"Patriarchy"

[Me Myself]

These are gender roles both men and women devised thousands of years ago as a matter of convenience. Men fought in wars because they could be more mobile during their youth. Up until the 19th century and even beyond that period for most of the world, the average woman was pregnant for most of her fertile life. Think about the cultural implications. It was in the best interest of tribes, families, and nations for pregnant individuals to not yield a sword or gun. It has little to do with size or physical duress because plenty of short men participated in war (Napoleon). Men were thus put in charge of caring for the well-fare of his group in times of war and through work. Women were primarily expected to care for the child and home as an equal exchange.

I believe women should join the military as well, but it's not the 'man keeping us down just because we're women.' It's a social construct that once had a purpose sticking on until it fades. Just like other cultural mores.

Labeling it patriarchal shows a gender bias. Gender roles were devised by both genders - unlike homophobia and racism.

I agree in here. Although I do not agree with all your posts on this subject.

I do find it important to notice that I think most feminist here (and I may be wrong) recognise a lot of what you say, like the gender roles being established by the society as a whole according to the convinience of the time.

The social construct, did keep womedown on lots of stuff. Men were only subjugated by the war thing in other days ( though e only I say not because of lack of gravity or intensitive but of frequency)

I am sure I am passing some stuff up, but women did have it tough on a good chunk of stuff in the past. Then again, everyone, and I dont tnk we should be comparing whose got the biggest scars history on the genders thing. Just eliminating em from both sides, and making appropiate labels for the hazards that gave us this scars.

So in any case, I agree with you, it wasnt "patriarchism". Bt the social construct in general, which while it was patriarchical, it was a whole lot of other things, and the patriarchal element is just ONE of the displays of its gender biases.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

These are gender roles both men and women devised thousands of years ago as a matter of convenience. Men fought in wars because they could be more mobile during their youth. Up until the 19th century and even beyond that period for most of the world, the average woman was pregnant for most of her fertile life. Think about the cultural implications. It was in the best interest of tribes, families, and nations for pregnant individuals to not yield a sword or gun. It has little to do with size or physical duress because plenty of short men participated in war (Napoleon). Men were thus put in charge of caring for the well-fare of his group in times of war and through work. Women were primarily expected to care for the child and home as an equal exchange.

I believe women should join the military as well, but it's not the 'man keeping us down just because we're women. It's a social construct that once had a purpose sticking on until it fades. Just like other cultural mores.

Labeling it patriarchal shows a gender bias. Gender roles were devised by both genders - unlike homophobia and racism. I believe white racism and heterosexism are more predominant than black racism and homosexism. I don't believe sexism is significantly different to warrent a 'patriarchal' ideology.

I would actually like to see a bunch of women fight with bare fist and knuckles, while pulling one anothers hair out to dispute and settle their problems while us guys (men) sit at home and watch them do it on the televisions.

As in start from the bottom up, don't hitch a ride on the guys backs who have been at it for several 1,000s of years now. It’s either that or lingerie football.

 

[Alceste]

These are gender roles both men and women devised thousands of years ago as a matter of convenience. Men fought in wars because they could be more mobile during their youth. Up until the 19th century and even beyond that period for most of the world, the average woman was pregnant for most of her fertile life. Think about the cultural implications. It was in the best interest of tribes, families, and nations for pregnant individuals to not yield a sword or gun. It has little to do with size or physical duress because plenty of short men participated in war (Napoleon). Men were thus put in charge of caring for the well-fare of his group in times of war and through work. Women were primarily expected to care for the child and home as an equal exchange.

I believe women should join the military as well, but it's not the 'man keeping us down just because we're women.' It's a social construct that once had a purpose sticking on until it fades. Just like other cultural mores.

Labeling it patriarchal shows a gender bias. Gender roles were devised by both genders - unlike homophobia and racism. I believe white racism and heterosexism are more predominant than black racism and homosexism. I don't believe sexism is significantly different to warrent a 'patriarchal' ideology.

I think you are suffering from the misapprehension that feminists think patriarchy is something men do to women.

We don't think that. Patriarchy is considered a destructive social system that does not serve the best interests of men OR women. It is defended by both men AND women who cannot accept changing norms. It is also subverted by both men AND women who would prefer to live in an egalitarian society, where your genitals do not determine your economic, academic, political or domestic destiny.

So, we (feminists) are not thinking in terms of "men vs. women". We're thinking in terms of "feminist men and women vs. lingering patriarchal attitudes and institutions".

 

[outis]

it can also be viewed as matriarchy be viewing men as useless.

Viewing most men as useless is a feature of patriarchy. It follows in a fairly straightforward manner from biological differences.


Finally a couple of specific points are made:

Women fought to join the military because of gender role bias: it's seen as more inhumane to kill women than men.

What explains that is the stereotype that says women arent tough, which is another stereotype prevalent in society.

This is of course wrong. Look up documents from the period during which women started joining various (para)militaries with a view to participate in combat.
Civilian women were being slaughtered routinely at the time and having women on one's side would have been a psychological advantage if killing women had been a problem (which is why women have been used as human shields of sorts during political clashes in peacetime).
Due to the type of weaponry used, strength was pretty much a non-issue. Some women were famously successful in combat.
Different stereotypes were an issue. Image was an issue. Discipline and sexuality especially were issues.
I naturally don't expect denialists to care about facts but someone else might be interested.

 

[outis]

Men were thus put in charge of caring for the well-fare of his group in times of war and through work. Women were primarily expected to care for the child and home as an equal exchange.

That's a particularly cute fantasy.

Gender roles were devised by both genders - unlike homophobia and racism.

So basically if we assume that these roles were not formed under patriarchy, the concept of patriarchy becomes useless. Bravo!

 

[dust1n]

I don't see anyone on RF who is upset about women taking up a mantel about issues that affect women like rape or abortion.

Taking up a mantel?

I do see feminists trying to assert that boy's performance in education, violence against men, bias towards mother in court proceedings, longer jail sentences for male convicts, etc is trivial compared to female concerns. In this very thread we had a user blame men and boys for flunking out of school. I see no similar remarks devised here.

None of those things are trivial. I think the only thing that trivializes it is using it as a tool to deny discrimination against women.

Which is why the associations with feminism has been dropped by Warren Clark and millions of other men and women.

And gained by millions others... so what? People are fickle and tend to attack ideas generally because of their association with people, not the idea itself.

 

[dust1n]

Male disosability is not more nor less patriarchal than matriarchal, because it exists in both forms of archies.

So linking them is plain inaccurate.

What matriarchy are you referring to?

 

[Me Myself]

Viewing most men as useless is a feature of patriarchy. It follows in a fairly straightforward manner from biological differences.


Finally a couple of specific points are made:





This is of course wrong. Look up documents from the period during which women started joining various (para)militaries with a view to participate in combat.
Civilian women were being slaughtered routinely at the time and having women on one's side would have been a psychological advantage if killing women had been a problem (which is why women have been used as human shields of sorts during political clashes in peacetime).
Due to the type of weaponry used, strength was pretty much a non-issue. Some women were famously successful in combat.
Different stereotypes were an issue. Image was an issue. Discipline and sexuality especially were issues.
I naturally don't expect denialists to care about facts but someone else might be interested.

I am not sure why you quote me. I agree there iso reason for women not to be allowed in the military. Or did I understood you wrong when I assumed you meant me in the denialists? (If I understood wrong, my apologies)
Ñin any case, while percetagewise men are btter than women physically, that has no importance on the issue and is not being debated here. Any wo/men who passes the test to be able to be enlisted, power to them

 

[Me Myself]

What matriarchy are you referring to?

I put it some posts ago, I think it was the iriquois.

Yehp it was them.

The thing is at male dissability is not a symptom of patriarchy. It is its own form of gender discrimination .

Thats all I am saying.

 

[Alceste]

I put it some posts ago, I think it was the iriquois.

Yehp it was them.

The thing is at male dissability is not a symptom of patriarchy. It is its own form of gender discrimination .

Thats all I am saying.

The Iroquois were not matriarchal. The Iroquois: Matriarchy or Not - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Marker 3: The Oppression of the Other
This is the key that has kept many scholars from defining the Iroquois as a matriarchy. While the Iroquois women may have enjoyed a high status, rights, power, and possibly may have been favored, the truth is that Iroquois women did not penalize men socially just for being born men. Men would have had to have been oppressed, even a little bit, to be able to categorize the Iroquois as a matriarchy (hence our society is still socially defined as a patriarchy because of a continuing oppressive nature toward women, even if very minimum). Conclusion: The Iroquois, while tipping the scales toward matriarchy, is actually a great example of an egalitarian society, in the sense of women's and men's social power and rights. Should the third marker (defined previously) ever be dismissed, there could be a good chance that the Iroquois would be 'pushed over the line' just enough to be a 'matriarchy.'​

 

[Me Myself]

The Iroquois were not matriarchal.

True, it was other. The iriquos were a non patriarchal society that still had male disposability.

I posted about the other one but would have to check it again.

In any case the thing is that its not a patriarchy tng, its just a thing that commonly happens, this male disposability thing. Is its own discrimination.

 

[outis]

Since people keep engaging Me Myself on this trite argument, I'll state the obvious once more:
Unless there is some form of overpopulation, women are objectively more valuable to any society. That's biology, not matriarchy. Biology also made women poorer fighters on average for most of human history.
This social value doesn't translate into exchange value unless female sexuality can be controlled and traded. Matriachies can in principle do that but only when it comes to women outside the ruling group and of course patriachies are better at it.
While most societies have preferentially put men's lives at risk, this was therefore exacerbated in patriarchies (especially when it comes to the most extreme forms featuring chattel slavery). Much of this is quite rational and can be studied with an economic approach. If you can't be bothered to delve into the pricing of slaves and such, you can simply look at animal husbandry today. There's a reason male calfs are preferentially killed.

Men would have had to have been oppressed, even a little bit, to be able to categorize the Iroquois as a matriarchy

As far as I know, men were indeed "oppressed" a bit in Iroquois society, specifically in the way that defines a matriarchy.
Unlike other commenters here, I have no problem with matriarchy. Until quite recently, matriarchy was the system which was most likely to reduce conflicts and lead to postive outcomes for the average individual. Equal rights for men is intellectually pleasing of course but wasn't practical.
Unfortunately, positive outcomes for the average individual amounts to nothing from an evolutionary perspective. The reason we had patriarchy is that patriarchies were evidently more efficient at oppression and power accumulation.

 

[Alceste]

Since people keep engaging Me Myself on this trite argument, I'll state the obvious once more:
Unless there is some form of overpopulation, women are objectively more valuable to any society. That's biology, not matriarchy. Biology also made women poorer fighters on average for most of human history.
This social value doesn't translate into exchange value unless female sexuality can be controlled and traded. Matriachies can in principle do that but only when it comes to women outside the ruling group and of course patriachies are better at it.
While most societies have preferentially put men's lives at risk, this was therefore exacerbated in patriarchies (especially when it comes to the most extreme forms featuring chattel slavery). Much of this is quite rational and can be studied with an economic approach. If you can't be bothered to delve into the pricing of slaves and such, you can simply look at animal husbandry today. There's a reason male calfs are preferentially killed.


As far as I know, men were indeed "oppressed" a bit in Iroquois society, specifically in the way that defines a matriarchy.
Unlike other commenters here, I have no problem with matriarchy. Until quite recently, matriarchy was the system which was most likely to reduce conflicts and lead to postive outcomes for the average individual. Equal rights for men is intellectually pleasing of course but wasn't practical.
Unfortunately, positive outcomes for the average individual amounts to nothing from an evolutionary perspective. The reason we had patriarchy is that patriarchies were evidently more efficient at oppression and power accumulation.

Can you elaborate on how men were "oppressed" in Iroquois society?

 

[outis]

As far as I know, in the stultified way many dictionaries put it "descent was traced through the female line". Which would of course the most sensible way to proceed without paternity tests... if male war leaders weren't so fond of using illegitimate violence.

 

[Alceste]

As far as I know, in the stultified way many dictionaries put it "descent was traced through the female line". Which would of course the most sensible way to proceed without paternity tests... if male war leaders weren't so fond of using illegitimate violence.

But is that a form of oppression? I had my dad's last name, he had his dad's last name, etc. but that alone isn't enough to "oppress" me. In fact, I took my husband's name just because I like it better, but I don't feel "oppressed" in our relationship.

 

[Me Myself]

Can you elaborate on how men were "oppressed" in Iroquois society?

I dont use the word oppress. It gives the weird notion than there is a clear oppresor. Both men and women iiriquois soceity have decided that males will risk their lifes as warriors, while female will not.

That is of course a sign of male disposability, which is wrong, because men have the same right to safety and to live than women.

Mathrilineality and pathrilineality are interesting subjects but not for this thread at all.

 

[Alceste]

I dont use the word oppress. It gives the weird notion than there is a clear oppresor. Both men and women iiriquois soceity have decided that males will risk their lifes as warriors, while female will not.

That is of course a sign of male disposability, which is wrong, because men have the same right to safety and to live than women.

Mathrilineality and pathrilineality are interesting subjects but not for this thread at all.

Well, you know, women risk their lives to bear children too, so maybe we are both disposable in our own way.

 

[Me Myself]

Since people keep engaging Me Myself on this trite argument, I'll state the obvious once more:
Unless there is some form of overpopulation, women are objectively more valuable to any society. That's biology, not matriarchy. Biology also made women poorer fighters on average for most of human history.

Sigh*

I know. Not only I agree, but that is exactly what I am saying.

Male disposability is NOT a product of patriarchy and it has nothing to do with patriarchy.

So... I assume you agree then? After you so well and eloquently explained it?



[

 

[outis]

But is that a form of oppression? I had my dad's last name, he had his dad's last name, etc. but that alone isn't enough to "oppress" me. In fact, I took my husband's name just because I like it better, but I don't feel "oppressed" in our relationship.

Yes, it is a form of oppression. Not just that: it is the basis for all patriarchal opression.

The name as such is of course only symbolic. The number of husbands who take their wives' names demonstrates it isn't a trivial symbol however. And if you were part of the ruling group in a patriarchal legal regime, real power would be attached to this name.
Women (and their male children) do consider themselves "a bit oppressed" when even trivial amounts of power are denied to them on this basis. It doesn't take a feminist to get angry over a piddly inheritance, nevermind real power. I doubt you're indifferent to Islamic inheritance law for instance.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, it is a form of oppression. Not just that: it is the basis for all patriarchal opression.

The name as such is of course only symbolic. The number of husbands who take their wives' names demonstrates it isn't a trivial symbol however. And if you were part of the ruling group in a patriarchal legal regime, real power would be attached to this name.
Women (and their male children) do consider themselves "a bit oppressed" when even trivial amounts of power are denied to them on this basis. It doesn't take a feminist to get angry over a piddly inheritance, nevermind real power. I doubt you're indifferent to Islamic inheritance law for instance.

Meh. I think it's a false comparison. I'm no expert, but from reading up on things, it seems as though the Iroquois were fairly egalitarian, not matriarchal. Matrilineal, yes. Matriarchal, no. Matriarchy would require that women hold more than their fair share of political and economic power, much like men do in our current society. I haven't seen evidence this is the case.

When it comes to passing lands from mother to daughter, if the gender roles they adopted specified that the women would do the farming and the men would do the hunting, doesn't it just make sense? What would a man want with land in that context?

Aboriginal Canadians did not view property the same way Europeans do. It did not and does not equate to economic power, as it couldn't be bought, sold or traded. It could only be used. I expect men had hunting rights in certain territories, just as women had farming rights in others.