Jump to content

Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Biased Introduction

I would like to bring up the biased nature of the introduction, as it seems quite sexist. Selecting quotes and data that suggest that a matriarchy probably never existed is presumptuous as we cannot know whether or not such societies existed if they predated our own, or if that information was lost over time. I feel that to imply this as such through this article is fairly anti-feminist, suggesting that man's natural place in human society is a dominant one. There is no consensus among researchers as to whether or not matriarchal societies have existed and this article seems to imply quite strongly that the possibility is low, which seems quite biased, at least to me.

Thanks, MK

24.215.90.119 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)MK

All they said was that they don't know of any matriarchial society, not that a patriarchy was the natural order. And I think Tahiti or other Island cultures might have be possible exceptions. Even black American culture might be considered matriarchial since most black households are run by women. But the article does seem to be written from an outside view.

- JS

Hello MK,

The book you need to get hold of is by feminist and anthropologist Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future, (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001).

You make an excellent point. There are many books that are very selective in what they quote. They sometimes even quote a authors out of context to make people seem to say exactly the opposite of what they believe. Another problem is that people quote a minority opinion as though either everyone believes it, or as if it's at least 50-50 kind of thing.

That's why Encyclopedia Britanica is important. The researchers checked a wide body of evidence and concluded that the "consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed."

  • Is Britannica biased? Go get a copy. If it's biased write in. They can change it. Wiki can't, we can only say what the best sources say.
  • Is Britannica wrong? Go do the research, there are only about 2,000 cultures to check, and there are books on all of them. The books about those books add up to more books than I could read in a life-time though.

I'm an old man, and in all my life, everywhere I've been, men have been in charge. I've also read a lot of books, it is only in modern fiction that I read about women being in charge. Why do you think feminism started? Do you think they were making up the idea that men have always dominated?

What would surprise me is if we found a woman dominated society. I'd be thrilled! It'd be fascinating and different. Do you really think it all depends on a 50-50 coin toss or something in a given culture?

This is about science. We gather data and we try to explain it. Yes, we may expect data to go one way or another, but we gather it. Others have done the gathering for us on this subject. I'm not surprised by the data, you are. It's still data. But once we have the data straight, the next thing is explaining it and predicting the future. After that we can think about ethics and change and all sorts of things.

So what do you think would explain all known societies being patriarchal? We don't know exactly, but many people suggest it has to do with male hormones. This fits with all sorts of evidence. What about the future? Well, we don't know. Some think by making rules to stop men we can change things, others think rules will not be strong enough. Some people think it is good that men look after us. Others think this is a bad thing and don't want to be looked after. I don't know what I think. What do you think?

The current article is biased, because it only gives the view of people who think patriarchy is bad. It doesn't give the view of those who think it is good. Is there any chance you could help and research the views of people who think patriarchy is good. That way you can correct a bias in the article, which would be a really good thing. :) Alastair Haines 07:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mosuo? http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/introduction_to.html

Not quite a matriarchy, historically, but now, maybe?
-synwolf

Lots of inappropriate matter....

Hello:

This article seems to veer away from its intended topic early, and only vaguely meander back to it, at times, for purposes of inspection and criticism perhaps more appropriate to a completely different page. It reminds me of how I used to respond to questions for which my own answers, on test days, were clearly not up to snuff.

For example: Q.) What is an apple? A.) An apple is a fruit, and is not to be confused with a mouse, which is a small, omnivorous, quadrupedal live-bearing mammal. Apples are rarely as fur-bearing or cute as mice. (The word "mice," incidentally, is the plural of the word "mouse."

Honestly, wouldn't most of what is on this page be more appropriately placed on the "Patriarchy in feminism" entry? It seems rather as though those wishing to push certain agendum have hijacked the process. I won't touch the so-called "disputed neutrality" of the bizarre "Antifeminism" entry. Yikes.

T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.105.148 (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bring back the flags! Billbrock 23:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm back

You only need to hit the "Show" button to see all the flags Bill.

If anyone would like to express any of the content of the article in words they consider an improvement, go ahead.

However, deletions of cited material are not supposed to happen at Wiki. I will continue to restore what has been removed, and revert deletions made contra Wiki policy.

Cheers. Alastair Haines 01:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Archived Stuff

I archived a lot of material. All of the most recent archived text was in the last edit, if you feel that portion should be restored. Avruch 04:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks Avruch, nice to know WikiGnomes are out and about archiving work that took time to research, and is vulnerable because it's unpopular in some circles. I used to keep my own archive, but the page was stable for so long, and other editors were reverting vandalism, I stopped monitoring it myself. Alastair Haines 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Feminist criticism

I added a {{Fact}} tag to the last line in this section concerning the ranks of executivies/politicians and existing income distribution. It only has links to other articles. I'm more concerned, though, with whether that statement actually belongs in the 'feminist criticism' section at all. It doesn't seem to fit the description.

I've also removed another line that was completely uncited and could be seen as introducing a bit of POV. I'm happy to have a version of it back if it can be cited appropriately.

Avruch 04:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey again Avruch, you talk like a Wiki editor, I like you. A few points.

1. Executive positions and income are verifiable facts. In Australia, there were only 2 female CEOs out of the top 200 companies. This was recently reported when one of them resigned or was sacked, can't remember which. I've read other reports of the same thing throughout the Western World. Income disparity is also a demonstrable fact in the West. These things are reported so widely I didn't see the need to verify them in this article. I would have thought they should be verified in the articles dedicated to the particular subjects. This article needs to devote most attention to verifying that all known societies have indeed been patriarchal. And that is a big job!

2. These issues are relevant to feminism, because feminist aims have traditionally included equal numbers of women in top jobs, and for women to have an average income equal to men. It's news to me if they've decided those things are actually perfectly fair and reasonable.

3. These issues are relevant to patriarchy, because patriarchy is defined by both feminists and anthropologists as being male dominance of executive social positions and control of wealth. Feminism condemns this, anthropology has no opinion, it merely provides the data that proves feminists do have something to complain about.

4. These issues are evidence for the scientific theory of gender differences. Even when societies, like current Western ones, try extremely hard to stop patriarchy, they do not seem to be succeeding. If we cannot stop it socially, perhaps it is genuinely biological.

I don't know if I've answered your concerns. Please challenge anything. There are literally hundreds of books that can be used to verify the things I'm reporting. I keep finding more and more all the time. There's only space to report the best sources in the Wiki article. Cheers Alastair Haines 04:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Combining Tables

The two tables list the same groups and should be combined, futher the second table is a quotefarm and should be labeled as such. Neitherday 12:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this discussion involves both of the two articles that use these tables, it should be centralized to Template talk:Patriarchy (ethnographies) Neitherday 13:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion at the template is fine by me.
Your proposal is not clear to me, however. It seems contradictory. Combining tables will not remove a quote farm problem.
In fact, I would have thought the whole point of the first table is to present the facts in summary without the wall of quotes. Why doesn't that address your issue?
Or if your issue is the summary being unsourced, well then quotes are needed to verify it aren't they? So how can you complain about a quote farm.
It seems rather chicken and egg, it's not clear how you propose to represent all the cited content. Alastair Haines 04:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Quotes aren't needed to verify the first table, although additional referenced text may be. That is exactly why I left the comments column on the combined table. I agree that the comments column is needed, but believe that it would be better if it were not all quotes. However, see my compromise proposal on the template talk page and see if that is something you think we can both accept. Neitherday 05:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for such a nice reply. I'd really love to understand your concern and maybe even help make some changes. It's nice feeling someone else's involvement in presenting material in as digestable way as possible. See you at the template talk page. PS, if you return the tag, I won't remove it again. But it doesn't matter much one way or another, since we're talking. Cheers mate. Alastair Haines 05:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Where I can find good quality films

Where I can find good quality films? Can anyone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.107.214.190 (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vanatinai added to list

The Vanatinai are an interesting society. Patriarchal, like all societies, of course. However, they demonstrate a point noted by Goldberg in 1973. Patriarchy, in anthropological terms, is expressed in three main ways:

  1. male dominance in dyadic male-female relationships, like marriage (men are dominant individually)
  2. male dominance of occupations considered high status (men are dominant collectively)
  3. male dominance in representing the community, particularly in public office (men are dominant officially)

All societies have marriage, and all societies work to survive. Hence, patriarchy types 1 and 2 are always potentially observable; i.e. a social scientist can observe patterns of behaviour in marriage, and status attributed to occupation to verify or falsify the presence of patriarchy.

Almost all societies have some form of executive public office, typically including responsibilities for negotiating relationships with other societies — war, peace, trade etc. Some however, have little interaction with other societies and low levels of internal organization — neither government nor coerced community contributions like tax or labour. These societies have no executive leadership, no head-person, no elders, no military, no police, no judges.

Such societies are called egalitarian, because members have no obligation to a social heirarchy.

A cute definition would be that they have representation without taxation.

If men dominate in marriage, and in high status occupations, but there is no man or group of men in charge of the society, can we say that this is gender equality? I've only found one answer to this question in published material.

The Vanatinai are (or were) a politically egalitarian society, with male dominance in gender roles.

The verification is provided by an ethnographer called Maria Lipowsky. I have quoted her work under Vanatinai in the list. Alastair Haines 09:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


No, actually interpersonal relations, including marriage practices, on Vanatinai are EGALITARIAN. Look at the title of Lepowsky's book. Read its contents. You are misrepresenting Maria Lepowsky's work, only selecting a few decontextualized bits of data to support your overarching claim of the universality of patriarchy. Unless you or someone else has published a work of comparable repute on Vanatinai, her conclusions take precedence. By using her data to make your own argument, what you are actually doing is "original research" (of dubious quality and neutrality), which is not eligible for Wikipedia. Ntheriault 15:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

Interpersonal relations are egalitarian are they? ... except for the sorcerers she says have more influence than others? Make up your mind. Political relationships, family relationships, inter-generational relationships? Lepowsky says parents have no authority over children? All relationships among the Vanatinai are egalitarian are they? I find that an extraordinary claim. If, however, you can cite Lepowsky saying that marriage is egalitarian, we may have some more talking to do. Matrilinearity and matrilocality do not address that issue.
The article aknowledges Lepowsky as the earliest ethnographer of the Vanatinai. It quotes her regarding sorcerers. It makes no claims about any of her other views. A direct quote cannot be removed, is, by definition, not original research, and if it is of dubious quality and neutrality, it is the author of the quote you are attributing that too.
If you can find a source that says that sorcerers do not have more influence than others, and that they are equally female and male, then you have a case. Then we can cite Lepowsky's POV regarding influential male sorcerers and another POV that sorcerers have no more influence than anyone else and show no gender distinction.
If you want to write about Lepowsky's views, please do so in an article of her own. She is only relevant to this article in so far as she provides observations related to patriarchy (and matriarchy). But please desist from removing her valuable observations, which have been used by others in establishing the universal absence of matriarchy. Lepowsky's observation is necessary for the article because others have suggested the Vanatinai might be matriarchal (google it, they're out there, surprise, surprise). Lepowsky's observation proves that they are not.
Finally, I note that you also removed the half-dozen additional references I provided to Lepowsky's view of sorcerers AND an independent observation made more than 100 years before her. You might be irritated that those views exist in print, but they do. It is counter to Wiki policy to remove accurately transcribed, relevant quotes. A word-for-word quote does not misrepresent an author. Alastair Haines 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It is original research to claim that Lepowsky's work shows Vanatinai to be patriarchal. If you want to include Vanatinai on your list, you cannot claim that Lepowsky's work shows it to be patriarchal, but rather egalitarian. Perhaps if you use the list only to debunk claims about matriarchy and not to claim the universality of patriarchy, then there can be compromise. In the meantime, however, no dice because the universality claim is false, plain and simple, assuming of course we aren't doing original research here. Why do you want so badly for patriarchy to be universal?
And, yes, according to Lepowsky interpersonal relations on Vanatinai are egalitarian in the sense that there is no institutionalized way of getting someone else to do your bidding. There is witchcraft and sorcery, however, which can lead to situational dominance. Fascinating to imagine something so different, isn't it? Or does it scare you? Ntheriault 22:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

Sexism in this article

This article clearly lacks neutrality. It is also an attempt to present original research because it uses evidence from sources in ways that go against the argument of those sources. Its entire premise is that gender inequality and patriarchy are universal and biologically predetermined. This is not a claim that can be substantiated. This article does not reflect the latest and most up-to-date research. Gender inequality, like racial inequality, is made socially, not biologically. Because of the bias that runs throughout, this article needs a complete rewriting. A lot of the bias is subtle (e.g., the selection of an image of a cowering female peacock cowering before her pluming male counterpart), but other parts are blatant, such as the claim in the introduction that gender inequality is explained biologically but only criticized morally by feminists. Ntheriault 16:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

Everything you mention Ntheriault is copied from sources that are cited. I'm sorry to inform you, but the social determinism model has been exploded for at least 15 years.
You however express a particular POV. You suggest that gender differences are inequalities. No one, to my knowledge, has actually proved such a moral claim. Is it gender inequality that women outperform men in education? Or are women simply more motivated and more capable than men, on average, in academic settings? Many think this to be the case, I am one of them. Several feminists, however, think it reflects discrimination against boys and men (Christina Hoff Summers and others since her). Perhaps both are true. CHS's view is not reproduced here because it does not relate to patriarchy.
I think your POV is distorting the way you view the peacock. However, I'm happy to plead guilty to choosing an image that would illustrate biological differences between sexes as clearly as possible. It is extreme. Would choosing a picture of a species with no observable difference help illustrate sexual differentiation better?
You also seem to have overlooked what the article says explicitly — gender differences are unlikely to be able to be explained as 100% biological. One area thought to have a significant social element is the formation of gender identity over the first three years of life.
Finally, you also miss the logic of the lead to the article. It does not claim something as ambitious as biology explaining every aspect of gender. (It is social determinists that made the extraordindary claim that biology contributes nothing to gender.) The article cites many writers who have shown how biology influences gender, and one writer who predicted this, on the basis of the anthropological data regarding patriarchy. Some biological factor could explain patriarchy (gender inequality, according to your POV). Well, we now have enough evidence of biological differences influencing behaviour, but we still don't know which, if any, actually cause patriarchy! It could still even be a coincidence!
I hope you can relax and enjoy reading the fascinating literature available regarding the complexities of gender, without rushing to judgement and anger regarding the views and practices of billions of people over thousands of years. Alastair Haines 16:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You are reading anger into my response. That is a subtle argumentative tactic, but it's ultimately a fallacy. For the sake of avoiding sexism, biology can only be used to explain sex differences, not gender differences. Patriarchy is a matter of gender, not sex. Explaining patriarchy, which is a structural form of gender inequality, in terms of biological sex is sexist, just like explaining racial inequality in terms of biological race is racist. Ntheriault 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault
Another logical error. I expressed a hope that you would not become angry, I did not make a claim that you were angry. Sex and gender are roughly synonymous, you need to read some 21st century literature, that crosses disciplines to pick up that human sexual dimorphism requires multiple levels of distinction to describe it clearly.
It's past my bed-time, I'll just drop in a quick quote that we can discuss some other time.

Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to read 21st century literature? Hahahaha. Not even going to dignify. But, simply put, gender and sex are not the same thing. Look at all the people out there living as men who are biologically female and vice versa. Gender=social/identity/ideology. Sex=biological/anatomy/DNA. The one does not equal the other. This is of course a much more complicated question, but to say that they are roughly synonymous is little more than an ignorant way to naturalize the gendered economy and the ideologies that undergird it. Ntheriault 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault
Your terminology is very specific. It places your sources as those that follow the feminist hypotheses of the 1980s. A great deal of research has been done into both the validity of those hypotheses to explain human behaviour and into sexuality and sexual dimorphism independently of feminism, simply to understand medical and psychological issues of individuals.
Already, in 1994. Money was able to refer to the simplistic sex-gender dichotomy as "scientifically debased".
Money has a particular right to say this, since he had been working on the subject for 40 years.
There are two main problems with your gender/sex understanding. Firstly, DNA and anatomy do not equal one-another (see AIS). What "sex" are AIS women? Your terminology cannot cope with the biology. Secondly, gender identity and gender role do not equal one-another. Either you need to say that women taking male gender roles during WWII, thereby had male gender (which I doubt they'd say of themselves), or that during WWII society did not have distinct gender roles, which is not something I've read anywhere, and doubt you have.
I'd like to know where all these biologically female men you speak of describe themselves that way, or are even classified that way by writers who think they know better than individuals whether to call them men or women. I don't think I've read anyone who suggests such a thing. To the contrary, although I think their terminology is confused, there are sociologists who prefer to talk of third gender (or more) for women who adopt male gender roles (there are a few societies where this is explicitly formalized).
As for "gendered economy and ideologies undergirding it", language like that has no content except a stubborn insistance on interpreting gender/sex differences in social occupations as driven by some coercive conspiracy, rather than a reflection of natural preferences and aptitudes. It is the one thing you say that can actually be backed by academic literature. It is precisely the hypothesis of 80s feminism (speaking kindly) or the rhetoric of their ideology (speaking unkindly).
I have no problems at all with you expressing such a POV, however, it does show that either you haven't read much of feminisms of diversity, or of the equality feminists who critique gender feminists of your school of thought; either that or you have great answers to their challenges, that I've not read in gender feminism as yet, and I'd love to hear about.
There are some very significant social issues for women, that do not leave them singing the praises of feminism
Laudably, other feminists are lining up to distance themselves from inequities perpetrated on boys and men in the name of feminism.
Note, I'm just quoting recent female writers of anti-patriarchal commitment. The criticisms of others more distant from feminism are even less kind. Alastair Haines 02:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Look, this is going nowhere. You're right -- DNA is not the same thing as anatomy. That is not remotely what I said. But DNA is what codes the human anatomy, prior to cultural and environmental modifications. You are so adept at grabbing onto things people say and caricaturing them. Funny, that's how this whole debate began. Which is why I suggest you get your own sources straight before you start criticising mine. At least I do not deliberately misrepresent them to present my own ideology. I've admitted my biases, but I have not attempted to adjust the entire set of articles to represent my worldview. Rather, what I have done is presented evidence that more accurately reflects the range of ideas out there. And the egg is on your face for not having done so in the first place. I rest my case. Ntheriault 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

I'm happy to hear you rest your case, because you haven't demonstrated what you claim. This article is not about me or my views, it is about patriarchy. Britannica summarizes the expert consensus -- universal absence of matriarchy. The original and best ethnographers do not report matriarchy. Even feminism does not claim or recommend matriarchy. Case closed.

You, however, seem to be taking it upon yourself to attempt to make a case against the universality of patriarchy, which is not a claim this article actually made. Donald Brown and Steven Pinker do state it. Steven Goldberg specifically denies it, he explicitly covers the fact that politically egalitarian societies cannot demonstrate patriarchy-as-community-headship. Such societies are so simple and loose and co-ordinated activity so limited that they do not need authorities, hence men cannot fill such positions. Although we cannot prove that men would do so were they to exist, this cannot be disproved either. Goldberg published this defeater for your argument in 1973, and it has not been challenged. By definition, politically egalitarian societies cannot disprove patriarchy-as-community-headship, because it simply cannot exist. General patriarchy must be established on the basis of division of labour and status. Sorcerers and witches become the issue in the case of Vanatinai.

Your paragraph, unfortunately, is not only irrelevant, it is misleading ("paucity"), logically flawed and OR ("disprove") and POV/WP:UNDUE ("contradictory gender ideologies"), and based on sources known to be from a minority, ideologically disposed group within anthropology, relying, in part, on disproven hypotheses from feminism, not from anthropology. Admittedly, those feminist hypotheses were more current at the time your sources published than they are now. That excuses them, but it does not excuse Wiki, you or me from accepting them now.

On the other hand, what you and your sources note about the existance of politically egalitarian societies is quite true, they exist, but have sufficient evidence of male domination to class as patriarchal under the categories that apply -- status and dyadic male-female relationships, e.g. !Kung et al.. Alastair Haines 05:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From my reply on the template page----

Like I said, if you want to include Lepowsky's work to show that Vanatinai is not matriarchal, go ahead. But you cannot say that her work shows it to be patriarchal. Any definition of patriarchy requires a culturally mediated institutionalization of male dominance. Nothing of the sort exists on Vanatinai since both genders have access to the means of prestige---magic and exchange goods. I don't need to quote from the book because her argument on that point is in the title of the book. All you're doing is extracting quotes and decontextualizing them, which I won't even dignify with a reply in kind. It is so disingenuous that you should be ashamed of yourself. And, please, don't warn me about reporting me to the Wiki-people. Who do you think you are? You are not an authority on gender or anthropology or any of these matters and you, therefore, have no right to be deciding whether Lepowsky or others make their case or not. And, for record, she and the others who have documented egalitarian societies are not an ideological minority as you claim elsewhere. In fact, they are anthropologists of the highest regard. Every other sentence from you is a lie, including your claim that the articles don't argue for the universality of patriarchy. That is so obviously untrue that it made me laugh to read it. Your unwillingness to admit that fact simply proves that I have been right all along in suspecting an underlying ideological agenda here. But my laugh quickly stopped because what you are doing is simply shameful. It is a disservice to those who use Wikipedia, and if anyone deserves to be reported it is you. Unless the paragraph that introduces the table and the list is changed, and Vanatinai is not portrayed as a patriarchy next to the Lepowsky quotes, then that is original research. It is, furthermore, a misrepresentation. If you want to include her as a source in your table/list (but why would anyway if she is such an ideologue as you claim, unless of course you yourself are an ideologically biased hypocrite?), you are the one going against the rules of Wikipedia, not I. To keep the Lepowsky quotes, you must change the introduction of the table/list to admit for egalitarian societies, and you must change the cells for Vanatinai. Otherwise, keep your missionary quote (you can always rely on religious zealots when it comes to the domination of women), but leave Lepowsky out of it. Ntheriault 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

From my response at the template page --

I've never claimed Lepowsky claims Vanatinai to be patriarchal, in fact I know it is quite the opposite. Others, however, do claim it be patriarchal, on the basis of her observations, and knowing it is contrary to her analysis. That sounds fair enough to me, if it is shameful, well, the feminists who claim a matriarchal Vanatinai are just as shameful. I don't think that, I just think they are wrong. But that is by the by. What matters is people have published three opinions regarding Vanatinai, and that those views include Lepowsky's observations (one of the opinions, is, of course, hers).
Lepowsky is one among very many professional scholars, all of whom make mistakes. I am not particularly interested in status, and don't decide who or what to believe on the basis of other people's perceived status. I make decisions based on the logic of people's arguments, and the logic of those who criticise or praise them.
Your personal attacks, which are highly insulting and discriminatory, make me disappointed, not angry or ashamed. I'm sad because you really seemed to appreciate a lot of important issues, and to respond a little to new information.
By the way, if you want to do some more research about other ethnographers in the list, you will discover that several (men as well as women) have explicitly published feminist views and condemnations of patriarchy. This simply strengthens the objectivity of the list and table. It is not a list of "anthropologists in favour of patriarchy", just as the article is not "why patriarchy is your friend". The article is a logical presentation of the key facts and sources related to patriarchy as a phenomenon, with the addition of a one-sided treatment of moralizing on the subject, where only feminism has been allowed to speak. Despite your accusations, I have not cited even one word of the hundreds of Christian sources I know that provide moral arguments in favour of patriarchy. Cheers. Alastair Haines 17:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My most recent post to the discussion of the template page follows the hyphens. I propose consolidating our discussions on these related articles on this discussion to avoid confusion. ---- Yeah, I know, it's a list of "I think patriarchy is universal, and I'm going to (mis)use whatever sources I can to support that." Look at how you introduce your table: "In nearly every case it is clear from what the women and men who studied them report, that the societies were patriarchal not matriarchal, even before changes brought by contact with western culture. What some of the societies do typify, however, is matrilinearity or matrilocality, not matriarchy, because of clear features of male dominance. This is the evidence that verifies the statements made by Encyclopaedia Britannica, Margaret Mead, Cynthia Eller and Steven Goldberg elsewhere in this article, and has been mainly located using their bibliographies." Lepowsky's work directly contradicts, rather than verifies, those statements. Furthermore, before I removed it, the table listed Vanatinai as a patriarchy and cited her as the source. So, yes, you have subltly claimed that Lepowsky's work argues that Vanatinai is patriarchal. If there are reputable sources out there who have contradicted her work as you claim, then use their work to make your claim. They would of course have to be reputable, not some blogger. But you can't impose your analysis on her work. For the 50th time, that is not what Wikipedia is for. The only way to fix this is either to remove citations to Lepowsky from your table/list or to change the argument that the list is making. No, besides expressing my opinion that your abuse of Wikipedia is shameful, there was nothing personal or discriminatory in my previous post. And, yes, you are using a Christian ideological source. What do you think a colonial account from the 1850s is?! Go ahead and use it, but don't pretend it's something it's not. Ntheriault 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

Article needs some work

The lead is very poor. It focuses more on matriarchy than patriarchy. It is ridiculous to quote another encyclopedia's entry on a topic that isn't even patriarchy in the lead of this article. It's like, this article doesn't have a lead (a quick intro text that defines the topic and summarizes the key points of the article) but instead starts right in a section about "the debate regarding the gender/power dynamics of historical societies". This is an interesting topic, and could clearly be covered elsewhere in the article. But not the lead.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or etymology reference, and the Etymology, Related words, and Related customs sections should be made more concise and perhaps combined in some manner.

Feminist criticism section is basically word for word the same as the Patriarchy in feminism. So either we need to make that section more concise here, or simply redirect that article to this section. We can't have that much duplicate content in two places (because what happens when editors start editing one but not the other).

One thing that bothers me (and which litters this article) are the weird one sentence paragraphs like For other writers who make similar points to Goldberg see Steven Pinker and Donald Brown in the literature below. and For a leading feminist who writes against patriarchy see Marilyn French; and for one who is more sympathetic see Christina Hoff Sommers.

The "Biology of gender" section has major issues. In short, science has caught up with what feminists, Goldberg and common sense have said for a long time – on average, men are more aggressive in social behaviour. This does not justify patriarchy, it merely partially explains it. The explanation is only partial because there is a lot of variation in women and men that is not yet understood. It cannot be proven that female-ness or male-ness is 100% biological (in fact it almost certainly isn't), but what has been shown is that female-ness and male-ness are certainly not 100% determined by upbringing and culture (social determinism). These things are an exciting area of future research, with profound relevance for people of many different types. Not to be blunt, but this isn't a high school persuasive essay. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry. This sort of tone, and the manner in which it leads the reader is clearly not encyclopedic. On top of that, the whole paragraph is unsourced. It doesn't inform the reader, but instead, tells the reader.

Speaking of that, phrases like The important thing to note are completely extraneous. Remove it, and the sentence still works.

This article does need work. But not all is bad. There are sources. It just seems like a good copy editor should go through to cut out the junk, and improve wherever possible.

Anyway, just my two cents. The work, IMO, is a bit overwhelming for myself, and also, IMO, would require a major overhaul, so I'm bringing my concerns to talk first. -Andrew c [talk] 05:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you here Andrew. I disagree with most of your comments, but I don't consider them particularly core issues and so wouldn't oppose most of the changes, just modify some.
However, I agree that deleting the recent addition (the fourth para), regarding matriarchy and power structures, would be a good idea, it does sway the lead away from the balanced presentation that was there before and gives the impression you suggest. (It is also WP:UNDUE but that is by-the by.)
Etymology can certainly go, that was one of the few parts of this article I didn't write myself. It used to be the lead sentence (and all one sentence!) At one stage, it was the only stable thing in the article. However, it actually contributes little beyond "father rule" to understanding of the subject.
I'm afraid I wrote this article with too much bias in favour of feminism, and now's as good a time as any to correct that, So let's do it! :) The main thing this article needs to do is explain the objective consensus that patriarchy = male dominance and that this is universal, providing the verification for that claim. It is, of course, precisely these things that feminism rose up to oppose! If there is no patriarchy, there is no need for feminism.
Feminist criticism and etymology and biology can all go, imo. However, if they do, I think you will find the stability of the article will be lost. The documented history of patriarchy, and its likely explanation are ideologically unpalatable to a vocal minority. The fact that their opinion is already presented here neturally is not sufficient for some, in their view, the facts and majority opinions are immoral and should be silenced. But that, obviously, is not a view an encyclopedia can take.
Finally, on reflection, I made an error in creating the Patriarchy in feminism article. I didn't know about POV forking at the time. The editor who created Patriarchy (anthropology) did so because her contributions at this article were repeatedly reverted by feminist editors. At that point it should have been oposed as a POV fork. However, I think there is value in a content fork Patriarchy/Patriarchy (ideology). Patriarchy is not simply a historical reality, it is also an ideology with a very long history of writers promoting it, and a recent history of writers condemning it. The right content fork allows more realistic space for competing opinions to be reflected.
Cheers. Alastair Haines 06:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

--Reply to Andrewc

I completely agree. I have been concentrating so much on trying to correct the misuse of certain sources and to balance the ideological elements that I haven't had the energy or time to take on some of the other egregious logical fallacies (e.g., appeals to common sense) and non-encyclopedic tendencies. I'll add these matters to my list, as I will hopefully manage to work on a thorough editing at some point. A big problem here is that there is original research (to put it generously), but it's hard to correct because it is woven into so many references to academic literature. Ntheriault 06:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault
Wiki is up for grabs for anyone. Make any changes you like, other than removing sourced text. Remember though, I will do precisely the same. Including reverting back to the stable version of the article a week ago if I consider it appropriate.
However, I suggest that if you desire credibility, you treat my comments with more respect than you have demonstrated so far. Alastair Haines 06:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"The main thing this article needs to do is explain the objective consensus that patriarchy = male dominance and that this is universal, providing the verification for that claim." Translation: the main thing this article needs to do is claim the universality of patriarchy, thereby silencing many voices within an ongoing scholarly debate, disguising original research as fact, and supporting it with decontexutalized quotes from sources that as a whole actually disprove that claim. Way to keep with the spirit of Wikipedia! This is very troubling and disillusioning. How did you get from Andrew's critique to the conclusion that you should eliminate a so-called bias in favor of feminism? There is no such bias in these articles, in fact just the opposite! I now see this is truly hopeless because you are not in this for the sake of the knowledge at all. It is depressing to think that this may be the fate of Wikipedia, co-opted by those with no regard for the sharing of knowledge but rather for the manipulation of the same for their own purposes. For the moment I resign myself to dealing only with the question of your misuse of Lepowsky's work, which you frustratingly manage to avoid addressing by constantly changing the subject. We need to resolve that issue. I have offered my proposal for a compromise at least twice. Please respond. Ntheriault 09:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

and of course you propose cutting the only paragraph that presents well-sourced claims contrary to your argument. No surprises there, just more confirmation for my suspicions. Despite but also due to all your subterfuge and artful use of fallacy, you make this easy as much as you make it the most frustrating and absurd "scholarly" conversation I have ever had. Here's a thought: maybe you should just change the title of the article to "the universality of patriarchy hypothesis". That would be consistent with your references to feminism as a hypothesis and your claims to be representing fact not ideological bias. Technically it would be a fact to present the article as a hypothesis, however flawed I think that hypothesis is. I highly doubt you will even consider this, but it would establish a standard of integrity that the current article lacks. Ntheriault 09:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault
Regarding Lepowski, you have provided no case, have been answered in detail, and have provided no response. That's no surprise, there is none possible. The way forward is for you to write an article on Lepowski's views. No one is stopping you.
The rest of your comment consists of inaccurate readings of the current revision of this article and more personal attacks. Check the edit history of the page, the feminist criticism section was written by me (in fact, it was the first contribution I ever made at Wiki). Not only that, I decided to put feminist criticism before scientific analysis of patriarchy. Finally, Goldberg describes his theory as a hypothesis, this article describes it as a hypothesis. It is a hypothesis. We still don't know how hormones and genes specifically produce various aspects of patriarchy, or in fact if indeed they do. All we know is that patriarchy is universal, and that biological differences between men and women are sufficiently extensive to potentially provide such an explanation. I've mentioned all of this before.
So far, the content of your posts can be summarised ... "Lepowski is a feminist, she can't be listed as supporting patriarchy. This article is biased. User Alastair Haines is a religious zealot." Personal attack is unacceptable at Wiki. It's true the article is biased in favour of feminism (I deliberately wrote it that way and am very happy to correct that by providing a pro patriarchy section prior to feminist criticism, and a response to feminism section). Lastly, as covered elsewhere, there are several feminist ethnographers quoted in the ethnographic list, they are listed for their observation of the society (and observations quoted) as professional anthropologists. Their ideology is represented by professional feminist academics in the feminist section.
I am tired of repeating myself. If you continue to assert your opinion rather than modifying it by engaging with the arguments that defeat it as stated, you are not making any serious attempt to agree. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight. I never called you a religious zealot. I don't even know who you are, and based on some inconsistencies in information among your various posts, I wonder whether you are even a single individual. But that is besides the point. For the record, my use of the term "religious zealot" was in reference to one of your sources, somewhat tongue in cheek. With that out of the way, I too am getting sick of repeating myself because you are not listening to what I am saying. Like these articles as a whole, your table/list makes the claim that patriarchy is universal. If you rely on sources that also make that claim, fine. But since you don't (e.g., your citing Lepowsky), you are doing original research. What about that is unclear? As I stated, I am no longer going to concern myself with the poor qualities and bias of these articles as wholes. I will not, however, relent until we reach a compromise. I have already proposed one twice. Either accept it or propose one of you own. If not, I will implement it. Also for the record, you putative gem of a section on feminism is complete garbage. It suggests that, except for some recent luminaries, feminists have basically self-defeated, are hopelessly bashing their heads against the glass ceiling, and suffer from rampant misandry. That is misinformation of the most dishonorable sort, but I haven't the patience to deal with that at this point. Ntheriault (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

Just as you have implied I might be a sock-puppet, you implied I might be an "ideologically biased hypocrite", and specifically claimed "every other sentence from you is a lie" along with the implicatied "religious zealot" (see Template:Patriarchy (ethnographies)). Of course you didn't source such claims or demonstrate them in anyway. I'm supposed to "listen" to you, i.e. accept your POV. You have said your piece, I have answered it, unless you have specific replies to the answer your were given, and new information, the case is closed. I, too, have other things to concern myself with than what you chose to read into the text of this article (despite explicit text to the contrary). I look forward to hearing your polite engagement with the answer you were given at the template page, reproduced below.

  1. The quotes are all word for word, with no internal ellipsis.
  2. The quote is now supported by several other quotes from the same work that all say the same thing.
  3. The author reports the society to be politically egalitarian, i.e. no official government.
  4. The author reports sorcerors to be the most influential people.
  5. The author reports they are mostly male.
  6. In fact, the author repeats this in other of her works. (1 cited at Talk:Patriarchy)
  7. The author also reports in the same other work that warriors (when they existed) were exclusively male. (also at Talk)
  8. The quotes are reports of direct observations.
  9. The author never argues that the observations were exceptional or unrepresentative.
  10. There is no misrepresentation.
  11. The quote has now been supplemented by an independent report from more than 100 years earlier.
  12. Published observations of professionals quoted word for word are not OR.

The argument from the author's observation to a criticism of feminism is your own interpretation. You don't even offer a quote from the article to establish the point, because none can be provided. Hence it is your interpretation of the quote and of the article that is OR, so inadmissible as grounds to remove verifiable information from Wikipedia. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is not your place to decide when a case is closed or open. The nature of Wikipedia is that cases close when there is agreement among contributors. The reason we are at an impasse is that you have not and cannot disprove my claim that you are using Lepowsky's work to argue that "Vanatinai, like every society, is patriarchal." (By the way, your previous assertions that the article doesn't argue that are example of the lies I was pointing out.) Which means you are re-interpreting published material to make an argument that goes against the argument made in that material. That is the very definition of original research and persuasive writing, which is not admissible to Wikipedia. Plain and simple. There is no grand argument here requiring massive amounts of quotes and substantiation. Again, the title of the book alone is enough, which perhaps explains why you were originally citing the dissertation without "egalitarian" in its title. Nice try. By definition, patriarchy denotes institutionalized male dominance, whether at the level of the nuclear family or in an organized government. And you're wrong, "politically egalitarian" does not necessarily denote "no official government," although it seems that all the examples we have of egalitarian societies are not bureaucratically organized. Gender egalitarianism, which is what we're debating with respect to Vanatinai, means that both genders have access to sources of prestige, i.e., magic and exchange goods. Lepowsky clearly demonstrates this in her book. You are doing a very limited and selected reading of the book, while I am looking at it as a whole. The entire point of the book is to show that egalitarian societies (i.e., those that are neither patriarchal nor matriarchal) do in fact exist. Vanatinai men may be the sorcerers and were at one time the warriors before "pacification" (ironically at the hands of the other source you cite), but women are the guardians of witchcraft and are the inheritors of land and other wealth. Furthermore, these situational gendered imbalances in power are not backed up by a systemic ideological or institutional (meaning shared norms and rules) apparatus on which they are transmitted and enforced. The closest thing to such an apparatus in the Vanatinai case is the notion of gender egalitarianism. This is summarized very nicely in chapter two (pp. 31-80) and evinced throughout the book. Understanding what I am saying (really, what Lepowsky is saying) requires considering the whole of her argument, not grabbing onto quotes and decontextualizing them. Since when did reproducing quotes without elipses count as accurately representing a work? Solving this problem, as I have now said like five times, would be simple. Unless you have any ideas besides leaving it as is, there are three options as I see it: (1) change the title of the articles to "the hypothesis of universal patriarchy," or something to that effect, which would still entail original research, but I could live with that; (2) change the preamble to the table/list to say that some of the societies have been shown to be neither matriarchal nor patriarchal, but egalitarian; or (3) remove the quotes from Lepowsky. An acceptance of #3 alone would be a sorrowful capitulation on my part, but as I've said I can't stomach these terms of "argumentation" anymore. Ntheriault (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault
PS -- I have referred to and quoted specific parts of the articles several times, particularly the preamble to the table/list, which states that "In every case the ethnographers report that the societies were patriarchal not matriarchal, even before changes brought by contact with western culture." That is simply not true, and Lepowsky's work is the only example I'm bothering to argue over because I know it best. Others on there, I suspect, would also be inadmissible under that preamble.
And I wanted to address quickly your claim that I implied you are a sock-puppet. I implied no such thing. Rather, I said that I wonder whether there might be more than one person contributing under your screen name because you at various points refer to yourself as "an old man" and at others say that you were a child in 1975. That sounds like different people to me, but again this is not what we're debating here. It is frustrating how you are so reactionary to everything I say only to turn around and make claims about my ideology, POV, agenda, etc., that are not relevant. Go ahead, I could care less what you think or say about me because I'm here to fix errors in the article, not grandstand. But the hypocrisy is killing me. Ntheriault (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault
You would be correct had you provided sufficient argument to open a case. So far all you have done is removed sourced material (contra Wiki policy). When this was challenged you have offered a range of personal attacks on the editor who explained the policy, and took the trouble to address your concerns. You insisting there remains an issue, does not mean there is in fact any issue of real substance. Sure, if you think the policy should be changed, there is an issue in a way, however it is not one amenable to change. That's the point of policy.
Repeating arguments that have been answered, without interacting with the answers is not an effort to reach agreement, it is an attempt to insist on your POV. In my last post I noted that ML describes the society as politically egalitarian. In your reply, you do not interact with that, and repeat your own original research that all politically egalitarian societies are non patriarchal. I'm not aware of any source that says this and of many that say contrary. I have quoted them and you still insist on your own POV.
How about we take this one point at a time. How many anthropologists argue that all politically egalitarian societies are non-patriarchal? I'm not aware of any. And your argument from the title of MLs book fails immediately once this point is appreciated.

Alastair Haines (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not interact with most of what you say in your responses because most of it is irrelevant. The point of the discussion page is to discuss the content of the articles, not to debate the subject matter. We have fallen into that trap here, and it is time to get out of it, as I have been trying in my past several posts. You are keen to prove how much you know about sex, gender, and their political dimensions. But this discussion isn't about who knows more or whether any anthropologist claims that all egalitarian societies are non-patriarchal. It started with my questioning your use of a source, got diverted onto other matters, and now is back again to the original point, which you are actually the one who refuses to interact with besides to dismiss it. The only point I have been making in my last several posts is that: (1) you use Lepowsky's work to evince your claim that patriarchy is universal; and (2) this constitutes original research because it is an unsourced reinterpretation of a published work. I have offered ample evidence to demonstrate this. The only Wikipedia-appropriate way to present Vanatinai as seen by Lepowsky as a patriarchal society is to cite other published sources that interpret her work in this way. Your interpretation of her work is simply not admissible to Wikipedia. My point is not to prove that all politically egalitarian societies are non-patriarchal. Like you, I am not an authority on this matter, but unlike you I do not pretend to be. What I am arguing is that we need to present those who are authorities, including everyone from Lepowsky to Goldberg, in the terms of their own arguments. The fact that the article does so in the case of Goldberg but not in the case of Lepowsky reflects the POV of the author. That is not a major problem that needs to be resolved. Please refer to my proposed compromises so that we can resolve this. Otherwise, propose some of your own. I would go in and make the changes I know are right, but I know you would just undo all them as you have. Whatever you do, please do not again attempt to divert this discussion to other matters. Ntheriault (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

Interacting with sources

In my last post I asked you to specifically provide sources for your claim, by asking a direct question. Yet again you have not replied with an answer, but with more personal attack and reassertion of your position. The onus of proof is on those who want to remove sourced text. As yet, you have not provided an adequate case. (Which is no surprise because it is not possible.) To prove me wrong, please quote the published works of even one anthropologist who claims social egalitarianism always guarantees gender egalitarianism, or words to that effect. Unless you can show that, egalitarianism must be understood in its normal anthropological usage refering to absence of social heirarchy, implying nothing about gender. This is precisely why ML's book is titled as it is. It is addressing the question of what gender relationships look like in a socially egalitarian society. It is an interesting and important question, with many answers. But two things that it is not, are a redefinition of the word egalitarian or a "disproof" of patriarchy. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My source for my claim is Lepowsky's book itself for the--I don't know--fifteenth time. Her argument is that the society is "sexually egalitarian" and, therefore, neither patriarchal nor matriarchal. We are not talking about what other anthropologists say or whether social egalitarianism guarantees sexual egalitarianism, so why I should quote anyone else?! This is about you re-interpreting Lepowsky's book to evince your hypothesis. Which is original research!!! Although I have at least referenced chapter two, where the argument is summarized, I have not so far quoted directly from the book because my whole point is that you are selecting quotes that fit your hypothesis and decontextualizing them, and I wouldn't want to be reduced to that pitiful level of argumentation. But at this point, I might as well throw a couple out there since you refuse to consider the text as a whole. Here's one from page 39: "Nevertheless, Vanatinai society has an egalitarian ethic. It offers every adult, regardless of sex or kin group, the opportunity of excelling at prestigious activities such as participation in traditional exchange or ritual functions essential to health and prosperity. With hard work and the appropriate magical knowledge anyone may achieve the status of the gender-blind title of gia, 'giver.'" Also, from page 40: "Perhaps the most striking evidence that Vanatinai is a sexually egalitarian society is the fact that there are both 'big women' and 'big men,' individuals of both sexes who fit the ideal type of the big man outlined by Sahlins (1963)." I could go on and on, but really I have better things to do than transcribe an entire book. Unlike you, I could quote the entire book and still be right. If you don't reply to my proposals for compromise, I will report your for hijacking these articles to conduct original research. Pathetic. Ntheriault (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

Thank you for finally answering one of the relevant questions.
I hope you can see the evidence here for my point that the word egalitarian must be qualified to specifically refer to gender roles. Lepowsky, like a true professional does precisely this. By the by, the second quote also proves my point that the words gender and sex are roughly synonymous, as Lepowsky uses sexual rather than gendered in this particular case.
Finally, however, these quotes alone do not prove that Vanatinai is sexually egalitarian, because although there are 'big women' according to one definition, it does not tell us that there are 'big women' in equal numbers with men. Additionally, it does not tell us whether 'big women' have more influence than sorcerers. Since Lepowsky also tells us sorcerers are often the ones with the greatest influence, we need more information.
I'm sorry to push you on this, especially as these quotes are excellent and on topic. However, by the claims made here, Western society is sexually egalitarian, since women irrespective of holding few positions as company executives and have lower average income etc, are eligable to be Presidents or Prime Ministers. When I last checked, feminists did not think Western society had achieved gender equality, and affirmative action legislations have not been repealed.
It is clear that Lepowski considers Vanatinai to be sexually egalitarian, but unless she provides more evidence, her analysis is sufficiently idiosyncratic to fit under WP:UNDUE. Note here, her observations have objective authority not only within anthropology, but across disciplines, however, her analysis is as amenable to scrutiny as any other professional in her field.
If you are sincere in actually working out just where Vanatinai fits in the big picture (I certainly am, I wouldn't have a clue, I'm keen to hear all the information that's out there), you might be interested in this description of Sahlins' interesting POV. Laura Zimmer-Tamakoshi, The Last Big Man: Development and men's discontents in the Papua New Guinea highlands, Oceania (1997).
Additionally I have discovered linguists were working on Vanatinai a little after Lepowski. Cultural linguistics is my own area of study, so I was fascinated to discover that the Sudest language of Vanatinai has a special word euriya for a "big man's wife" (but none that I could find for a "big woman's husband"). The word for "old woman" is called elaghisari. Ela is the word for "woman" and laghiye is the word for "big". I am curious to see if 'big woman' is the meaning of the compound word for "old woman". I presume not, but language tells a story. There is a word giya for a big man, but none I could find for a big woman. Perhaps big women are called giya in a generic usage, perhaps the word relates to a function, without implying gender. However, professional linguists, like professional anthropologists know about such things. In the end, observed interactions trump linguistic arguments. I'd be surprised if Lepowski didn't provide some comment on language. Cultural linguists and cultural anthropologists work extremely closely together, especially in the field, for obvious reasons.
Finally, I found a number of sources that provide critical comment for and against Lepowski's views. Of course there's no critical commentary of observations, observations are not arguments, they can't be criticised.
If you can show that Lepowski observed 'big men' and 'big women' in equal numbers AND that 'big men' and 'big women' are more influential than sorcerers, you've got me! :) I'll be delighted for us to showcase this unique society, that has heirarchy (is not egalitarian) and has men and women equally represented in that heirarchy. All your efforts will not have been in vain. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, this is absurd. It is not for us to decide whether or not Lepowsky makes her case. The fact is, as I have shown, she argues that Vanatinai is NOT A PATRIARCHY. What you are doing and what you are asking me to do is original research, based on your definition of patriarchy and egalitarianism. I suppose that when one assumes patriarchy to be universal and forms a definition around that assumption, everything will in one way or another fit the definition. But that does not fly here since your article purports to define patriarchy, not take a stand in an ongoing debate. "If you are sincere in actually working out just where Vanatinai fits in the big picture (I certainly am)" --> so go there, write a dissertation, and publish your own book about it through a reputable press. Until then, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we simply have to go with what Lepowsky argues. Or refer to those sources you claim to have found, assuming they are reputable and can be considered of equal authority to a long-term ethnographic account. As for the undue weight issue, that is pure hog-wash, just another trick up your sleeve. In fact, if you read the review of Lepowsky's book by Peggy Sanday, you will see that the more radical feminists actually felt that Lepowsky gave undue credence to the patriarchy-is-universal hypothesis by bothering to engage with it at all. Furthermore, even if you do think that Lepowsky's work is that of a minority, Wikipedia's rules state that such work shouldn't be given equal weight to the majority view, not that it can be reinterpreted to argue something else entirely. Everyone, regardless of their authority on the matter, is entitled to form opinions about the strength of an given argument, but Wikipedia is not the place to air those opinions. That is the crux of the problem here. Lepowsky says the opposite of what you say she says. Please recognize that I have a point, that I am asking for very little in terms of concession, and respond to my compromise proposals. Ntheriault (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

You have it absolutely right, it is not for us to decide if Lepowsky makes her case. That would be original research. And that is precisely what you keep badgering me with. Lepowsky has proved Vanatinai to be sexually egalitarian you cry again and again. Well, you may well be the most expert interpreter of her case in the world, but I'm afraid we need verification that this is indeed the case. I'm aware of at least three sources that agree that she has not made such a case.
Again, what you are doing is asking me to accept your original research that Lepowsky has proved no patriarchy on Vanatinai. Show me where she says that. Does the book have patriarchy in the index? Is there an electronic copy available?
Lepowsky herself summarizes her opinion in much more careful language than you attribute to her.

Robert L. Welsch, Taking sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Cultural Anthropology. Citing Fruit of the Motherland: Gender in an Egalitarian Society. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


So, cite those sources then, but do not claim that Lepowsky herself so argues. Also, that is not "Lepowsky herself" summarizing her argument, that is Robert Welsch. Do you think I'm illiterate? I am through with this. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. I am going to make the changes I know are right (and which I have a right to make), and then when you inevitably undo them I am going to report you for hijacking these articles. I have more than adequately demonstrated that you are doing original research, and in the end the stakes are not high enough for me to spend any more of my time on this. I.e., anyone who reads these articles will notice the ideological bias, which is not in favor of feminism despite your self-delusions. Knowing that is solace enough for me. You know, it is truly pitiful that you waste so much of your life trying to suppress information that you don't agree with. Ntheriault (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

As I have mentioned before, Lepowski and her views are not discussed in this article. If we can move text related to Patriarchy (ideology) out of this article, leaving it to address only historical evidence of patriarchy, then, I think Lepowski becomes very relevant, because (as I read the sources) she is the only writer to actually have disproven one of Goldergs claims. Goldberg claimed United States society was "the closest known to sexual egalitarianism" (or words to that effect) in 1973. He was probably right at that time, I'm certainly not aware of any source that claims he was wrong on that point. In 1981, however, Lepowski possibly showned Vanatinai to be closer to sexual egalitarianism than US society. For a range of reasons, I suspect we will not find it easy to demonstrate this from the literature, however, I think it is likely enough for us to try.
As I have stated before, please write an article about Maria Lepowski, I think it likely she is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. There is a lot more freedom to state POVs of writers under their own bio, than there is in topics covering large periods of history and many writers.
Also, as I have requested before, please desist from the personal attacks that weaken your credibility. Make any report you like. I am the one who is attempting to retain relevant information, and patiently providing more and more sourced information pertinent to the issue. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For Andrew

Please keep working at the article, I honestly really appreciate you getting involved, and know the quality of your work. Please keep being bold, and don't be put off by reversions. You can always revert back again if necessary.

Regarding your last edit though. You must admit it is a strange thing to change the text to say Goldberg says ... and add a citation needed to your own change! The prior text needed no such citation, because it states the facts (verified at the end of the feminist section) regarding glass ceiling and average income. Then introduces Goldberg by way of predicting this.

Now that lead is not how I originally introduced Goldberg, it is the result of multiple quibbles over where to place the "Goldberg predicted" statement. Originally I had it closing the feminist section, to explain introduction of Goldberg. I still think that is most logical. However, when half a dozen independent editors mention they think "Goldberg predicted" is out of place in the Feminist section, I may think they are wrong, but at the very least it shows reader surprize. So, to minimize reader surprise, the prediction statement is now in the Goldberg section.

While we're at this, would you mind removing the last para of the feminist section, which is true and verifiable, but currently unsourced and relevant to an essay, not an article? Alastair Haines 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC) PS I note the para has gone already. Alastair Haines 08:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Before or after my change, we need a citation for Goldberg's prediction. We cannot say that someone predicted the future without giving our readers the ability to verify that very bold claim. While I understand that the last paragraph of the feminist section does establish that in the USA in 2005 men still make more money than women (and the claim is made, but not supported that positions of power are still filled with majority male), there is no citation to the reference of feminism's end goals. We mention "its goals regarding..." but the goals are never mentioned in the previous paragraph. All we have is the unsourced sentence "Most feminists do not propose to replace patriarchy with matriarchy, rather they argue for equality (though some have argued for separation)." I just think there are a whole string of unsources assumptions that have been put together to make this sentence, and my changes reduced the original research. If you do not like my changes to the Goldberg section, then feel free to add a source that states the goals of feminism is to crate gender equality in the work place (and I know that this is not the most important concern to some feminists, so we'd need to rephrase the sentence anyway to avoid gross generalizations). And we still need a source for Goldberg's prediction. I've made a less drastic change to that section, but keep in mind I still feel my wording is superior. -Andrew c [talk] 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Goldberg presented his theory of the inevitability of patriarchy as a standard scientific hypothesis. The point of scientific hypotheses is that they predict the future, which is the normal manner of verifying them. If H2O is raised to a temperature of 100o C, at sea-level atmospheric pressure it will boil. If this is doubted, reproduce the experiment and you should get the same result — scientific method.
Actually, Goldberg predicts much more than that feminists would fail to achieve most of their goals over the 34 years to 2007, he predicted they will never achieve many of their goals. You have to read the book to understand which classes of goals he proposes can never be achieved. Basically, any goals that feminists would class as "gender equity", Goldberg says are sociologically impossible. So far, 35 years of "gender equity" legislation have failed to prove him wrong. Which is why Steven Pinker published the claim of universal patriarchy (among other universals) as recently as 2002 (reprinted several times since). Actually, not only is Pinker unoriginal here, but biological research made quantum leaps in the last decades of the 20th century, which makes the Goldberg hypothesis almost boring now, in comparison to when it was first articulated.
The biology (and other ethical considerations) led Christina Hoff Summers to style the "gender equity" legislation as a "war on boys", an idea that has been copied by Nathanson and Young and styled "legalizing misandry". There are many writers who write the same sort of thing, across disciplines, like Leonard Sax for example. It's pretty old news. Sweden has even considered reversing legislation.
I am glad you're asking these questions, because I took the gentlest possible approach to this topic, but after watching more than a year of edits and comments, and seeing Wiki handle some other topics well, I have more confidence to cover this topic more adequately. Additionally, mainstream Australian media carry stories on the issues from time to time.
Regarding executive positions, this is very easy to verify, I'm happy for us to do it in this article, though I'd have thought glass ceiling would be the natural place. Anyway, here's a start, Australia is not as "progressive" as the USA, "10 FORTUNE 500 companies are run by women (up from 9 last year), and a total of 20 FORTUNE 1000 companies have women in the top job (up from 19)." [1] I don't know whether CNN is considered a reliable source. Personally, I wouldn't trust secondary sources, I'd try to find out where CNN get their figures.

Alastair Haines (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the goals of feminism, the feminism article is the natural place for providing specifics of diversity within the movement. The important thing for the patriarchy article is that patriarchy (as fact or ideology) is incompatible with core feminist goals. Find me a feminist who states that male dominance is part of their ideal picture of social organization. Patriarchy is more used in feminist literature than any other kind of literature in recent times. It is a very loaded term there. I've read dozens of feminist books this year, I think patriarchy is mentioned in all of them, either as something that should be removed, or something the writer and the reader are presumed to have transcended.
It's worth noting that it is not only Goldberg whose theories are confirmed by recent history. Feminist theory is also confirmed, in that many have hypothesized that patriarchy is very deeply rooted in our presuppositions. Others claim legislative changes have been essentially cosmetic, and don't deal adequately with persistant patriarchal assumptions.
Anyway, looking forward to your next edit. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Mind your edit summaries, please. The word "probably" is neither POV, nor original research, it is a weasle. Goldberg is the acknowldege expert on the universality of patriarchy, without peer. It is not a particularly popular mantle to hold.
Since you phrase the edit summary in a disparaging way, I shall select one of the many sources that notes Goldberg's stature in this regard, and quote it. This may help you understand just how massively I weasled the whole article, in an effort not to offend. But, now, I'm happy that such an aim is unencyclopedic. The documented facts should be reported without fear or favour.
Unless you are familiar with the literature in this debate, assessments like those in your edit summary are in fact POV and OR. More particularly they challenge the good faith of the editor who provided the text, and the many, many editors who have let it stand without challenge.

Alastair Haines (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Andrew, I wish you luck, but I warn you you are not going to get anywhere. These articles are hijacked; there is no improving them unless improving them means further biasing them in favor of Alastair Haines' hypothesis of universal patriarchy. There is a flagrant disregard for Wikipedia rules here, and I hope that you will join me in reporting it since trying to fix the article the "wiki" way is impossible. Ntheriault (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

Future plans

I have decided the bias in this article is pretty much unforgivable. As dozens of editors have noted it has a feminist bias, not in what it says, but in what it doesn't say. So, when I get a chance, I'll provide sources that discuss the social benefits of patriarchy, at about equal length to the feminist criticism section. I understand that as the topic of the article, to be fair it should be longer, so I'll try for that, but I don't want to promise myself too much work! ;) I'll also make the effort to document the anti-feminist scholarship, so feminism is given equal, not priveleged treatment, and criticised, just as they critise patriarchy.

It will take me a couple of months to get around to starting this. Anyone who'd like to offer to do this work is encouraged to do so. I'll support you as best I can.

I'm still keen to float all three of those sections off to a Patriarchy (ideology) or (ethics) or (whatever) namespace. That way we avoid POV forking, feminists and anti-feminists will have to talk to one another, as per good Wiki policy. Meanwhile, the relatively tame subject of observed data regarding patriarchy can be discussed at this page, the extra space allowing for some more adequate treatment of classic patriarchies on the one hand, and some "boundary" cases on the other. Some of the interesting history of debate in anthropology and sociology could also be included.

At the moment we have three namespaces, but really only one article's worth of content. More content is required, but probably not classified according to the current articles. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I am initiating this in response to my own observations of the lack of neutrality in this article and the discussions by Ntheriault and Alastair Haines.

  • the article reads like a persuasive essay
  • the article exhibits a tone which is in favor of patriarchy rather than a neutral encyclopedic description of it
  • the descriptions of the feminist views on patriarchy are in themselves critical of this perspective rather than reporting on it.
  • the section on steven goldberg seems to uncritically present all of his opinions as fact
  • the inclusion of the extensive section on the biology of gender seem to serve to support this particular point of view rather than describe patriarchy.
  • the appendix is presented as original research (or at least a synthesis of research —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromusic (talk • contribs) 09:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Alastair-- It is quite clear from the discussions on this talk page that there is an ongoing dispute regarding the neutrality of this article. I tagged the article with "NPOV" according to WP:NPOVD#How_to_initiate_an_NPOV_debate, outlining what I see as the problems with this article. Please do not remove the tag until the dispute has bee resolved. Neuromusic (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, I would like to propose removing the appendix, as (a) it does little to describe patriarchy and (b) it is a repetition of the Appendix for Patriarchy_(anthropology), where it seems more relevant. Thoughts? 129.219.110.76 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... I wasn't logged in. The last post was my own. Neuromusic (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a second step, I would further propose eliminating a good deal of the Biology of Gender section.

  • The section is redundant (it largely repeats an existing article)
  • The section presents original research (it cites a range of research highlighting biological (mostly neural and hormonal) studies highlighting examples of sexual dimorphism in animals and human gender differences in behavior, then concludes independently this is evidence for men being more aggressive socially and offers this as an "explanation" for patriarchy).
  • Upon omitting the original research just noted, the section (including all of its cited sources) has no relation to patriarchy.

It is highly unlikely that the independent conclusions noted in the second point will be supported by fact or consensus. The brain drives behavior AND behavior modifies the brain (also known as learning), making it exceedingly difficult for neuroscientists to argue that a human social observation such as patriarchy (or pain perception) has a biological cause. Even proof of sexual dimorphism in the brains of humans (which none of the cited sources offers) would require an editor to conclude that this is a possible explanation of patriarchy. Neuromusic (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this article an argument for patriarchy?

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns, and to do so clearly and concisely, much appreciated. Feel free to place half a dozen relevent tags at the top of the article if you wish, while they are under discussion. Here are the my responses.

  • the article reads like a persuasive essay

Presumably you believe the text to argue that patriarcy is the preferable state of affairs. Please provide sentences that express propositions that make such a claim. Note, two quotes are given that explicitly deny it. "There is nothing in this book concerned with the desirability or undesirability of the institutions." (Goldberg) "Science doesn't have ideological implications; it simply tells you how the world is – not how it ought to be." (Helena Cronin)

  • the article exhibits a tone which is in favor of patriarchy rather than a neutral encyclopedic description of it

Please show words and phrases that indicate this. It is the absence of a single argument in favour of patriarchy that makes the article deficient (imo).

  • the descriptions of the feminist views on patriarchy are in themselves critical of this perspective rather than reporting on it.

Whether a scientist is feminist or not is actually irrelevant, however, Cronin is, and several of the ethnographers were (or are). Science does not criticise patriarchy, it reports on its existance and provides explanation of features of sexual dimorphism. As I have said before, I'm happy for the feminist criticism section to go. Feminism is moral opinion, not science, and can be removed. If it stays, the article begs for a pro-patriarchy section.

I'm not sure I've addressed your point here, because I could not grasp your meaning clearly.
  • the section on steven goldberg seems to uncritically present all of his opinions as fact

Please provide an example. Goldberg doesn't present his hypothesis as a fact, no one knows if it is true. It is just the dominant scientific view, and has been for more than 15 years.

  • the inclusion of the extensive section on the biology of gender seem to serve to support this particular point of view rather than describe patriarchy.

Please re-read the Helena Cronin and Goldberg quotes. Science says nothing for or against patriarchy.

  • the appendix is presented as original research (or at least a synthesis of research

The article is explict about where it gets the list from. The majority of the list is published, and the sources cited.

Because Feminism (ideological) is followed by Goldberg (science), readers (despite the explicit words in the text) form the opinion that the article is Goldberg et al v Feminism. To clarify this, we need to place Goldberg first, and to provide a section that provides the many arguments in favour of patriarchy.

Let me ask you another question. Since the article argues for patriarchy in your opinion. Just precisely what is this argument in favour of patriarchy? Patriarchy provides a more efficient economy? Better national defence? It leads to greater happiness? Please state what argument the "essay" makes in favour of patriarchy.

There are hundreds of arguments offered in favour of patriarchy. Not a single one is cited in the article. As I've said above, do promise to get around to doing this eventually, but any editor interested in providing neutrality to the article can research the arguments offered in favour of patriarchy. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

Alastair-- It is quite clear from the discussions on this talk page that there is an ongoing dispute regarding the neutrality of this article. I tagged the article with "NPOV" according to WP:NPOVD#How_to_initiate_an_NPOV_debate, outlining what I see as the problems with this article. Please do not remove the tag until the dispute has bee resolved. Neuromusic (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion had ended, but by all means bring a new challenge to the article. Now that you have done so on the Talk page, the tag is fine. Stop and think about it, providing a tag but no discussion of why on the talk page, and no resolution is possible is it? But you have done what I asked, so thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
First, I think that it is presumptuous to state that "the previous discussion had ended" when less than a single week prior to my tag, concerns with the neutrality of the article were stated by Ntheriault AND the earlier concerns had not been addressed. Second, though you are correct that I did not properly tag the article wrt OR, but my statement on the talk page re: NPOV dispute coincided with my initial POV label. Neuromusic (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, I would like to propose removing the appendix, as (a) it does little to describe patriarchy and (b) it is a repetition of the Appendix for Patriarchy_(anthropology), where it seems more relevant. Thoughts? 129.219.110.76 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Patriarchy (anthropology) was created as a POV fork, because an editor prior to my arrival was constantly reverted by someone who insisted that the feminist view of patriarchy was what this page should discuss. Patriarchy (anthropology) is core to Patriarchy, it should be merged here. Patriarchy in feminism is wrongly named and is a POV fork, it should be moved to Patriarchy (ideology) and a pro-patriarchy section written. I've made those comments above. Separating Patriarchy and Patriarchy (ideology) would go a long way to helping people remember the distinction between the science and the ethics.

As a second step, I would further propose eliminating a good deal of the Biology of Gender section. The section is redundant (it largely repeats an existing article)

That is because I created the Biology of gender article by copying what I'd written here. The biology of gender article is still very small, were it larger it would still need some summary at this page. Goldberg's hypothesis that biology will explain behaviour needs to be compared with what biologists actually say. He's a sociologist making a claim about biology, he is no authority when it comes to biology.

The section presents original research (it cites a range of research highlighting biological (mostly neural and hormonal) studies highlighting examples of sexual dimorphism in animals and human gender differences in behavior, then concludes independently this is evidence for men being more aggressive socially and offers this as an "explanation" for patriarchy). Upon omitting the original research just noted, the section (including all of its cited sources) has no relation to patriarchy.

I've got to say I'm somewhat amused by repeated claims of OR in material I quote. For you to be correct, it would mean that no one has suggested male aggression provides a partial explanation of patriarchy. However, there are many writers that do so. Goldberg is just one, though he is much more sophisticated in his treatment. I'm happy to provide citations.
The OR concern is in the synthesis of quotations to come to an independent conclusion. Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. WRT this section, there are no citations to sources which show that there is a clear biological cause for males having more aggressive behaviors. So please, especially if you are happy to do so, provide citations of this claim. Neuromusic (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Goldberg hypothesizes that hormonal reasons will explain patriarchy. Well, do they? The relevance of biology is also obvious in the basic arguments of feminism, which (historically) used to claim that men and women have the same brain, they have the same behaviour potentials, hence differences in roles are evidence of social factors suppressing the similarities. It's a very powerful argument, if true, and it won the day. However, we know considerably more now.
It seems to me that you are saying "patriarchy is not biological, what's biology doing in a patriarchy article?" That's not your idea, it is shared by many late 20th century feminists. But the problem is that in recent decades many have published that gender roles are influenced by biology, because the biology that backs it keeps on being discovered.
No. I am saying is that this section states that sexual differentiation in the brain provides a partial explanation of patriarchy without citing a reliable reference. Neuromusic (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, it shows I need to give more of Goldberg's argument, unless I do, people will accuse me of offering it as OR.
I think its not about showing more of Goldberg's argument, but stating it as an argument and citing it. Neuromusic (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that the independent conclusions noted in the second point will be supported by fact or consensus. The brain drives behavior AND behavior modifies the brain (also known as learning), making it exceedingly difficult for neuroscientists to argue that a human social observation such as patriarchy (or pain perception) has a biological cause. Even proof of sexual dimorphism in the brains of humans (which none of the cited sources offers) would require an editor to conclude that this is a possible explanation of patriarchy. Neuromusic (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In my lovely NPOV and gentle way I pointed out that biological explanation of patriarchy is a hypothesis. I also gently point out that although sociology cannot explain behaviour 100%, nor can biology. These things are matters of trivial logic and found in thousands of books. They are repeated briefly in this article, too briefly it would seem, because you repeat precisely what I wrote in the article, as if it is a criticism of the text there! Bizarre.

In summary, I find your comments strange. In several of your comments you say the article says X, but Y is the case. You do not quote the article saying X, which is no surprise, because in fact the article says Y! In other words, you and the article say the same thing, so what's your difficulty?

I'm probably missing something. Please quote one sentence at a time, or simply edit a few sentence and we can discuss those. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we'll go slowly... one point at a time. I will focus my own efforts on the "Biology and Gender" section. Neuromusic (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I am really disappointed in your replies. You completely disregard what the article says.
Who claims aggression explains patriarchy? Feminists, Goldberg and common sense. That's not original research.
Unless you can articulate a serious objection, I will need to remove the tags. For goodness sake, nothing is ever perfect, find a fault that is real and change it.
On the other hand, you don't seem to have interacted with Goldberg yourself yet. Please follow the link to Why Men Rule, where you will find a good deal of Goldberg's case laid out. Brain Sex may also help give you an idea of the state of literature almost 20 years ago. A lot more evidence has come to light since, however, even back then, the very tame comments in this article were already widely known.

Alastair Haines (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) "Common sense" is not a citation. (2) The problem is with the first part of the statement... that "science has caught up" with Goldberg's hypothesis, implying that the science to date supports his hypothesis. This statement is an independent conclusion (of your own, I assume, unless you can provide a citation otherwise). Regardless of whether the conclusion is valid, it is not cited and cannot be appealed to "common sense." Neuromusic (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, neuromusic, for having the patience to go through the problems in the article in so much detail. I just want to cast my lot in with you; so far I agree with everything you are saying. Alastair Haines, nueromusic is articulating a serious and well-documented objection. If you remove the tags, you are only showing my own claims that you have hijacked this article to be true. You seem to think that in order to present disputes to this article, people need to go out and read a long bibliography. Sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. When there are many editors pointing out the same problems with a group of related articles (me, nueromusic, Andrew, others who have raised disputes that remain unresolved), then the tags need to stay until such a time as the problems are worked out. For the zillionth time, the main problems are two-fold (although the list of specific issues is certainly much, much longer): (1) the articles present as factual the hypothesis that patriarchy is universal, which in reality is not a fact in the sense of scholarly consensus---this merits tagging as "unencyclopedic" and justifies the concern over "original research" especially in reference to the Appendix; (2) the article is written in a persuasive, unencyclopedic style---this justifies the tags as well. I would add that virtually all attempts to improve the article are either undone or revised beyond recognition by Alastair Haines, the same editor who is now threatening to remove the tags. Ntheriault (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault
You two are so funny. Not a single criticism of substance, just your interpretation of what might lie behind the words. Don't worry about the tags. I added several of my own. Until there is substantial cited text presenting arguments in favour of this article, it is obviously biased. I encourage you to write up those sections. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Double NPOV dispute

I also initiate a POV dispute.

  • The article contains a feminist criticism section, but the benefits of patriarchy and criticisms of feminism sections are merely stubs.

Until both disputes are resolved, editors are requested to leave the tag in place. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

One might also note that Alastair Haines has added the kitchen sink to this article, but there is no "criticisms of the kitchen sink" section. Kinda like reading Kinbote on Zembla in Pale Fire Billbrock 20:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
And where, pray tell, is the Zemblan flag? It occurs to me that patriarchy, matriarchy, and the aforementioned "distant northern land" may have something fundamental in common. Billbrock 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WhyMenRule.jpg

Image:WhyMenRule.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Another theory for the prevalence of patriarchy

Considering the fact that this article is inherently biased, I'm not surprised that the author left out any mention of rape. Many feminists have said that the reason patriarchy exists and women submit to it is that there is always a threat of physical and sexual violence. The book Public Women, Public Words: a Documentary History of American Feminism, by Dawn Keetley and John Pettigrew, includes this quote from Susan Griffin: "The threat of rape keeps women off the streets at night. Keeps women at home. Keeps women passive and modest for fear that they might be thought provocative" (153). In the same book, Barbara Mehrhof and Pamela Kearon write "The earlier [in life] and more thoroughly a woman is terrorized [by rape], the more completely she is incapable of acting against the existing Reality modeled on the Sexist ideology and brought into being by the power of the male class. As long as one is free to act one can invalidate and transform reality. When free action is eliminated one can only incorporate reality as created by others, or go mad or die. The woman assaulted by a rapist is not merely hampered by real or imagined lack of kinetic energy relative to the attacker; she is also restricted by her fragile sense of her own reality and worth. Rape is a punishment without crime or guilt - at least subjective guilt. It is punishment rather for the objective crime of femaleness. That is why it is indiscriminate. It is primarily a lesson for the whole class of women - a strange lesson, in that it does not teach a form of behavior which will save women from it. Rape teaches instead the objective, innate, and unchanging subordination of women relative to men. Rape supports the male class by projecting its power and aggressiveness on the world" (154). It's also important to note that these feminists are talking about the effects of rape on all women; even though only some women are actually raped, all women are affected by it because they know the threat is out there.

This theory would be a valuable addition to the article, because it provides a counterpoint to the idea that men are in power because they're more capable or because women are naturally submissive.

Crystal 1215 16:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Crystal

I'm afraid that if you think leaving rape out of an article on patriarchy is evidence of bias, you have a fundamental disagreement with the Wikipedia policy WP:UNDUE.
Personally, I would love discussion of rape to be in the article, because I have several journal articles on the subject that show a correlation between increases in divorce and increases in rape. Both levels seem to have stabilized now. However, I am also aware of a good deal of literature ragarding the influence of family values on reducing prevalence of rape.
If we include the argument above, it would give me an opportunity to write up some of the excellent points made in the studies.
This is one of the reasons I suggest we have a Patriarchy (morality) or ideology or ethics or whatever section. There is so much discussion of the morality of patriarchy in feminism that it would be great to have a place for this to be documented.
Although feminist discussion of their perception of patriarchy as immoral is helpful in establishing how widespread and influential it is, there are non-moral treatments of the subject that need to be expressed first.
Feel free to add cited material regarding the feminist POV on rape, from multiple sources to patriarchy in feminism, this article or open the article patriarchy (ethics) (or any of the other options).
Cheers. Alastair Haines 13:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I do believe the testosterone-laden table of baseball players implicated in the Mitchell Report would benefit from the addition of national flags. Billbrock (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for patriarchy?

I doubt that there is or has been a patriarchy. Why would most soldiers are men if men ruled the world? If you slay a man it's less disdained than if you slay a woman. The life of a man weighs least when he is grown up but yet not old. Boys and old man are to be protected, too, but men don't. The article should state that patriarchy is an unproven theory which is highly doubted. --mms (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a fascinating theory you have, that I've not come across before. The literature seems to be unanimous about the existance of patriarchy, the debates are:
  • Has it been around forever, or did it evolve at some point?
  • Are there any exceptions to it in documented societies?
There is strong consensus that it has been around forever, and that there are no exceptions. However, there are notable dissenters to these views.
Also, some argue patriarchy is morally essential, while others argue it is morally repugnant. Each group debates internally what are the best methods for promoting or deconstructing patriarchy.
It would be fascinating to have a reference for a published opinion that patriarchy is a collective delusion. ;) I look forward to reading the case, if you can give us an ISBN.
Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I’m sorry but I have only books in German on this topic:
  • Eva Julia Fischkurt: Wenn Frauen nicht mehr lieben, Patmos, 2001, ISBN 3-491-72-390-6 (Softcover: ISBN 3-442-15-048-5)
  • Paul-Hermann Gruner: Frauen und Kinder zuerst. Denkblockade Feminismus. Eine Streitschrift, Rowohlt Verlag, 2000, ISBN 3-499-60-946-0
  • Arne Hoffmann: Sind Frauen bessere Menschen? Plädoyer für einen selbstbewussten Mann, Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf, 2001, ISBN 3-896-02-382-9
Some kind of skepticism to the patriarchy theory I found also in:
Eisler knows that even if all leaders (“dominators”) were men not all men would be leaders. But her considerations go into another direction than the three other books mentioned. The one which is wrote by a woman is as a matter of course the most radical and pitiless (Fischkurt). Gruner’s book is the shortest and Hoffmann’s book is the most scientific (lots of references). If you find any work in English on this question please let us know. --mms (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patriarchy/Archive_3&oldid=789549008"