask you to bow out of the third opinion on the Miraculous birth article. I did wonder how the two articles were connected for you.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hammy64000; be advised both articles have been delisted from the 3o page. If you want another opinion you need to relist it or go through the proper channels to seek further guidance. SpigotMap 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)