Talk:Patriarchy

message: Clearly a worthwhile topic, but so poorly written at the moment. The point is of cause that human males has an almost total monopoly on all serious violent activity, and has had that for recorded history and beyond. Which has not really changed with the introduction of firearms or modern weapons where strength is no longer a strict requirement. I suggest putting the Dutch research in front and then follow up with the facts about male criminality in modern society. There are also theoeries that the "patriarchy" was originally set up as a necessary alliance between males to counter the dominance of the most brutish and destructive males in tribal societies, explaining the cross cultural predominance. Thorseth (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "Male criminality" to "Male violence" 

message: The initial statement is a description, not a definition. It tells us nothing about the causes that make a society 'patriarchal', either historically or sociologically. It also depends on ideological presuppositions: the fact that one gender is more represented than the other implies an implicit assumption that all elements of society should be equally represented in power, which is a political point, not a sociological theory. To be revised. 2003:A:A0B:4100:2C9D:34F3:CF94:926A (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The history and different theories about the causes of patriarchy are treated in the article. The first sentence should be a concise definition of the topic, so it's not possible to fit all that in there. I'm not sure where the article says . All it says is that patriarchy is a system where that is not true. Also, NPOV is about representing significant viewpoints fairly and proportionately. Since you are raising an NPOV complaint, which viewpoints of which sources do you think are being under- or misrepresented in this article? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

text: is correct; WP:NPOV means accurately representing the views of reliable sources, not armchair logical analyses about s contained within basic factual statements. By your logic, an anodyne claim such as that women took on more jobs in industry during World War II is inherently a  because it implies all elements of society should be equally represented. To say nothing of describing winners and losers of actual battles, which entails a power imbalance if ever there was one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: It has been claimed that patriarchy gives more equality to men than women by an extreme margin, but it is quite incorrect as it actually gives more power to rich men than to anyone else. Not all men are rich so this is quite incorrect Quintus rex (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: – where? Not in this article. As per the first paragraph,  Even though  men are comparatively disempowered, men  still dominate women and children in most societies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of patriarchy 

message: The section on pre-history seems to conflate 'patriarchal structures' with 'a sexual division of labour'. It cites the Betuel article from Inverse as a story of how patriarchy developed, whereas what it actually describes is the development of a stable monogamous family and of some kind of division of labour between men and women. There is absolutely no mention of 'domination of women by men', which is what patriarchy is normally understood to mean. Wrangham's theory is, again, about the division of labour between men and women connected to the emergence cooking, but nothing in the retelling seems to concern patriarchy, i.e. domination. And finally, the Alger et al article also proposes one way of development that could have led to the same things - 'paternal investment', i.e. a stable monogamous family and of some kind of division of labour. None of the three sources describes the emergence of patriarchy, all three describe the emergence of paternal investment. Using them as a source for the primeval nature of patriarchy is grossly misleading. Whoever added them apparently couldn't imagine a family or fatherhood without patriarchy and so treated them as synonymous in their reading of the sources. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not find where you found this reading. Maybe this was changed already? But the article only states: "Some preconditions for the eventual development of patriarchy were the emergence of increased paternal investment in the offspring, also referred to as fatherhood, and of a sexual division of labour. " Which I think is fine, no? Tornbetween (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on pre-history