• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Patriarchy"

Me Myself

Back to my username
If feminism is fighting gender roles, then why did they choose to call "patriarchy" to all the unequal privileges and opressions of men and women that currently exist in diferent levels of intensity around the world?

It is gender inequality that favors and disfavors men and women depending on the context. Why then charge it with a male quality?

I can undersand the movement being called feminism to a point, and given its origins, because it fights injustices to women because of unequality. The problem is he second it choose to call this indquality "pariachism" it did itself a diservice by atracking the equality they say to profess.

I have read and understand the reasons they call it patriarchy, but do y honestly think such a term doesnt unwittingly perpetuate the image of the abusive man? To equate the abusive system to a male persona and the solution to a female persona? T equate equality to female and unequality to male? I know they dont do it in their definitions, but the associations speak miles and miles, and we do know it has bite them in the behind by now because a lot of people associate feminism to radical feminism.

I is because of the name. Names have power, words have power.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
If feminism is fighting gender roles, then why did they choose to call "patriarchy" to all the unequal privileges and opressions of men and women that currently exist in diferent levels of intensity around the world?

It is gender inequality that favors and disfavors men and women depending on the context. Why then charge it with a male quality?

I can undersand the movement being called feminism to a point, and given its origins, because it fights injustices to women because of unequality. The problem is he second it choose to call this indquality "pariachism" it did itself a diservice by atracking the equality they say to profess.

I have read and understand the reasons they call it patriarchy, but do y honestly think such a term doesnt unwittingly perpetuate the image of the abusive man? To equate the abusive system to a male persona and the solution to a female persona? T equate equality to female and unequality to male? I know they dont do it in their definitions, but the associations speak miles and miles, and we do know it has bite them in the behind by now because a lot of people associate feminism to radical feminism.

I is because of the name. Names have power, words have power.

Shall we rid our vocabulary of "hetero-normative", "homophobia", "White Man's Burden", or "anti-Semitism" too? All because a few men mistakenly think that feminists really only care about themselves and don't care about men's problems?
 

dust1n

Zindīq
:facepalm:


I want to answer, but you obviously didnt even read the OP.

No, I read it.

I have read and understand the reasons they call it patriarchy, but do y honestly think such a term doesnt unwittingly perpetuate the image of the abusive man?

The term doesn't unwittingly perpetuate the image of the abusive man. The term accurately describes social systems that are unjust for women. It does not suggest that all men are abusive.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Shall we rid our vocabulary of "hetero-normative", "homophobia", "White Man's Burden", or "anti-Semitism" too? All because a few men mistakenly think that feminists really only care about themselves and don't care about men's problems?

Whats the problem with those words? Homophobia is direct, being afraid of homosexuals. Anti seminism too, being against jews.

Patriarchyy though is used in ways way broader than "males want power" . If it was simply "power to males" then it would be. "Men and children first" .

That is a case better described as male disposability for example. Male disposability is one true and real issue, that goes against the idea of male in power.

Its reasonable to say that "patriarchy" means men will only allow men for election for example,ut is it not reasonable to say it goes in hand with males saying "women and children first"

Other uses of the word "archy" will show you that a "monarc" didnt exactly leave the king die when attacked because the king is so mighty he will be able to kill all his enemies by himself or the king is so tough he can deal with it. It is though said so about males in "pariarchy" . The men is forced to war because he is toughh. Do you see how is doesnt follow the "archy" patterns of the ussage of the term?

The only things that follow such pattern is when it comes to power, not dispensability.

It is only susbcribed under the pariarchism flag to make it nice and easy that e whole enemy has one same name.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
The term doesn't unwittingly perpetuate the image of the abusive man. The term accurately describes social systems that are unjust for women. It does not suggest that all men are abusive.

The term doesnt suggest male disposability, yet it is used as if "patriarchism" equals all e gender role problems of e past when it only talks about one.

Male dispensability has nothing to do with "pariarchy" yet the term is used as if it did.

Edit: and thanks for at least adressing to what I was actually saying now.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Other uses of the word "archy" will show you that a "monarc" didnt exactly leave the king die when attacked because the king is so mighty he will be able to kill all his enemies by himself or the king is so tough he can deal with it. It is though said so about males in "pariarchy" . The men is forced to war because he is toughh. Do you see how is doesnt follow the "archy" patterns of the ussage of the term?

This English is getting really broken, I can barely understand it.

But if it do. That would be an incorrect understanding of -archy. The term "patriarchy" existed before feminism. -archy just implies a system of ruling.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
The term doesnt suggest male disposability, yet it is used as if "patriarchism" equals all e gender role problems of e past when it only talks about one.

Male dispensability has nothing to do with "pariarchy" yet the term is used as if it did.

I have no idea what any of this means.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
This English is getting really broken, I can barely understand it.

But if it do. That would be an incorrect understanding of -archy. The term "patriarchy" existed before feminism. -archy just implies a system of ruling.

Yah sorry for that, its mostly the i pad I think. I just cant get used to write in this thing and I already had my typo problem x_x

Yes I am aware, thats why I say it is wrong to equate patriarchism with circumstances that evidence male disposability, given they are simply two different things.

My problem is that according to feminism, ALL problems of gender unequality steam from "pariarchism" and while I obviously agree patriarchism is wrong and is an unjust and need-to-end form of unequality, it is ONE form of gender inequality, not the only one nor the father of them all.

So I give the example of male disposability, that simply is against patriarchy ithe core. The "archy"s are used to denominate those that must rule as you well say, not those that are more dispensable, but the other way around.

So in the past (and still today) we have both patriarchy and male dispensability as two different forms of gender unequality.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
I have no idea what any of this means.

Mle dispensability means that women are viewed as more valuable than men in many circumstances, which doesnt mean powerful to rule, but valuable in themselves, or that their needs are more important. An example is that if a ship is sinking they will say women and children first.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Yah sorry for that, its mostly the i pad I think. I just cant get used to write in this thing and I already had my typo problem x_x

That explains it. I was like 'MM' normally types well.

Yes I am aware, thats why I say it is wrong to equate patriarchism with circumstances that evidence male disposability, given they are simply two different things.

My problem is that according to feminism, ALL problems of gender unequality steam from "pariarchism" and while I obviously agree patriarchism is wrong and is an unjust and need-to-end form of unequality, it is ONE form of gender inequality, not the only one nor the father of them all.

So I give the example of male disposability, that simply is against patriarchy ithe core. The "archy"s are used to denominate those that must rule as you well say, not those that are more dispensable, but the other way around.

So in the past (and still today) we have both patriarchy and male dispensability as two different forms of gender unequality.

If the male 'dispensability,' are you refer to it, is the result of a political class that is all male, than it can rightly be said that that inequality for males is a result of patriarchy.

For example, men overwhelmingly make up the political and justice system (the government), so if the government is unfair at say, child custody cases, it's a result from a system that operated primarily by males and their perceptions.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Mle dispensability means that women are viewed as more valuable than men in many circumstances, which doesnt mean powerful to rule, but valuable in themselves, or that their needs are more important. An example is that if a ship is sinking they will say women and children first.

"Women and children first" (or to a lesser extent, the Birkenhead Drill[1][2]) is a historical protocol whereby the lives of women and children are saved first in a life-threatening situation (typically abandoning ship, when survival resources such as lifeboats are limited)...

The practice of women and children first arose from the chivalrous actions of soldiers during sinking of the Royal Navy troopship HMS Birkenhead in 1852, which was memorialized in newspapers and paintings of the time, and in poems such as Rudyard Kipling's "Soldier an' Sailor Too." In that wreck, the captain ordered the wives and children aboard (20 in all) to enter the only small lifeboat available, saving them, while the men stayed on board until the ship was wrecked. Only about 25% of the men survived the wreck and none of the senior officers did.

Women and children first - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wouldn't say this is a result of patriarchy.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
That explains it. I was like 'MM' normally types well.



If the male 'dispensability,' are you refer to it, is the result of a political class that is all male, than it can rightly be said that that inequality for males is a result of patriarchy.

For example, men overwhelmingly make up the political and justice system (the government), so if the government is unfair at say, child custody cases, it's a result from a system that operated primarily by males and their perceptions.

Sure, but then you could also say that all our acomplishes were the result of parriarchy given that they happened while males were in charge, which
I wouldnt argue, and I assume you woulldnt either (? :D)

Now regarding what you said later, it was an example, there are many customs among different cultures that try to avoid damage to women to an extent far greater they would avoid damage to men. There are several reasons for which this could've happened, but today this are not conductive to equality.

Another example is if a woman doesnt like the way a man touches her and kicks his testicles, she is unlikely to face as much social disaproval as if the same happened the other way around with the man hitting the womans boobs or hitting her a slap in the ear.

This are little this, but the little things are go od determinators of what can and does crawl into big things, and it is dangerouos to look e other way around when the l ittle injustices arise or to not question them.

For example, the case with the woman cutting the mans penis and the women in a tak show (one of them being I think Ozzy's wife) were laughing a lot about it saying how funny it was that a woman would do that to a man. Nw, dont get me wrong, I have NOTHING against that. They are just laughing, they are playing and saying irreverent things they dont really think or would do, etc and enjoying it. BUT lets be honest, how much of the feminist worlddo you think would have got up and talked about its outraging if agroup of guys were laughing about how funny it was when X real man cut off a real womans breasts? Not even if they were real cases actually. Eveif it was just a random joke of something that hadnt happened, how much feminist groups do y think would have got up and put a red flag and shouted their lungs out?

What worries me is the double standard. I fully suport to end all ways of discrimination on women, but it must also work the other way around.
 
Last edited:

dust1n

Zindīq
Sure, but then you could also say that all our acomplishes were the result of parriarchy given that they happened while males were in charge, which
I wouldnt argue, and I assume you woulldnt either (? :D)

What good thing happened as a result of various governments of world remaining male? IF I knew specifically that something good came from patriarchy, I would. But we know that the majority or decision makers are men, and so we know why the female perspective is missing is civil society. Nothing that 'good that comes from patriarchy' can be pinpointed to say it resulted specifically from patriarchy, at least that I know of.

Now regarding what you said later, it was an example, there are many customs among different cultures that try to avoid damage to women to an extent far greater they would avoid damage to men. There are several reasons for which this could've happened, but today this are not conductive to equality.

Another example is if a woman doesnt like the way a man touches her and kicks his testicles, she is unlikely to face as much social disaproval as if the same happened the other way around with the man hitting the womans boobs or hitting her a slap in the ear.

This are little this, but the little things are go od determinators of what can and does crawl into big things, and it is dangerouos to look e other way around when the l ittle injustices arise or to not question them.

For example, the case with the woman cutting the mans penis and the women in a tak show (one of them being I think Ozzy's wife) were laughing a lot about it saying how funny it was that a woman would do that to a man. Nw, dont get me wrong, I have NOTHING against that. They are just laughing, they are playing and saying irreverent things they dont really think or would do, etc and enjoying it. BUT lets be honest, how much of the feminist worlddo you think would have got up and talked about its outraging if agroup of guys were laughing about how funny it was when X real man cut off a real womans breasts? Not even if they were real cases actually. Eveif it was just a random joke of something that hadnt happened, how much feminist groups do y think would have got up and put a red flag and shouted their lungs out?

What worries me is the double standard. I fully suport to end all ways of discrimination on women, but it must also work the other way around.

All of these cultural considerations come from so much historical cultural baggage from so many societies run by men, and have been around since, like Greek and Roman times. Things are incorrectly about men and women. Generally this is reinforced by governments or elites or religions.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
If feminism is fighting gender roles, then why did they choose to call "patriarchy" to all the unequal privileges and opressions of men and women that currently exist in diferent levels of intensity around the world?

It is gender inequality that favors and disfavors men and women depending on the context. Why then charge it with a male quality?

I can undersand the movement being called feminism to a point, and given its origins, because it fights injustices to women because of unequality. The problem is he second it choose to call this indquality "pariachism" it did itself a diservice by atracking the equality they say to profess.

I have read and understand the reasons they call it patriarchy, but do y honestly think such a term doesnt unwittingly perpetuate the image of the abusive man? To equate the abusive system to a male persona and the solution to a female persona? T equate equality to female and unequality to male? I know they dont do it in their definitions, but the associations speak miles and miles, and we do know it has bite them in the behind by now because a lot of people associate feminism to radical feminism.

I is because of the name. Names have power, words have power.

Because this specific kind of gender discrimination has been especially furthered by males, I don't think describing it as "patriarchy" is inaccurate, misrepresentative, or unfair at all. It's male supremacy; I don't see how calling it "patriarchy" is any different than, say, calling certain stances favoring white people "white supremacy" (which I think is equally accurate, too).
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I say it's time to recognize that while we're trying to ditch patriarchy, but we must also face the growth of a matriarchical component in society.
Ever since womenfolk have been given the right to vote, we've seen government evolve in the direction of their influence, eg, more money for
social programs (the old "nurture" predilection), preferential treatment in child custody, more regulation to make life fair. So you feminist gals
will dislike patriarchical features, but many of us dislike the matriarchy steering us to the nanny state.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I say it's time to recognize that while we're trying to ditch patriarchy, but we must also face the growth of a matriarchical component in society.
Ever since womenfolk have been given the right to vote, we've seen government evolve in the direction of their influence, eg, more money for
social programs (the old "nurture" predilection), preferential treatment in child custody, more regulation to make life fair. So you feminist gals
will dislike patriarchical features, but many of us dislike the matriarchy steering us to the nanny state.

Matriarchy? Where?

Where's the established female cronyism in government that has propagated these measures?
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Because this specific kind of gender discrimination has been especially furthered by males, I don't think describing it as "patriarchy" is inaccurate, misrepresentative, or unfair at all. It's male supremacy; I don't see how calling it "patriarchy" is any different than, say, calling certain stances favoring white people "white supremacy" (which I think is equally accurate, too).

But they equate ALL FORMS of gender descrimination to the patriarchy INCLUDING those that disfavor men and facor women.

This is were I say there is a ridiculous polarizarion to the issue.

I say it's time to recognize that while we're trying to ditch patriarchy, but we must also face the growth of a matriarchical component in society.
Ever since womenfolk have been given the right to vote, we've seen government evolve in the direction of their influence, eg, more money for
social programs (the old "nurture" predilection), preferential treatment in child custody, more regulation to make life fair. So you feminist gals
will dislike patriarchical features, but many of us dislike the matriarchy steering us to the nanny state.

And this is what I am trying to say :)
 
Top