Is the notion of "patriarchy" falsifiable, given a state of relative freedom?

[Sinny91]

No, I started a thread about a concept I've heard a great deal about but seen little to no evidence for. The fervent belief by its proponents despite the utter lack of evidence made me consider that, perhaps, like god, it is an unfalsifiable supposition. I thought this much was very clear from my initial post.

Provide some fucking evidence already.

'Evidence' is in the history books. Debunk this with your retarded stats.

Isn’t "The Patriarchy" just some conspiracy theory that blames all men, even decent men, for women’s woes?

Posted by tigtog on March 21, 2007 in clarifying-concepts, FAQ, FWW, man-hating, social Justice. Last Updated: 2012-09-28

Patriarchy: one of the most misunderstood critical-theory concepts ever, often wilfully misunderstood. Patriarchy is *one* form of social stratification via a power/dominance hierarchy – an ancient and ongoing social system based on traditions of elitism (a ranking of inferiorities) and its privileges. Societies can be (and usually are) patriarchal, oligarchal and plutocratic all at the same time, complicated by current and/or legacy features of sectarianism, imperialism and colonialism, so the gender hierarchy is only one source of social disparity. Because of the limited capacity of the word “patriarchy” to describe the full operation of intersecting oppressions, some now prefer to use the word “kyriarchy” instead, but it is not yet in common use.

Spoiler

Historically, patriarchy operates through the disproportionate (sometimes exclusive) conferring of leadership status (and formal titles indicating that status) on men, a tradition characterised by casting all women as naturally unsuited to lead men, no matter what talents and expertise they might possess (unless there are exceptional circumstances resulting from intersections with other social hierarchies conferring high status that gives rare women political authority e.g. the royal lineage of Elizabeth I, or the divine claim to authority of Joan of Arc). This view of women normalises the restriction of women’s opportunities and choices throughout the whole of society via strict gender expectations which constrain individualist expressions.

Some societies are more patriarchal than others, but patriarchal social traditions are universal in human societies, taking the physical strength disparity between the sexes as signs of a general female inferiority, a “natural order” that indicates women are meant to be subordinate.

Not all men are Patriarchs.*A Patriarch is a man who has special power and influence over not just his family*but also in society,*due to privileges gathered through intersections of age, wealth, achievement, lineage, patronage and the exploitation of others as these attributes add to his place in the elite social hierarchy.

Non-elite men do not generally actively conspire with Patriarchs (although they mayaspire*to become one): the patriarchal pattern however means that subordinate men are ranked above subordinate women in the traditional socioeconomic hierarchy from which Patriarchs skim the cream, meaning that men (as a group) benefit more from the injustices of*Patriarchy*than women do (as a group). This does not mean that superordinate women (by virtue of lineage/wealth) do not have concrete advantages and social privileges compared to subordinate men – this is where the intersecting rankings and dominations of the kyriarchy come in.

In*some*pre-industrial or autocratic societies rigid patriarchal organisation has survival benefits for women and children, at a price: subjugation and often misogynistic abuse. Polygamy for the plutarchs and categorising surplus subordinate men as disposable pawns often goes hand in hand with the sequestration of women in these cultures. Societies (generally) have advanced a long way from the days of the ancient ruthless patriarchs who held the power of life and death over their extended families/clans, and survival is (generally) no longer dependant on formal subjugation to a Patriarch, either for men or women.

However, despite other circles of superordination, society is still structured along patriarchal lines of subordination in nearly all forms of organisations, to the great benefit of those at the top. The male elites, the magnates (currently white, but who knows what the next century will bring?), continue to wield disproportionate influence and power over the situations of other men and especially women.

https://finallyfeminism101.wordpres...ames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

Very brief historical overview of the Patriarchal thought, and it's involvement in western society.

Spoiler

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[1]Analysis of patriarchy and its effects is a major topic within the social sciences and humanities.

The works of*Aristotle*portrayed women as morally, intellectually, and physically inferior to men; saw women as the property of men; claimed that women's role in society was to reproduce and serve men in the household; and saw male domination of women as natural and virtuous.

Although many 16th and 17th Century theorists agreed with Aristotle's views concerning the place of women in society, none of them tried to prove political obligation on the basis of the patriarchal family until sometime after 1680. The patriarchal political theory is closely associated with Sir*Robert Filmer. Sometime before 1653, Filmer completed a work entitledPatriarcha. However, it was not published until after his death. In it, he defended the divine right of kings as having title inherited fromAdam, the first man of the human species, according to*Judeo-Christian*tradition.

In the 19th Century, various women began to question the commonly accepted patriarchal interpretation of Christian scripture. One of the foremost of these was*Sarah Grimké, who voiced skepticism about the ability of men to translate and interpret passages relating to the roles of the sexes without bias. She proposed alternative translations and interpretations of passages relating to women, and she applied historical and cultural criticism to a number of verses, arguing that their admonitions applied to specific historical situations, and were not to be viewed as universal commands.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

Random definition to emphasise my point.

A*patriarchal*system is one run by men.Traditionally, most societies have beenpatriarchal, but it's now considered sexist and unfair

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/patriarchal

Case study of Italian women in society, and how they have been exploited by the patriachal state as and when required

Spoiler

Excerpt

In Italy, women’s participation in paid work has been affected by several factors: the relatively late development of the tertiary sector; the assignment of the full load of care work by the state to families and familial networks; and a very peculiar, and mainly fragmented, economic structure. All of these factors are the result of the deep-rooted patriarchal culture, and in the long run they have strongly contributed to the reproduction of this culture.*

https://viewpointmag.com/2014/09/28...-women-in-italy-between-paid-and-unpaid-work/

Ammending

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

I doubt women would treat a "weak" man any better than men would, in fact I'm certain they would treat him worse.

-_____-

 

[redbaron]

Would have gone more for:

-_________________-

Your face isn't long enough but maybe short faces are your fetish or something.

 

[Grayman]

Matriarch Sarah Palin. I like that.

Matriarch Hillary Clinton.

I guess its like we live a Matriarch/Patriarch society. A mom and dad approach. Please subjugate me oh great triachs :O

With the current college entrance rates [here] men will be too dumb to do anything but manual labor so it won't be long(They are good at it because they are natural strong but also naturally dumb)... Matriarchy here we come....

men are naturally dumb starting from birth and not fit to rule, I'll learn yah....

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/x548926/do-boys-take-longer-to-potty-train-than-girls

 

[Grayman]

@Sinny

I didn't see you quote this which came from 'your link' fem101. It is the definition without all the extra fluff.

Patriarchy – Literally means the rule of the father and is generally understood within feminist discourses in a dualistic sense as asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms. The theoretical adequacy of patriarchy has been challenged because, for instance, black men to not have control over white wo/men and some women (slave/mistresses) have power over subaltern women and men (slaves).

– Glossary, Wisdom Ways, Orbis Books New York 2001

How does this fit with your understanding?

"asserting dominion of all men over all woman in equal terms"

 

[Death Wizard]

Would have gone more for:

-_________________-

Your face isn't long enough but maybe short faces are your fetish or something.

Guess you girls have not heard of female hypergamy. Females are as loyal as their options, they are not going to sick around an incapable male.

 

[Sinny91]

@Sinny

I didn't see you quote this which came from 'your link' fem101. It is the definition without all the extra fluff.



How does this fit with your understanding?

"asserting dominion of all men over all woman in equal terms"

It fits is my understanding the same as it fits in for the author of the article.

Patriachal male (individual) is in charge of all subordinate males, along side any females; 'patriachal society' or structure refers to what we are discussing herein, a male dominated society within which women are subordinate.

I'm going at a snails pace here because I'm on a phone and the formating is really difficult to do at speed. I have no idea why I am being asked to outline any 'evidence' for the hypothesised patriachy, when the notion of the patriachy has been widely accepted and subject to much discourse over the centuries.

'Patriachy', 'Metaphysics', 'Mind Control'... I wonder what I'll be asked to define/prove next..

Either way, it's 6.30am over here, I've had enough for one night.

But to answer the OP question, applying the term 'patriachy' to something may be falsifiable, it purely depends on what situation you are applying the concept to.

Is there a patriachy in a flock of geese? Not that we know of.
Are there patriachies in numerous human societies? Yes.
Stupid question really, serves no purpose.

 

[The Gopher]

Guess you girls have not heard of female hypergamy. Females are as loyal as their options, they are not going to sick around an incapable male.

Is this related to the notion of patriarchy being falsifiable or am I in the wrong thread? (says me the side topic master) On that side topic why would you not be? If you have the option to have 3 fish or 5 you would have to insane not to take 5. Everyone wants what's best for them and those they care about. I don't think incapable people lacking with capable people have is a bad thing it's simply natural.

However I'll stop talking about it because I am aware of my own issues side tracking threads and will make an effort to stop.

 

[Death Wizard]

Is this related to the notion of patriarchy being falsifiable or am I in the wrong thread? (says me the side topic master) On that side topic why would you not be? If you have the option to have 3 fish or 5 you would have to insane not to take 5. Everyone wants what's best for them and those they care about. I don't think incapable people lacking with capable people have is a bad thing it's simply natural.

However I'll stop talking about it because I am aware of my own issues side tracking threads and will make an effort to stop.

It relates to the strong man weak woman dichotomy.

 

[Sinny91]

Monkey says there is an 'utter lack of evidence' for the notion of the patriachy.

I say this is one of the most baseless comments in this thread, and I tend to lean towards my own assessment, rather than that of Gophers in regards to Monkeys capabilities and motives, I'm out. (Wish I caught sight of that comment earlier).

 

[Grayman]

@Sinny

Very first post of this thread and very last sentence. I suggest you read it. The patriarchy was referenced in relation to western societies.

 

[Sinny91]

@Sinny

Very first post of this thread and very last sentence. I suggest you read it. The patriarchy was referenced in relation to western societies.

Oh well, my bad.

But besides that, my last post is my final note on the matter.

There is abundant evidence that the patriachy has existed and still exists today, but Monkey does not accept ANY of that evidence, so I'm unsure what I can offer him.

 

[420MuNkEy]

'Evidence' is in the history books. Debunk this with your retarded stats.

I have no idea why I am being asked to outline any 'evidence' for the hypothesised patriachy, when the notion of the patriachy has been widely accepted and subject to much discourse over the centuries.

'Patriachy', 'Metaphysics', 'Mind Control'... I wonder what I'll be asked to define/prove next...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKz82v5JQY

So basically, your response is "No, I can't demonstrate any evidence for patriarchy as it exists today, and furthermore, I will reject and insult any actual evidence to the contrary."

Edit: Just to preempt the "you didn't address my point" bullshit, there's nothing to address. That which can be asserted without evidence can (and will be) dismissed without evidence.
As I'll say for the 4th or 5th fucking time in this fucking thread, claiming patriarchy exists is a positive claim. It needs to be supported by actual fucking evidence.

There is abundant evidence that the patriachy has existed and still exists today, but Monkey does not accept ANY of that evidence, so I'm unsure what I can offer him.

I've been fucking BEGGING for you to provide some actual evidence this entire thread. You have yet to do so.

 

[Sinny91]

What do you want me to, list all essays that appear on Google arguing my point? Paraphrase them all into my own words?

The 3 Abrahamic religions are all patraicahial, as are their ongoing traditions, there are around 4 billion followers of the patriachal Abrahamic traditions, debunk that Monkey boy.

The evidence is in such abundance, that I don't feel I need to dignify your silly demands with an answer. Only an idiot cannot accept the nature of the historic patriachy, and the prevalence of patraicahial traditions in today's western society, regardless of what the 'feminists' are up to.

I honestly cannot believe the stupid I spend my time interacting with.

I've alluded to the religious/philosophical/cultural aspects of the patriachy several times, but instead of examining those aspects and countering them, you seem fixated on the mundane.

 

[Seteleechete]

Patriachal male (individual) is in charge of all subordinate males, along side any females; 'patriachal society' or structure refers to what we are discussing herein, a male dominated society within which women are subordinate.

This is were your view of what patriarchy is differs from ours(correct me if I am wrong). Ours is that "equally competent/interested males are favoured to get a position over equally competent/interested females, based on gender." The definition you give is result based, while ours is opportunity based.

Edit: Fixed some grammatical errors.

 

[Sinny91]

This is were our view of what patriarchy is differs as ours(correct me if I am wrong) is that "equally competent/interested males are favoured to get a position over equally competent/interested females, based on gender." The definition you give is result based, while ours is opportunity based.

Please restate.

 

[Death Wizard]

Monkey says there is an 'utter lack of evidence' for the notion of the patriachy.

I say this is one of the most baseless comments in this thread, and I tend to lean towards my own assessment, rather than that of Gophers in regards to Monkeys capabilities and motives, I'm out. (Wish I caught sight of that comment earlier).

Sinny91 is suffering from cognitive dissonance.

 

[Sinny91]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKz82v5JQY

So basically, your response is "No, I can't demonstrate any evidence for patriarchy as it exists today, and furthermore, I will reject and insult any actual evidence to the contrary."

Edit: Just to preempt the "you didn't address my point" bullshit, there's nothing to address. That which can be asserted without evidence can (and will be) dismissed without evidence.
As I'll say for the 4th or 5th fucking time in this fucking thread, claiming patriarchy exists is a positive claim. It needs to be supported by actual fucking evidence.


I've been fucking BEGGING for you to provide some actual evidence this entire thread. You have yet to do so.

All the evidence has been alluded to; the views of Aristotle, patriachal religious institutions, patriachal social structures, patriachal economic structures, the history of women's rights, and the academic discourse on women's rights, inequalities, and social status.

There are all your reference points, but according to YOU 'there is an utter lack of evidence', HISTORY DISAGREES WITH YOU.

So considering you asserted that there is an 'utter lack of evidence', why don't you prove your point.

 

[420MuNkEy]

The 3 Abrahamic religions are all patraicahial, as are their ongoing traditions, there are around 4 billion followers of the patriachal Abrahamic traditions, debunk that Monkey boy.

Even if all people practicing those religions adhered to patriarchal tenets in them (which, they don't), this is not systemic.

The evidence is in such abundance, that I don't feel I need to dignify your silly demands with an answer. Only an idiot cannot accept the nature of the historic patriachy, and the prevalence of patraicahial traditions in today's western society, regardless of what the 'feminists' are up to.

If it's so prevalent, why are you having such a hard time providing evidence of it? I can provide detailed evidence of why the sky tends to appear blue during the day. It's not at all hard.

Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean others will or should. (generalizing here) Christians think their god is obviously true, so much so that they don't need to justify it, so do muslims, and jews, etc. They can't all be right. Someone is fucking wrong.They all think the evidence is just so obvious, but it's not to anyone outside of their belief structure. I'm outside of your belief structure, so you're going to have to provide some actual evidence.

Seriously, this is basic logic. Do we really have to go over something so basic?

I honestly cannot believe the stupid I spend my time interacting with.

Trust me, the feeling is more than mutual.

I've alluded to the religious/philosophical/cultural aspects of the patriachy several times, but instead of examining those aspects and countering them, you seem fixated on the mundane.

I don't give half a fuck about your allusions. Provide some fucking real concrete evidence.

 

[Sinny91]

Sinny91 is suffering from cognitive dissonance.

No I'm notm I'm suffering from 'talking to complete idiots who obviously have no intention of investigating the notion of a 'patriachal society' in western civilisation'.. because if you did have any interest in exploring such matters, you wouldn't be asking ME for proof, you'd be finding it yourselves.

This is nothing but attempted ego masturbation.

@Monkey.

Yuk, the proverbial tone of your voice is enough to make my lip curl. Why the fuck am I going to be compliant towards any sort of vehement order such as that.

You are not helping me move this discussion forward in any manner.
What the fuck constitutes as 'solid evidence', how about YOU solidly prove that the patriachy doesn't exist, considering you are so adamant that there is 'utterly NO evidence for it'.

I'm getting tired of constantly having to defend myself against group mentality on this forum.

 

[420MuNkEy]

HISTORY DISAGREES WITH YOU.

I am talking about present day western culture... as I have been this entire thread.

 

[420MuNkEy]

No I'm not I'm suffering from 'talking to complete idiots who obviously have no intention of investigating the notion of a 'patriachal society' in western civilisation'.. because if you did have any interest in exploring such matters, you wouldn't be asking ME for proof, you'd be finding it yourselves.

This is nothing but attempted ego masturbation.

I've looked and found nothing compelling.
So please, arbiter of truth. En-fucking-lighten me with some evidence.

 

[Sinny91]

I am talking about present day western culture... as I have been this entire thread.

And it doesn't take a social genius to tell you that today's society is shaped yesterday's society.

How about you define what fooking evidence you want..

No no, in fact just dont. I'm done with this freak show.

 

[420MuNkEy]

And it doesn't take a social genius to tell you that today's society is shaped yesterday's society.

No, but apparently it does take a genius to provide some fucking evidence of this.

 

[Sinny91]

No, but apparently it does take a genius to provide some fucking evidence of this.

What a fucking fucktard lol.

In a last ditch attempt at diplomacy, you define the parameters of what constitutes as evidence *for* proof of the patriachy, and I'll see if I can provide it, specifically.

But in the persuit of fairness, I want *you* to prove that there is NO evidence AT ALL that supports the notion of a current western patriachy. Unlike you , I'll allow you the freedom to post whatever you think constitutes as evidence for this view point. (Because I can disprove that notion in half a second).

Congratulations on keeping me awake and aggravated, however.

 

[Seteleechete]

And it doesn't take a social genius to tell you that today's society is shaped yesterday's society.

Social/political/cultural change can happen quickly or slowly, as such what happened yesterday may matter very little in regards to today.

As for my former post it seems fairly clear to me

Assuming males dominate some positions in society it doesn't make it a patriarchy as long as more meritorious females can still get those positions. It just means males happen to be more meritorious in regards to those occupations on average.

 

[Sinny91]

Social/political/cultural change can happen quickly or slowly, as such what happened yesterday may matter very little in regards to today.

As for my former post it seems fairly clear to me

Assuming males dominate some positions in society it doesn't make it a patriarchy as long as more meritorious females can still get those positions. It just means males happen to be more meritorious in regards to those occupations on average.

Well this is where the terms overt and covert come into play. Women are drastically out numbered in many fields, some have already been mentioned, most notably, Office Boards and Political leadership positions.

Are you suggesting that less women are capable of fulfilling these roles adequately? I know this is an avenue that was touched up a few pages back but the thread got detailed.

 

[420MuNkEy]

What a fucking fucktard lol.

In a last ditch attempt at diplomacy, you define the parameters of what constitutes as evidence, and I'll see if I can provide it, specifically.
But in the persuit of fairness, I want you to prove that there is NO evidence at all that supports the notion of a current western patriachy.
Unlike you , I'll allow you the freedom to post whatever you think constitutes as evidence for this view point.

Congratulations on keeping me awake and aggravated, however.

Numbers. Cite a peer reviewed study that actually provides evidence of a situation where systemic discrimination is by far the most compelling explanation. Provide additional supporting studies that look at possible other factors as well, if they're available. See: Scientific Evidence

My claim that there is "no evidence" is hyperbolic, and yes, technically overstated. It's me saying "I have yet to see any evidence that suggests such a thing exists, despite having looked extensively". That is to say, it's not an affirmative claim. It's much easier to just say there's no evidence than carefully explain that exact point every single time. Furthermore, it's redundant, since I've already stated as much multiple times in this thread already. If you're going to make the affirmative claim that it does exist, you need to provide evidence for it.

I can't disprove the entire notion outright, but I have already provided evidence supporting my position that at least some of the claims of patriarchy (such as the wage gap) are better explained by other factors. The fact that I can't disprove it outright does not weaken my position whatsoever. It's just a thing with logic. It's much much harder, impossible at times, to prove a negative.

 

[Seteleechete]

I don't think I have enough data to make a conclusion on covert/cultural patriarchy(one way or another). So I'll just refrain from doing so for now.

 

[Sinny91]

Here's an amusing article, short and sweet.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/49591-how-to-argue-sexism-still-exists-7-common-arguments-debunked

'Numbers', lol.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Here's an amusing article, short and sweet.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/49591-how-to-argue-sexism-still-exists-7-common-arguments-debunked

'Numbers', lol.

Point #1:
As it says, yes, women have the right to vote and vote in greater numbers. Why aren't there more women being elected then? Because they're not running, and when they are, they're still not being elected, despite women voting in greater numbers than men. There's nothing at all preventing them from perusing a political career except themselves. Most women seem to understand that what's between your legs isn't as important as your policies, and vote accordingly.

Point #2: Why should there be parity in top-level positions? Pointing out that there's not evidence of discrimination. As was already covered earlier in this thread with citations, women, on average, typically don't want these positions as much as men do. They seek them out less frequently.

Point #3: Already covered. It's been law for quite some time and remaining difference is essentially entirely explained.

Point #4: The fact that a rich woman exists is not proof of sexism. This is a logically absurd point and you should actually be ashamed for having cited something that argues so poorly.

Point #5: Yes, typical behavior exists, and so do deviations from it. This isn't sexism. If you feel ashamed from deviating from tradition, that's your own fucking neurosis and not the world at large.

Point #6: Is just a claim that patriarchy exists with a citation to a biased source to attempt to substantiate it, which itself is just a list of assertions with mainly links to Wikipedia. If you want me to get into any specific claims on those Wikipedia articles, cite them directly please.

Point #7: "Reverse sexism" isn't a thing. Nor is "reverse racism". Sexism is just sexism. Racism is just racism. Prejudice is prejudice. If you're discriminating against men for being men, that's sexism. If you're discriminating against women for being women, that's sexism.


This isn't evidence. This looks like you just Google'd "How To Argue Sexism Still Exists".

Please, come back with something substantive.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Hello, going to step in for a second.

-----

I'm just curious Munkey, did you read post 202 201?

 

[Kuu]

Man, what a trainwreck of a thread.


Is the notion of "patriarchy" falsifiable? Depends on how much evidence is enough evidence, and if said evidence is accepted.

Where is the line drawn between anecdote, hearsay, and valid testimonial data? Ingrained cultural schemata don't need to be explicitly stated or systematic to be real.

Furthermore, let us not forget that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also, I find arguments based on legality to be quite weak for multiple reasons: like bias in the judicial system, disparity of actual law enforcement and diversity of legal frameworks across states and nations, but mostly, on the basis that something that is written in the law does not at all reflect a majority cultural view or common practice, merely the agenda of the lawmakers.


Now, some food for thought for all sides of the discussion (I don't pretend these to be presented as evidence, but merely as writeups that illuminate aspects of the conversation so far largely unexplored):

Great Divides: The Cultural, Cognitive, and Social Bases of the Global Subordination of Women

Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages
and Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities


I for one find the denial of androcentrism and patriarchal sexist attitudes in western society to be apalling, considering how it blatantly permeates many aspects of culture. But I honestly don't have any motivation to spend the energy required to prove it to anyone on the internet, not being the one obsessed by gender issues...

 

[Grayman]

I don't think I have enough data to make a conclusion on covert/cultural patriarchy(one way or another). So I'll just refrain from doing so for now.

I don't know why it matters. It is a representative democracy, of the people, for the people, and by the people. Women have equal opportunity to vote and there isn't any system that keeps them from running.

 

[QuickTwist]

So, this is like about women and men of the human species being different or something?

Like, guys have testosterone and women have estrogen.

 

[Grayman]

Why are we debating on this new made up concept name of covert patriarchy anyways. We haven't even finalized on the answer to the current status of the real patriarchy in the west.

 

[Grayman]

I for one find the denial of androcentrism and patriarchal sexist attitudes in western society to be apalling, considering how it blatantly permeates many aspects of culture. But I honestly don't have any motivation to spend the energy required to prove it to anyone on the internet, not being the one obsessed by gender issues...

I don't think people here deny that sexist attitudes exist in western culture. They do in various forms and in various groups.
The denial of the patriarchy is not necessarily a denial of the sexist attitudes. Feminists have borrowed a word in order to define a cultural bias that exists. This usage of the patriarchy has never existed until now. It makes sense that many people reject the idea of a patriarchy because to them that is like saying that woman are subordinate to men today and their rights are only accessed through the privilege of men. It is saying that they have no say what happens in government. This idea is without a doubt absurd.

Even fully grasping their meaning myself I recognizing the negative connotations it makes with regards to men. We all share this culture. Ultimately, it is bad publicity for the feminist movement as it make them to look extremist, agenda driven, or just conspiracy nuts.

 

[QuickTwist]

Ok, so I have like nothing to add to this conversation.

I'll just say that typically on average, men are generally the more dominant sex when it comes to our species. That isn't the problem. The real problem is conflict in how this is interpreted by individuals who have the idea that there are no inherent differences between sex and that everyone should be treated as an individual. While this is true, that everyone should be treated as an individual, it really falls short because it assumes that there should be a one size fits all for both men and women and I think that is really quite short sighted. And I'll just say this now that treating people on an individual basis does not necessarily equate to treating everyone the same.

/just my stupid rambling, feel free to ignore.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Also, I find arguments based on legality to be quite weak for multiple reasons: like bias in the judicial system

Oh, you mean that bias that's overwhelmingly in favor of women?

disparity of actual law enforcement and diversity of legal frameworks across states and nations

US, UK, Canada, etc

but mostly, on the basis that something that is written in the law does not at all reflect a majority cultural view or common practice, merely the agenda of the lawmakers.

Having the absolute living shit sued out of you is bad business. Given the very clear bias, this is a ridiculous issue to raise.

 

[Grayman]

Oh, you mean that bias that's overwhelmingly in favor of women?

We already went over this. We know men on the bottom are widely devalued. When they talk about the patriarchy they are talking about men in the upper and upper middle class. Not the poor class.

 

[Inquisitor]

Man, what a trainwreck of a thread.

Also, I find arguments based on legality to be quite weak for multiple reasons: like bias in the judicial system, disparity of actual law enforcement and diversity of legal frameworks across states and nations, but mostly, on the basis that something that is written in the law does not at all reflect a majority cultural view or common practice, merely the agenda of the lawmakers.

When it comes to child custody cases/divorce, women have the upper hand in the US. I saw this firsthand when a close family member decided to divorce his manic-depressive, physically abusive, and unfaithful wife who didn't work and whose children hate her (they still want nothing to do with her). The courts awarded her half of his net worth (which was in the millions). Where's the justice in that? It's going to vary a bit in different states, but basically, my impression is that a woman can get away with a whole lot legally. The movie "Intolerable Cruelty" (with Clooney and Zeta-Jones) is really not an exaggeration.

Great Divides: The Cultural, Cognitive, and Social Bases of the Global Subordination of Women

Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages
and Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities

Interesting articles. Still working my way through them. I'm bothered by the lack of evidence/examples in the first one. There's a lot of general statements but few citations/hard statistics.

Bringing this back to MBTI:



Feeling types tend to be women. Their brains truly are wired differently. Does this mean female thinking types and male feeling types do not exist? Obviously not. But the cultural values associated with gender have a biological basis. No matter how badly feminists don't want this to be true, I don't think they are ever going to be successful in creating a society that is blind to gender differences.

 

[420MuNkEy]

We already went over this. We know men on the bottom are widely devalued. When they talk about the patriarchy they are talking about men in the upper and upper middle class. Not the poor class.

The disparity exists in white collar crime as well, without even mentioning family court (which, big surprise, is in favor or women, regardless of the husband's income)

 

[QuickTwist]

So, like, a pretty woman is going 70 in a 55 in a cadillac and gets a warning while a black young guy is going 70 in a 55 in a cadillac and gets his car searched.

 

[onesteptwostep]

To be fair though housewives really don't have the skills (for the work force) to survive without a husband at the time of their divorce, so it's only natural that they are compensated more fiscally.

 

[Grayman]

The disparity exists in white collar crime as well, without even mentioning family court (which, big surprise, is in favor or women, regardless of the husband's income)

I agree with your assessment in this area but...

I don't think people will be ready to say the patriarchy is dead until a woman becomes president. Until that point there is no proof that it is possible for a woman to be accepted in our culture in such a role.

I say try this again after the election

 

[QuickTwist]

I agree with your assessment in this area but...

I don't think people will be ready to say the patriarchy is dead until a woman becomes president. Until that point there is no proof that it is possible for a woman to be accepted in our culture in such a role.

I say try this again after the election��

You're a funny guy.

 

[Grayman]

To be fair though housewives really don't have the skills (for the work force) to survive without a husband at the time of their divorce, so it's only natural that they are compensated more fiscally.

And house husbands?

They also take your retirement which nullifies your point. Still I think that a housewife who does her part in taking care of the family deserves half the money. But there is no good way to measure 'her part' so it wouldn't surprise me if a few men screwed on the deal.

 

[420MuNkEy]

And house husbands?

They also take your retirement which nullifies your point. Still I think that a housewife who does her part in taking care of the family deserves half the money. But there is no good way to measure 'her part' so it wouldn't surprise me if a few men screwed on the deal.

This isn't even broaching the issue of lifetime alimony, which, while not everywhere, essentially makes the person who has to pay it a slave, forced to work at the same level or higher. This is even more ridiculous in situations where the person paying it was rich at the time or divorce and they can no longer really afford to stop working or do something less financially rewarding.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@Grayman

Well for the male to have achieved that 'retirement fund' he most likely had to rely on the female for emotional support, food, company, and etc.

As for house husbands I'm guessing there aren't a lot of them for there to be a legal system/architecture for their divorces. I'd imagine there being somewhat of a cultural stigma too. (meaning, less incentive for them to go to court to settle, on the part of the male).

 

[Grayman]

This isn't even broaching the issue of lifetime alimony, which, while not everywhere, essentially makes the person who has to pay it a slave, forced to work at the same level or higher. This is even more ridiculous in situations where the person paying it was rich at the time or divorce and they can no longer really afford to stop working or do something less financially rewarding.

I liked this document...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/


Honestly alimony can be whole other thread topic. Assuming we are talking about the US/Canada men can get alimony but generally men are the bread winners so they don't. There is also the factor that men generally don't want it. (pride I guess) This document explains it well and there might be some things that help your case too but really this is one thing in a lot of things to discuss and I wouldn't want to give it too much focus.