Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 2

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

message: While I was researching this topic, it seemed there were three (3) groups that used the word patriarchy. The people who use patriarchy the most, and most recently, seemed to be feminist scholars. The next largest group who use the word are anthropologists. Finally, there are a smaller number of writers, but from a very wide range of different areas and interests who use the word too, this group includes writers who used the word before anthropology or feminism really started. (One such group is the eastern orthodox Christian churches, who have used it for more than a thousand years.)
When I arrived at this page, anti-feminists and feminists were removing one another's edits and it was a bit unpleasant for anthropologists, who weren't quite as passionately motivated as the others. One smart lady anthropologist started a new topic entry Patriarchy (anthropology), which meant the anthropologists could get on with things in peace. It also got me thinking.
Feminists and anthropologists know a lot more about patriarchy than most of us will ever learn. They do have some special meanings when they use the word though. Patriarchy in anthropology is slightly different to patriarchy in feminism, and both are much more detailed than the basic use of the word, which is really quite simple.
So, now we have a disambiguation page. Patriarchy (disambiguation) points to all three options:
* patriarchy [+0] – the basic idea – literally, "father rule";
* patriarchy [+anthropological] – special use – about male domination, socially, as scientific observation;
* patriarchy [+feminist] – special use – about male domination, its causes and consequences, and how to deal with it.
I will be personally defending the free speech of feminists at the patriarchy in feminism page. POV tags are not appropriate just because a statement or quote expresses a POV. On a page describing a feminist point of view, you have to describe that view. (In fact, I was looking for information about patriarchy in feminism when I first found this page.)
On this page itself, both the anthropological and feminist uses of patriarchy are now explained briefly, and links point to the main entries ... but those entries need expanding! Please help by expanding those main entries.
Actually, I'm hoping we can do the same with the Biology of gender subsection. It also deserves its own main entry. In other words we could merge most of this section into a new article, there's just not enough writing done on it yet. Again, you will be helping if you can expand that section in the mean time. Alastair Haines 07:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-edit question

message: Hmm.  Distinction between the articles?
:Yeah, not much, please add some! :D Alastair Haines 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct WP solution is to merge.  Billbrock 19:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP software is telling me the Patriarchy article is long and recommends some subsections become stubs for new main entries, retaining only a summary at Patriarchy. The longest section is the Patriarchies in dispute section. This material is all anthropological, so I copied that section to Patriarchy (anthropology) which was only a stub. If those who opened and maintain that section are happy to host the material, I will remove it from the main Patriarchy entry. Wiki is a team effort I am not willing to merge without consultation. I am willing to wait for comment from active, contributing editors. What is important is that sourced and verifiable content not disappear into limbo. Unsourced, unverifiable material can be deleted at any time, especially if it is slander of living people, or political or commercial advertising.
If you twist my arm hard enough, when I have time, I will write up a section sourced on the American moral majority to express the promotion of patriarchy angle, and win space for it by merging the Patriarchies in dispute section to Patriarchy (anthropology). That will have to wait, because I know what will happen. "Edit wars" will resume. Anonymous users will daily delete that section until admin are forced to place a "protected" tag on the material. The only time protection is necessary is when it is clear that deletion is regular.
I consider it a miracle that the anti-feminists have not been removing the Feminist criticism section. It was mainly to establish the stability of that section that I wrote this article in the first place. (I came to this entry while researching patriarchy in feminism.) That's why the article only has minimal criticism of the feminist position – just enough not to be guilty of feminist POV. The anthropological and scientific data only make the feminist position more urgent, though, they do not genuinely challenge it.
Anyway, the Wiki guidelines I read pointed out that erring on the side of having more information than less is preferable, as their storage capacity is not an issue, but voluntary contributions are a precious resource. Information is therefore duplicated, awaiting stability of Patriarchy (anthropology) subtopic. Alastair Haines 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Patriarchy (anthropology)]] 

message: Dear readers, especially Bill, please help me. I want to make a concession to Bill. I stand by everything I've written in discussion above, but want to move on from those points. What is important in the discussion above is that Bill asks all the right questions about the article conforming to Wiki encyclopedic policy, and I think I provide all the right answers. It is a good discussion, and it is good to have it documented.
What I would love to hear feedback on is the following. Above I deny that this article has a "thesis" or presents an "argument". This may seem strange and is a little technical. The important challenge Bill raises is that if the article does argue for something, then that makes it a thesis. It is then either original research or a point of view, and the opposing point of view should also be expressed, or we lose neutrality.
The obvious points of view regarding patriarchy are feminism, which is against it, and "conservative family values", which are broadly in favour of it. As it turns out, this article does not actually put the "family values" argument. Personally, I don't think that is too much of a problem, because the definition and related words and customs give a picture of those traditional values anyway.
However, the moral question for or against patriarchy is not the only issue related to the subject. There is a separate but related question. Are gender roles 100% determined by society and therefore changeable, are they 100% determined by biology so something we should learn to live with, or is it more complicated and something in between?
As it turns out, patriarchy is right at the heart of the debate concerning nature or nurture in gender roles, and has been since Goldberg was published in 1973. As it also turns out, we now know a lot more than we did 30 years ago.
Now here are my questions. Do we need more information regarding those who defend the moral advantages of patriarchy? Do we need more information regarding the biological influences on patriarchal behaviour in humans? Do we need more information regarding cross-cultural evidence of patriarchy? Or ... are these things sufficiently verified as the article stands? My personal instinct is to avoid the moral debate and stick with the history, culture and science, those things are merely a matter of reporting published results.
The other reason to focus on the science in this article is because that is what has changed most in the last 30 years. It is likely to trigger a lot of debate into the future. It is verifiable and important, without telling people what to think about how to organize life or society, it can inform them to make such decisions. What do people think? Alastair Haines 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unencyclopedic, POV, original research. Would benefit from more flags. Billbrock 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see those things myself Bill, you'll have to help me and explain how you come to that perception. Alastair Haines 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 192 United_Nations_member_states.  How many flags do you have?  Q.E.D. Billbrock 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted them Bill, there are 20 distinct flags, including Quebec. Your point? Leaving out 172 flags is biased? ;) I'm keen to replace the flags with public domain pics of tribes, tribal areas or ethnographers, got any time to source those for us? Alastair Haines 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confident you can work this into the article.  Brevity and focus are virtues.  Laundry lists are impediments to understanding.  The addition of national flags are mere decoration, and would be considered cheesy on a junior high school poster board. Billbrock 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: * Related words and related customs moved to end. Made one section.
* Patriarchy and Feminism moved to that article.
* Patriarchy and Anthropology left in its own article.
* Images. There are no more than two per section. All have been made larger. All are relevant. All have descriptive tags.
* Table. Moved to its own article.
* Links. Links written into text.
* Research Ethics section. Removed.
* Tone. More formal.
* What remains of the article, is in places determined by the assessment. No information has been added.
* Only one question. Has implementing all the changes and only the changes as per assessment improved the article?
* If so, please explain how we nominate it for Good Article status.
Alastair Haines 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action 

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

message: I believe this article may need some cleaning. For example, who is this Margaret Mead? Her picture is there, but no details.
:That's because the article was edited inappropriately today (specifically, in violation of policy - it replaced documented assertions with unsourced ones). I've undone the offending edit.—greenrd 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add captions and edit text in the article. I've expanded the caption. It now spells out that because the man is standing, he appears to be responsible for his family. The age of the photograph helps people think back to a time when this kind of social structure was the encouraged "norm". Alastair Haines 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: that photo made me laugh so hard. to start with the woman is at the center of the photo, and the caption claims that the man is. nor is he standing, i can see his bent leg. second, it has nothing to do with patriarchy as far as i can tell. Slamorte 09:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged Cleanup 

message: This text was entered to replace first paragraph. My problems with this text are:
*unequal is a value term, POV, not clearly defined and discussed later in the article
--Au contraire, mon frere: "unequal: adj. not equal; not of the same...rank" (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, 2001). This is not a value-laden, but descriptive term.
:::Equal is clearly defined in 1+1=2. However, in the context of gender, it is far from clear what equality means, as is widely noted and two sources are cited in this article. Justice versus injustice is usually what is intended (or used), the terms are obviously not impartial, but are necessary in expressing opinions in the debate. Distinction or difference is the usual objective terminology. For example, many propose establishing different criteria for men and women, in order to achieve equality of outcomes or equality of participation.
*patriarchy is primarily about family units, only derivitatively about society, and then only in anthropology, feminism and theology
--"patriarchy: n., 1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe. 2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization" (ibid).
:::A lot depends on the dictionary you consult. Thanks for quoting one that makes precisely my point. Definition 1. family. Definition 2. community.
*although I agree with the use of gender here, most who hold the POV of this edit would use sex
--interesting!
:::The usual definition is that gender is a set of anachronistic, culturally imposed norms of behaviour and values expected of and distinguishing between each biological sex. The argument is that these differ from society to society, which shows there's nothing universal or necessary about any such expectations. Furthermore, it would be unjust for an enlightened society to continue such impositions of gender on people based on their sex. The proposed ideal is a gender-free society, where biological sex determines no social expectations of roles or behaviours. Another way of describing it is removing sex based stereotyping -- boys don't cry, girls always change their mind, etc., etc.
:::This is a POV definition, but notable because of its fairly wide acceptance in literate circles in Western, English-speaking culture. It is far from uniformly accepted, however, and doesn't quite work in many other languages, which only have one word for sex/gender. It also seems contrary to the evidence of history, and the recent findings of medical research, which show patterns of sexual dimorphism in human brains that do influence stereotypical behaviour in men and women.
:::Of the two words sex and gender, the latter is used by many to refer to the big picture of social and biological distinctions, when no sharp boundary needs to be drawn between biology and behaviour. Sex is used by almost everyone in purely a biological (or erotic) sense. The main difference in usage, then, is some insist that gender only refer to social distinctions, without reference to the biological. With every year, the usefulness of such a definition weakens as evidence mounts to suggest the social can rarely be completely isolated from the biological, with any degree of certainty.
*male and female are adjectives describing sex, men and women are nouns whose referents are distinguished by natural gender. It is neither more scientific, nor more politically correct to use male and female it simply shows both insensitivity to language and confusion in terminology.
--Wrong again, my friend: "male n. a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man" (ibid). 
:::Actually, this is a substantive use of an adjective. Other examples are: "radicals propose we ..."; "the young believe ..."; "the curious can visit ..." etc. etc. There is a growing movement in English grammar education to name adjectives and participles used substantively as nouns. This has grown out of the power and simplicity of functional grammatical analysis of language. However, there are many cases where understanding substantive use of adjectival forms is of assistance in understanding language use, so traditional terminology is far from vanishing. In my own field of dead languages, traditional terminology is decidedly dominant. Personally, I use whichever has greater explanatory effectiveness in a given situation. So, by all means, male can be used as a noun and this is useful when teaching ESL. However, male can also be used as an adjective -- "a male cat is called a 'tom'". In any case, the adjective or noun is not restricted to human referents, and is therefore less precise than using man when denoting humans.
*female heads of house (by default) is a statement that assumes patriarchy, that is, the man is absent (separated, dead, incapacitated, in prison, itinerant worker, ...). Such situations are not considered evidence of matriarchy, for good reason. As it stands, this text is the only pro-patriarchy statement in the article!
--I am not sure what your point is here, but I gather that you're presuming an attempt to prove the existence of matriarchy in the above corrections, which is not at all the case. This is purportedly an article about patriarchy, not matriarchy.
:::The point is that the patriarchal nature of our society is revealed in its persistant assumptions. We still assume the man is head of the home if present. There is a lot of feminist literature pointing out that women are frequently the ones demanding certain roles of men, and hence perpetuating patriarchy. Many women seek partners who will adopt the "breadwinning" role, and complain if the men do not fulfil this role. The parenthetical comment "by default" is technically redundant. Either the woman heads the home or she doesn't. "By default" does provide additional information, it specifies that the man is not actually attempting to head the home. To provide the extra information reveals the writer believes readers will find this significant, and the writer is correct. It seems odd to have a female head, and so the reason is concisely provided -- the female headship is by default, there is no man attempting to head the family. In a society where women were expected to head the family, or in one where it could be either man or woman at random, or in a society where there were no family heads, in these cases the comment "by default" would be poor communication, as it stands however, it expresses what it wants to refer to very nicely indeed.
*patriarchal values are considered by most to value women highly, but specifically and stereotypically in matters related to sexual fidelity, reproduction and child-raising
--Again, your point is unclear. How does your discussion of patriarchal "values" fit in here? Who is this majority that considers patriarchy as valuing women, and how do you back this assertion up? What is your point?
:::Your questions prove the point I was making is clear. The majority of women choose family over career and hence appreciate men who invest in providing the financial resources for them to devote maximum attention to child-raising. Show me statistics that say otherwise. Few feminists would deny this. Find me one that does. The main battle is not stopping women from choosing reproductive roles and consequent financial dependence on men, the concern is to allow women to have an alternative if that is what they want. It is not that patriarchy devalues women, but rather than it only values women who adopt a certain stereotypical and traditional, but popular, role. Pro-patriarchy advocates have pointed out that patriarchal societies will simply out-breed non patriarchal societies, and that there may even be evidence of historical trends of this kind. There are extreme views among radical feminists, several have suggested societies without men or without reproduction. Interesting as these views are, they are far from mainstream.
*feminism started in the early 70s
--interesting take, but...relevance?
:::You haven't read the article you are commenting on. Simone de Beauvoir is quoted on this in this article. She is not the only source I have on this, it's a standard dating. Relevance is that the edit dated challenges to patriarchy to the 60s. Not a big difference, but no sources were quoted, seemed the editor was just putting down what he thought was common knowledge.
*it promoted alternative female roles to those traditionally promoted by patriarchy -- working for own money rather than beneficiary of a man's income, sexual freedom over life-long binding marital commitments
*it is argued by many third wave feminists that the second wave actually disadvantaged women by removing these priveleges patriarchy accorded them (in fact it's hardly surprizing men allowed what suited them), but that this is good because by feminists reducing the status of women it has actually now brought equality. Mature women do not need to negotiate on the basis of vulnerability (patriarchy) or victimhood (2nd wave feminism). See Katie Roiphe et al.
--Okay, that's enough arguing with your ideology for me. I suggest further reading on your part. Also, as a side note, the word 'surprising' doesn't have a 'z' in it.P.S., "anonymous was a woman." -Anonymous.
:::I will certainly be reading further in this area. I started about 15 years ago and don't intend to stop. I'll be submitting a literature review in a short while and hope to publish a few articles soon. Until then, no one knows my personal ideology. Have a nice day. Alastair Haines 08:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous POV edit

message: This article has far too much on subjects other than patriarchy, and very little on the subject of patriarchy itself. Every article needs expository sentences, which are supposed to lead to a better understanding of the subject at hand - but too much of this article is written like an essay, assuming first a particular definition of "Patriarchy", after a long discussion of its linguistic origin, and then discussing subjects related to it. I remember a long time ago this article was a mish-mash of feminist propaganda; but now it says virtually nothing in very many words. RedRabbit1983 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the primary editor is a graduate student.  I used to be one, too: "say[ing] virtually nothing in very many words" was my job description.  The scholarship would be improved if the many flags that once decorated the article were restored.  Billbrock 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic ramblings

message: I don't see how the lead image illustrates "patriarchy". The caption reads "Patriarchy — father-centred", but the father isn't in the center of the image (the mother is) and there is nothing in the image to indicate the father has the most central role in that family. I suggest the image be removed and a another image from the article be moved to the lead. Neitherday 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections, I'm going to go ahead and make this change. Neitherday 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: :Image:Inevitability.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Inevitability.jpg