Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 1

message: If men control the government, or are in all the "leadership positions" in society, but somehow refrain from dominating or exploiting women, would it still be considered a patriarcy? In other words, is exploitation an essential element of the definition? Also, if men fill a majority, but not all, of the leadership positions, is it still a patriarchy? --Wesley
* Actually it is not "men" who make a patriarchy, (as you can see around you, not all men rule and the most are exploited, too). Pater means father in Latin/Greek, and goes back to Indo-European languages where it shows up fist (with the emerge of patriarchy, 5000 BCE). In pre-patriarchal societies the word father (patr) didn't exist (other than mother, which is one of the oldest words in all regions of the world). And when the word father emerged it didn't mean the biological father who cares about his children, as we understand it today. From the beginning the term was an abstract institutional expression of hierarchy and rulership. Father stood for the image of rulership, the ruler as the law and as god. (cp. godfather, father in heaven etc.). (Since my mother tongue is German I will not edit the text, but I know about the subject and can help here on the discussion page and please feel free to add my words to the article in proper English. If you have questions or want sources, please ask.)-- sybilla 21:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: patr is uncontroversially IE. What people did and believed prior to 3000 BCE is not known with certainty because we have no documents prior to that time (see History of writing). Alastair Haines 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In the Marxist narrative of history, yeah.  With each historical transition, the relations of production change.  women => serfs => laborers   Or so the story goes....  Billbrock 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is exploitation the definition of Patriarchy?

message: Would you say that it should be discussed here - or does it deserve a separate article? Google search nets less then 20 hits on the patrimonalism. I spelled it after Reinhard Bendix book Max Weber - An Intellectual Portrait. Max Weber in discussing the traditional authority differentiated patrimonalism (maybe another term is used for it nowadays?) as an advanced version of patriarchy (see the traditional authority article for the definition and discussion). So far I created a temporary redirect from patrimonalism to patriarchy and wonder if we should:
* leave the discussion of patrimonalism on traditional authority page
* move it to the patrimonalism article
* move it to patriarchy article
* do some combination of the above?
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have made brief reference to patrimonialism as word (and practice) related to patriarchy, which it is, so something should be entred under this article. Patrimonalism assumes patriarchy, it focusses on the highest patriarch -- the monarch. Have mentioned legal legacy. Have also linked to the more substantial entry under traditional authority. Recommend: the Traditional authority material be copied to a main entry on patrimonalism, with See also: Traditional authority and Patriarchy at that entry. Alastair Haines 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patrimonalism 

message: For translations/ethymology from Greek or Latin I like to use Perseus Tufts, i.e. for arché:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%233418
--sybilla
:Noted, thanks for this great resource link sybilla. :D Alastair Haines 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: "Other authors have condemned feminists for trying to replace patriarchy with matriarchy, an equally harmful system."-this sentence seems to be saying that matriarchy is a harmful system and that patriarchy is an equally harmful system. I personally agree, but would like to know if that can be taken as "fact" that these systems are harmful? And, could I have the source on that?(I am sorry if I did this wrong.)-user blogger111
:I think that comes from the idea that there's nothing inherently better about women, and that it doesn't matter which group it is that has the extended privileges and power.  from the analysis that patriarchy is bad and that there's nothing inherently better about women, you conclude that matriarchy is also bad.  I gather there are some feminists who insist that women are, in essence, better than men and should rule in a matriarchy, but strains such as radical feminism would disagree with this 'essentialist' position and equally oppose matriarchy.   --Doviende 00:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both these important and relevant ideas are included in the text of the current article. Thanks for your input Blogger and Doviende. Alastair Haines 07:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Matriarchy

message: Now this section is not editable it is left with innaccuracies and intentional mis-information . The personal opinions and prejudices of one point of view should not be able to prevail . The writer of the text which is now available has also given wrong information and openly ridiculed an organisation which is doing serious and academically authentic work in anthropology. If this can happen there is something wrong with the Wikipedia system. I think the idea of a 'stable text' remaining when the is controversy is right, but to leave the vandalised text in place defeats the whole purpose. It is not a piece of writing one would wish someone to read who wanted to get a general meaning of  patriarchy as an anthropological term.
Paula Clare, 21 december 2005. 9.52PM
:I note the presence in this entry of a paragraph that is crammed with deliberate falsehoods.  It reads thus:
::"Against this thesis is raised more and more emotionally-charged political opposition, today, from a new branch of social science, called modern Matriarchal Studies (see: matriarchy).Two World Congresses on Matriarchal Studies took place, 2003 in Luxembourg/Europe and 2005 in San Marcos, Texas/USA, based on a different definition of matriarchy and demonstrating that the concept of matriarchy as "women's or mother's rule" is wrong and male biased (see: www.hagia.de/, at this website both World Congresses are presented). No anthropological professionals were invited to these meetings. The 2003 Congress is perhaps most notable for having adopted a position that the sun revolves around the Earth, and not vice versa, adopting the political position that having "mother" Earth revolve around "father" sun was sexist imagery. To date, none of the efforts to "redefine" anthropological models have met with any academic acceptance."
:I claim no special knowledge about this organization, but a quick look at the website makes the active participation of anthropologists obvious.  Moreover, I see no trace of any resolutions on any subjects being debated or adopted, let alone one as obviously ludicrous as the above. An anti-feminist troll has been at work. David Harley  05 January 2006  11.52 AM, EST
:::Vandalism by anti-feminists, pro-feminists or jedi knights, it doesn't matter who, is vandalism and can be treated as such ... i.e. reverted. If a registered user -- warn first, then report to admin if it recurs. All are equal under the law, regardless of their ideological pursuasion. Most don't even bother to come back, though, let alone discuss their proposals. Be bold, revert! Alastair Haines 10:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism!

message: Any discussion of the relevance to anthropology should likely also include the work of Sherry Ortner, who has looked at the record rather closely looking for examples of female-dominated societies which might lie outside Brown's "universal."  She also has commented on this and related topics broadly, and should probably be included in any discussion here representing the discipline.
:Have added Sherry to the bibliography. She is very impressive and has her own page at Wiki. On the subjects of gender and archeology, though, she represents one of the many brilliant people, who have come up with theories that are sadly proved wrong. Nature does influence gender and society, contra Sherry Ortner. She deserves a place in the bibliography though, because she applies the nurture not nature theory very thoroughly, and contra patriarchy. She operates at a much higher level than this article and the mere definition and categorization of social structures, however. She's in the bibliography, 'cause she's probably smarter than anyone who will ever visit this page. Go check out her "genius award". Reporting her ideas at the Matriarchy page or the Patriarchy in archeology, or Patriarchy in feminism page would seem to make most sense. Thanks for the tip-off, cheers. Alastair Haines 10:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sherry Ortner

message: If you want to promote the feminist definition of "patriarchy", and thereby validate its existence, why do you support it with a verbose quote? The feminist academic who produced it rambles dizzyingly, fondly using pretentious jargon -- which presumably no one outside academia is supposed to read. Consider it again:
:It is therefore extremely ironic that patriarchy has upheld power as a good that is permanent and dependable, opposing it to the fluid, transitory goods of matricentry. Power has been exalted as the bulwark against pain, against the ephemerality of pleasure, but it is no bulwark, and is as ephemeral as any other part of life...Yet so strong is the mythology of power that we continue to believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it is substantial, that if we possessed enough of it we could be happy, that if some "great man" possessed enough of it, he could make the world come right.
I might be cyncical, but this woman appears to use dense sentences to suggest a complex, well considered argument and to thereby reduce the need for logic. If you want to elucidate the concept of the "patriarchy", you could use a transparent argument written in clear english. Or am I missing the point?
It does resemble almost every other description of the patriarchy I have read. And I am not suprised.
The adjective "Reactionary" before "gender-issues writer" (who dismisses the feminist defintion) clearly indicates the bias of this section. I think this bias exists because most people contributing to the section strongly hold it.
Here is a hint: the readers should be assumed to be curious, intelligent, and critical. Vitriol does not serve that purpose. The profound question is: Can it be written without vitriol?
Rintrah 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:I've taken the term "reactionary" out of the sentance once before  and i'm going to do it again. Because it's not a NPOV, if somsone wants to contextualise the term that is fine. i.e these people think she is reationary because of this...but as it stands it's extremely POV.--Monty Cantsin 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully people removed the anti-feminist vandalism. Now people have removed the feminist vandalism. Praise be to Wiki! Grrr vandals, may your beds be full of bugs and your food always taste like ashes. For goodness sake, if you want to promote a certain idea, go and write up an opinion page, like Purple (in purplephobic theory) or Sugarphiles, that way reporting opinions is the same as stating facts. Alastair Haines 11:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't patriarchy mean a situation where the FATHER rules? I've always thought that the "rule of men" was, in fact, androcracy.
What's the difference between those two? -- unsigned
:Not quite the same.  Patriarchy implies any society where males dominate in positions of power.  Androcracy would be a specific political subset where there is otherwise democratic rule.  For example, the United States prior to 1920 could be deemed an androcracy because women could not vote, while men could and also a patriarchy because men dominated in positions of authority.  In Saudia Arabia, there is no democracy and hence the governmental form is a patriarchy but not androcratic.
:Here's something to consider in that it raises definitional issues. What would the society be if the majority of power brokers were male, but the majority of voters were female, and the male politicians mostly pandered to their fears and wants as opposed to male interests? Would this be a "patriarchy", a "matriarchy", or something different?
:Hmm. Also , any examination of the history of voting rights in the US would indicate that white females got the vote before black males; that certain states had allowed female voting in the late 17 and early 18 hundreds, took this right away and later returned it,  and that most males in the US couldn't vote either until about 1864 to 1866 as many states originally only franchised property owners. I don't think one can draw any conclusions about the US based on it's patterns of franchising people.
::I personally agree that extending the definition of patriarchy from father-rule to male-domination confuses many issues. Unfortunately, anthropologists and feminists are the people who use the term most frequently, and they both agree (with a few exceptions) that male-domination is included in the meaning, and that all societies known so far have been male dominated, hence patriarchal. Anthropology simply reports this, feminists seek to change it. Unless we win the same influence that anthropologists and feminists hold, I doubt we'll change the terminology. Anyway, the article heading is patriarchy, the encyclopedia's task is to document what the heading means, and it means what people say it means. Ours is not to make the facts, but to report them. C'est la vie! I have separated the definition into two sections, which accomodates the excellent point you make. Alastair Haines 10:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patriarchy.. is that the right word?

message: and no one wants to fix it, I see. Are men even allowed to speak anymore?
Men are allowed to speak; however, people who subscribe to the feminist concept of the patriarchy, who have defined it for themselves, are more likely to take an interest in the article. Thus, it is they who write these articles, and insinuate their unquestioned assumptions.
Those who object think it is nonsense, and don't waste their time with a radical philosophy. 
If you want to fix it, go ahead, though you will probably find ardent feminists reverting you. Rintrah 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow, this article reeks of feminist propaganda 

message: Sections should be added to show the development of patriarchy in ancient societies, such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome. unsigned
:This is an excellent suggestion and very encyclopedic, I'm sure it reflects what many readers would be looking for. The main difficulty with actually doing it is that the majority of scholars agree that ALL human history has always been patriarchal. In other words, to provide the history of the development of patriarchy would be to repeat the history of the world. However, there are people who believe humans were once not patriarchal and they do have theories about how patriarchy developed before history from things that weren't patriarchy. The thing is, we don't know what happened before history, because it's not recorded, that's what history means. In historical times, i.e. from 3000BC to now, patriarchy has always been there, and it pretty much always looks the same. Men run families, villages, countries, empires and multinational corporations ... same old, same old. The interesting question is the future, can we set it up so the girls get a go. What do you reckon? Alastair Haines 11:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Erase this page and start again. This page is not going to improve otherwise. Rintrah 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Long live Rintrah! I did what you asked. Hope you're happy, 'cause I wouldn't have done it if you didn't ask. Alastair Haines 11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I came here for intelligent information and found almost none.  This fact alone strongly suggests that a few socially-challenged men dominate this society, and that women and many men have very little voice whatsoever.  Athana 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can address this lack of intelligent information, then. I suggest you borrow some books from the library, research the subject, and write about it here, in encyclopedic form, with the information sourced from those books. Patriarchy, it seems, is a difficult subject to write about, and even more so in encyclopedic form; but it is worth trying. If you can, others who come here will not meet similar disappointment. Rintrah 03:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappointed 

message: Several of the interwiki links in this article link to the equivalent articles of Patriarchate. However, I don't know most of the languages linked to, so I'm unable to correct any of them apart from the no: link. -- SLB (no) 11:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this important note. I too am not sufficiently familiar with the other languages to know if those links are correct. I'm just assuming they are provided and maintained by native speakers of those languages, bilingual in English. I'd love to help that part of the team as best I can. Guess I've just got to trust they'll work it out. Thanks for the Norweigen edit though!Alastair Haines 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect interwiki links 

message: It's profoundly ahistorical; the history of patriarchal society (its evolution & its critics) is addressed in the most perfunctory fashion.  Billbrock 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion Bill. Thanks especially for kind comment on the feminist critique section, I have worked very hard to summarize a vast amount of material there.Regarding lack of history. I'm assuming you're not suggesting it is contrary to historical fact. I've been very careful to find multiple sources of verification for matters of historical fact. Anything that can be showed false in whole or part should be removed or modified appropriately, of course.If I understand you correctly, it is the lack of specific historical examples of patriarchy that disappoints you. Anyone is welcome to write a History of patriarchy subsection, of course, but I'm not quite sure what you expect it would say.A history of responsible fatherhood would be a wonderful contribution to social studies. How did fathers promote and defend their families through the many challenges various societies have been through? For example, how did fathers accomodate to the challenges of the industrial revolution in Europe? How did indiginous fathers respond to the impact of European colonialism on their families in various parts of the world? How did colonizing fathers pursue the welfare of their families in the often radical new settings of various colonial environments? I would love to know these things too, but it seems too large a topic for a humble general entry on patriarchy. It is certainly beyond my abilities, I'm just trying to get some basics laid down.Perhaps you would like to draft a stub article on History of patriarchy, maybe we could recruit some editors to help us work on it. I would be happy to contribute material on the Ancient Near East, that's my area.Alastair Haines 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Work on the Ancient Near East then.  I'll work on restoring the "lame" tag.  Nothing personal: the first draft of anything always s***s, and this is a work in progress. Billbrock 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Modes of production: hunter-gatherer / herder / agriculture.  Patriarchal > Feudal > Capitalistic.  19c socialists (e.g., Fourier), Marx, Freud (there's some patriarchs for you!).  Not saying to avoid the biology: but biological reductionism is as fallacious as historical reductionism. Billbrock 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Patriarchal federalism?  (from Israelites to Tartars to the Hollywood vision of Arab society as depicted in Lawrence of Arabia) There's gotta be scholarship out there. Billbrock 05:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an extremely weak article 

message: Simple and unideological question: what's this doing in an article on patriarchy?  I look forward to an article on "alleged communist societies" in Capitalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billbrock (talk • contribs) 05:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, Wikipedia requires statements to be verifiable. The first paragraph of the article quotes authoritative sources that say there are no known matriarchies. This has not been sufficient for some Wiki readers, who have contacted me personally. One way of responding to their comments is making available to them the same evidence the authoritative sources have access to. More information seems better than less, as long as it is relevant and someone is willing to provide it. Others have wanted more information, I've provided it. If you don't need that information, don't worry about it, but we don't need to take it away from people who want it do we? As for merging it with the Matriarchy entry, it would be odd to put evidence against Matriarchy in that article. It is a well written article which this article links to, but it represents a "minority report". More power to them is what I say. I don't personally know if there was ever a Matriarchy and it's no concern of mine. All I'm doing is reporting for the patriarchy article what the best and most recent research is saying. Personally I'm thrilled that people are still looking for Matriarchies, and I'll be even more excited if we find more concrete evidence. We will learn a lot, but it won't change the facts recorded in the article here. Even a dozen matriarchies would end up being exceptions that proved a rule. The main point though is, at this point, why would Wiki refuse to report the majority opinion regarding patriarchy in the patriarchy article, especially when Britannica does? I really appreciate your comments Bill and I'm going to leave the POV tag in place this time, because you've followed the Wiki protocol of noting the POV dispute in the talk page. However, if you really want a merger just put the info there, but I'm pretty sure someone will delete it and get angry. Evidence against matriarchy belongs on the patriarchy page, not the matriarchy page. That way people can hold us accountable here if its wrong. If this makes sense to you Bill, it'd give me a warm glow if you'd withdraw the recommended merge request. I guess after a week or so, if someone else hasn't removed it, or you haven't persuaded me further, I'll do it. There's no harm in it staying for a bit. Back to you, friend.Alastair Haines 07:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "However, if you really want a merger just put the info there, but I'm pretty sure someone will delete it and get angry."  Aren't you being a little...er...patriarchal?  I'm not disputing your claim; I simply don't follow the logic of putting the material under discussion in this article. To repeat myself, there are no "true communist societies," either; I don't see that discussion in the capitalism essay. Billbrock 14:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paradoxically, the attempt to define the patriarchy by negation ("that which is not matriarchal") seems to privilege the latter. Billbrock 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone has changed things, paragraph 1 of the article defines patriarchy as father-rule and by extention male-rule. It then comments there are no known matriarchies ... yet. The point of saying there are no matriarchies is to demonstrate the scope of the relevance of patriarchy. Feminists are absolutely right, patriarchy is everywhere. What are we going to do about it? Their suggestions (of several different kinds) are summarised. There are writers who want to promote patriarchy, but I haven't mentioned their views. Perhaps we need a "pro-patriachy" article as well as a "patriarchy in feminism" article. The problem is finding people to write them.By the way, any chance you could add something or start a new entry? Do you have a passion for something not covered already that you could research, of expertise in an area, that someone else could reference for you? Wiki is mainly about people adding more stuff, but all the workers are volunteers. Wiki needs you!Alastair Haines 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My Ph.D. is not in the social sciences, thanks.  Billbrock 03:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You outrank me good doctor! Sorry I'm not patriarchal enough to show more respect, friend. ;) But seriously, what's needed is research skills, not specialization. If you get any time ... Alastair Haines 04:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged matriarchies" 

message: Understood that this is a work in process, but the proposed vector of the article as currently drafted bears the not-so-alluring perfume of WP:OR. Billbrock 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Bill, thanks for this, it's a warning I well understand. Actually, I am being careful about that. Indeed I am doing OR in a related field, but nothing in this one. By the way, though, it's hardly OR to present Goldberg's hypothesis published in 1973! Though it is true that current OR in biology is confirming that hypothesis regularly, but by the time I get to hear of it, it's already peer reviewed and published, so no longer in the OR category. So, anyway, I'm happy this article doesn't have any ideas of mine in it. If you can find any ideas in it that no one else has said, please let me know, I'll delete them here, and get credit by publishing them elsewhere, lol. Hope you appreciate my humour. Cheers mate.Alastair Haines 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the peer review conducted in a pub? :-) Billbrock 13:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LoL, I don't know, I wasn't consulted or involved, the results were simply posted.Alastair Haines 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOR]] 

message: Arguendo, assume that biological determinism dictates that men will always dominate women.  Isn't patriarchy one specific social form (not necessarily the only possible one) of that domination? Billbrock 14:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Unfortunately, that is orginal research, that is, I don't know anyone except you who has proposed it, or I would add that to the article (and acknowldge them in a reference). I think it is a weakness of Goldberg that he focusses on patriarchy more than attainment and domination. If more people like yourself make this kind of helpful comment. I will put some time aside to expand on Brain Sex, Christina Hoff Sommers and some other writers who are more creative in exploring these issues. By the way, another area I think needs more work, is refining what are positive uses of domination and what are negative ones. We are moving away from patriarchy to discuss those though. There are some excellent entries on ethics and politics, areas I have not personally studied much. I've enjoyed consulting the Stanford Ecyclopedia of Philosophy on them though. What do you think of the entries on Marxism and Feminism there?Alastair Haines 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I don't know anyone except you who has proposed it"  Oy vey.  Two moldy oldies: "The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production.  He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women." Marx/Engels, Manifesto; also see this. Billbrock 04:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the link to some of Freud's phallic stuff? Don't know French I'm affraid, only a little Sumerian, Egyptian, Hebrew, Latin, Greek. Nobody warned me they'd not help my social life. I mix with the wrong people ... dead ones! ;) Alastair Haines 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just pick up a copy of Totem & Taboo. Billbrock 14:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "patriarchy"?