![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 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)
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)
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)
yes... I think we have been more than patient enough with Jackiestud. This is going nowhere. --dab (𒁳) 19:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
Compare with Wikipedia as at September 2008, stable for about two years.
(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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I "trimmed" this section that seemed off topic to me:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I would like to propose merging Patriarchy in feminism into this article. Kaldari (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Then it must be a stand-off...:( --Hammy64000 (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
I will give this information as soon as possible. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:00, 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)
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 think I have a better source for Aristotle. I'll put suggested changes here--hopefully tomorrow.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Let's break it up into two discussions, so that it's less confusing...
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks--I fixed the source--that paragraph should have been with the one following it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:20, 6 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
We could also leave what is already in the biology section--just add to it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 03:11, 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)
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.[1] 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.[1]
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.[2] 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.[3]
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.[4]
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.[5][6] According to standard sociological theory, patriarchy is the result of sociological constructions that are passed down from generation to generation.[5] These constructions are most pronounced in societies with traditional cultures and less economic development.[7] Even in modern developed societies, however, gender messages conveyed by family, mass media, and other institutions largely favor males having a dominant status.[6]
--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:21, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Natural Women Cultured Men
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).