Talk:The Inevitability of Patriarchy

message: I think it needes a complete rewrite, according to WP:NOT#PLOT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangfufu (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The excellent policy regarding articles on books of fiction would indeed mean the current re-write was heading in the wrong direction, were this a work of fiction. As it is an academic work, however, and itself reviews other non-fiction literature and interacts throughout with published alternative views, following its argument in a way that is transparently verifiable is important for reliability and NPOV. Thanks for commenting. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article sounds like a plot summary. 

message: To whom it may concern.
It strikes me that while this article remains unwritten, people will keep jumping to conclusions about what Goldberg believes and dismiss his common-sense arguments out of fear he is pushing some anti-social agenda. Were he anti-social, he would deserve to be exposed, and the article should not be censored. As it is, however, he's almost boringly normal. LOL, don't judge a book by its cover, though I must admit other writers who say the same things find less confronting ways to say them. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldberg's ''opinion'' 

message: ;The competing hypotheses—deflecting potential ideological debates at this page
A question that has been of great interest in western society for the last 40 years or so, and really for a long time prior to that too, is "why do men always seem to get the best jobs?"
Several answers have been proposed.
# Because men are better than women. (Sounds shocking, but many have seriously believed this. There is, however, proof that it is false. This view is the "male supremicist" view.)
# Because men hate women. (Therefore they keep them down, not always deliberately, but just following bad examples from the past. This view is called "misogyny". It is popular among many non-biological sociologists and many older style feminists.)
# Because many men want to be at the top, and many women don't care about getting there. (This was Goldberg's thesis in Inevitability.)
# Because tribes with heirarchies overwhelmed with men reproduced better at some point in the past. (One of various evolutionary hypotheses.)
# Because God made it that way. (Believe it or not, the Bible says it will happen in Genesis 3 and commands it 1 Timothy 2.)
Although editorial opinion is irrelevant. As just one of hopefully several workers on this article, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I believe 3, 4 and 5 are all correct and that 1 and 2 are false. I would be surprised to find someone show up who also believes 5. I'm willing to take some personal attacks directed at me regarding 5, although I doubt this will happen, since this article will say nothing about it 'cause Goldberg doesn't. But what I will not accept is implications that Goldberg (or I) subscribe to 1, since Goldberg's text denies it repeatedly (as can be seen by several quotes in this article).
This article is about theory number 3, and that only. If someone can point to any place at Wiki where theory 3 is already documented, we can work on merging information. If we are going to cover alternative theories (and I think we shouldn't, we should stick to criticisms of theory 3, not to trying to articulate all alternatives as well), NPOV will require we cover views 1 and 5 as well as view 2. View 4 is not really that different to view 3 but we would probably be best off covering it at the article on Goldberg's second book, since it hadn't been invented in 1973, but was a real player by 1993. Kate Millet had already offered theory 2 prior to Goldberg publishing, like Goldberg, she published prior to receiving a PhD, and like him too, her PhD was awarded on the basis of her theoretical answer to the question above. The Bible, of course, was published long before either of them, but no one got any PhDs for that work. ;)
Please, friends, can we work at dealing with this article as documenting a theory, and not a political statement. Inevitability specifies clearly and repeatedly it has nothing to offer with regard to morality or practical application. There are other articles that cover such things, and this editor anyway avoids those like the plague. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read me file for this page  

message: One issue that does not seem to fully made with clarity, is the link of the necessary behavioral structure of social power positions, and the nature of the emotional structures that best enable delivery of the necessary behavioral structure.  
In summary the advancement of theory offered here is that (1) in all positions of power in society, including positions in organisations, there are actions needed to both achieve those positions and to maintain those position, and that these actions are determined totally by the position, driven the goals the society or organisations expects fulfilled by the position.  In addition, (2) that the delivery of these actions demands an emotional disposition that is disciplined, often aggressive, and at least competitive, maintained for often-long period of time, and where, given it is a power position, there are demands for high levels of emotional resilience in face of inevitable set backs, and direct personal attacks. Issues of self/personal expression are secondary to the need to present graciously to a particular group, and issues of emotional vulnerability, angst, uncertainty, warmth, gentleness, etc, are frequently inappropriate, unable to be exhibited or expressed. 
This idea is based on the goal-action principle. To illustrate, if I am responsible for keeping the fridge full of food, and fridge is empty, and go out with idea of filling it, but go to movies, then I will hardly be surprised fridge is still empty when I get home. 
The point is general, in that for any goal there are action needed if the goal is to be achieved, these called ideal actions (see Nel and Little An Integrated Strategic Human Resources Model to Achieve Organisational Objectives http://www.usq.edu.au/~/media/USQ/Business/Journals/NelLittle%20Paper%201.ashx also Nel and Little, Sustainable leadership: The fundamental solution to lasting superior staff performance http://www.uunz.ac.nz/pdf/journal/edition1/Journal_part4.pdf.)
The quality of ideal actions is that if they are acted out, they do not guarantee success, but if they are not acted out, they guarantee failure. Hence, delivery of ideal actions by those seeking power positions is not a choice.
The next question is whether social power position has goals, and/or expectations of goal achievement implicit in the position. I do not wish to explore this in depth, since I think it so apparent, so obvious as to be not worth discussion. Imagine a Prime Minister position, which has no expectation of goal achievement. 
The final point is that alignment of the emotional disposition needed to achieve and maintain the power positions is more ‘masculine’ than ‘feminine’. In short, gender differences emotionally pre-dispose men to the power positions more than woman. This does not mean woman are not biologically capable, there are many examples to disprove that. It does mean that the ‘average male’ is biologically better emotionally equipped than the ‘average female’, hence on average men will occupy most of the power position most of the time. 
Reluctance of woman to expose themselves to the rigors of high profile leadership positions is compounded by the circumstances of marriage and relationships, perhaps summed in an attitude ‘well, by staying with him I can share a lot of it anyway’. This view, however, is decidedly not biological, but a rational decision in light of the intuitive grasp of social structures. Given choice, most rational people would accept the behind the scenes ride, privilege without the direct pressure. 
A forward question is whether society is likely to redefine ideal actions associated with power positions, or at least allow their expression in a more feminine manner. Take for example, vulnerability, imagine a Prime Minister addressing the Nation, exhibiting fear and personal concern when what people really needed was reassurance the plan would work. Somehow, I do not see it quite working. 
Graham Little 
www.grlphilosophy.co.nz 
December 31, 2010.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylit (talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for discussing the contents of the article, not for discussing the philosophical ideas addressed in the book. Kaldari (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

text: No, the article should be about what it can be verified that third parties say about the contents of the book. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Let's not. WP:PSTS clearly states as policy that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Admittedly secondary and third-party sources aren't quite the same thing -- but do heavily overlap (and we also have WP:V, also policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.") All sorts of things "inform", encyclopaedias are a very specific subset of informing. Do you have a secondary source linking this book to Popper? If not then this is all WP:Synthesis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Men Rule: The relationship between biological differences and social behavioural structures 

message: For some reason there's a serious mistake in the translation of the Cicero quote in "Overview".  Right now it reads:
Numquam naturam mos vinceret; est enim ea semper invicta
Nature will never conquer; For it is always invincible
— Marcus Tullius Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes, c. 45 BC.
"Numquam naturam mos vinceret" should be translated "Custom will never conquer nature...". I've made that change. Cxhh (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cicero Quote