User talk:Hammy64000/Patriarchy

There's some great content here, especially in the History section. Nice work. A few comments:

"Modern sociological theory differentiates between ‘sex’ and ‘gender.’ Gender refers to both biological and social differences between men and women. At the biological level, for example, the genders are distinguished by the presence of a Y-chromosome in male cells and its absence in female cells. The debate about the degree to which biological differences necessitate differences in social gender roles and identity, takes place at the social level."

This seems like an unnecessary digression. We have an article on gender roles that explains all of that. We should be limiting our discussion here specifically to gender roles which relate to patriarchy and how those might have developed either biologically (through evolution) or sociologically (through cultural traditions).

"Some sociological views of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ state that sex is predominantly influenced by nature or biology, and gender by nurture or by social and cultural influences. Others assume that nature and nurture combine in certain percentages, such as 30% biological influences and 70% cultural, with greater emphasis on nature for sexual behaviors and on culture for gendered behaviors. Post-modern views argue that both influences are at such a deep, unconscious level it is not possible to generalize about these influences."

This paragraph is misleading. Although it is true that some sociologists believe that gender roles are primarily dictated by biology, the vast majority do not. Read any modern sociology textbook and the consensus is that gender roles are social constructions. This should be reflected in the text about sociological views. Also, your explanation of post-modern views is overly simplistic. If you want to present post-modern views, I would pick a few authors and elaborate on their specific views since I don't think it's possible to accurately simplify them all into one statement. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to go ahead and add some of your history research to the patriarchy article. Although the new material will need to be edited down substantially, the history section of the existing article is minuscule. Plus, I don't think any of it is especially controversial (which usually helps). Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that some new material has been added to the patriarchy article due to the merge in from patriarchy (anthropology). Kaldari (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. It is true that the parts you mentioned are too brief. I'll work on editing the history and also look at some authors.--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like at least some of the Postmodernists section is plagiarized from Durkheim and postmodern culture. Please try to make sure that the section is written as a general overview of all relevant sources, not just the reflection of one or a couple specific sources. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarized? Isn't that the word for using a source and pretending it is your own? I think it is clear that it was from Mestrovic, even without the citings, which I said I would replace. I found this book very complex and difficult to summarize. But also, I get the impression that postmodernism is skewed already in favor of Nietzsche. Also that he doesn't have much in common with feminism. Do you have a source in mind? Also, other things I have read seem to confuse German Romantic influence--implying it came before modernism, rather than in response to modernism. So I thought it was important to make that clear. I was planning to include feminism more, but in the end, it is just one of the postmodern voices. And feminists do have issues with Marxist analysis, which makes their history inaccurate and allows their writers to be used to defend sociobiology--Lerner for example. I know that at the time of Mesttrovic's book, they were still conflicted about whether they represented only women, or humans in general. Has any progress been made there? I think they have work to do before they can fill a section on postmodernism. I can try to make that more clear, unless you know of trends to the contrary.--Hammy64000 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some internet articles where feminists seem to be trying to find redeeming qualities in Nietzsche and wondering if his misogynism is important. Maybe they are on the right track in tring to rise above blatant bias against women in favor of finding deeper meaning, but Mestrovic says the important thing is compassion, which is missing in Nietzsche, and which should be part of an authentic feminine voice. I think the reason I wrote the section the way I did is because 1.) I was impressed to learn about the central part played by feminist theory regarding gender and the bias in social theory. 2.) I would really like to see feminists take up any challenge they find here. I think they are still important but they could be more relevant and more effective. My criticisms, or rather Mestrovic's criticisms that I chose to include, might not be on the mark, but it was an attempt in that direction. After all, we do still have rampaging capitalism and wars and rumors of wars. 3.) The spirit of postmodernism seems to be pessimism, irrationality, rebellion against modern hubris, etc. The section was about postmodernism, but it was maybe a little postmodern in spirit...:)--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to get it right, but I'd also like to be finished with it. So maybe it could use more stuff. It won't happen immediately though. Also, I thought I managed to put in all the most important points in a sensible way--but I could include descriptions of the will to power and the will to life from other sources. I'm not sure if that's the kind of thing you mean. And this rough draft is the most encyclopedic one I have done yet--it is hard when you don't know where it's going to go until you've read for days and then tried to make sense of what you read. It often sounds like an essay with a thesis rather than straight information. Or you might be wanting feminist criticism of postmodernism--I'm not sure.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just did some more checking. The Mestrovic stuff is an important viewpoint, but it is from a European, Judeo-Chrisian environment. In other words, western. The complications arise when you realize that feminism is as well--it is in reponse to that veiwpoint and argued by women with the same background. The male-female archetype thing--same issue. Also Mestrovic forgets that if males can and should possess female characteristics, then of course women would have male characteristics and habits of the fight under the right circumstances. But I hope you see we are getting into some deep philosophy here. Experts haven't really figured it all out and I think I know better than to take that bait myself. Also, we are talking about postmodernism--same issue again. A certain school of thought has a certain definition and boundaries. Maybe the idea that the first sociologists assumed more interaction between sciences than we have now--that they tried to bring the study of culture into psychology--that they were looking for a science of morality--should be included. But if being western in outlook is a problem here, we are doomed. This could take in things from everywhere, but they would have to start a new encyclopedia to hold it all. So, if you have a direction in mind, I really need the details. Thanks, as always.--Hammy64000 (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel a lot better about this if I were sure that any objections to my section didn't come from a bias in favor of feminism.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No my bias is that your point of view seems to be entirely through the prism of philosophy. Patriarchy, and the oppression of women, is more than simply a philosophical question. It is an issue that has aspects in politics, religion, economics, anthropology, sociology, criminology, world history, etc. Dismissing feminist criticism as "another postmodern voice" or "Western" is a bit absurd. When Lalithambika Antherjanam writes about how the inheritance laws of the Namboodiri are economically devastating to women, she is being neither postmodern, nor Western. She is however a feminist criticizing patriarchy. When Lee Bowker talks about how wife beating leads to child abuse, that isn't very postmodern either. Don't you think it's a bit strange that your draft doesn't mention coverture, women's suffrage, or domestic violence? Not all feminist writers are philosophers or even operating within the domain of academia, much less Western academia. If your understanding of patriarchy is entirely limited to the domain of Western philosophy, I don't think your going to be able to write a very good encyclopedia article. Kaldari (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point. This section is about postmodernism. These things, as you say, are not. Also, patriarchy is not just about women. It seems to me that is one idea that is clear when looking at the history of how patriarchy has been used. Patriarchy is not just about the oppression of women. I am as outraged as anyone else about abuse and mistreatment of women, but in a postmodern context the picture is even more disturbing, as it implies oppression of whole societies. Your sources might be better in the Postmodern feminism article, which is quite short at this time and which has asked for an expert contributor. You haven't really addressed my posts--is it 3 or 4 now? I have been flailing all over the place trying to read your mind here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you agree that your current "Postmodernists" section works better as an addition to rather than a replacement of the feminist criticism section, it's fine with me (except for the part that is plagiarized). I agree that the current feminist criticism section is bad, but at least it discusses actual feminist criticism (which is a relevant and important viewpoint to include in the article). Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you try to get a grip on your manners, esp. the plagiarizm comment that you brought up again for some reason. The feminism section does need work. It is like a soapbox now, more than anything I have written, which brings me back to my concern about bias.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC) And it is not even favorable to feminism, except to spout a bunch of jargon, which I have already pointed out!--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nevermind about the plagiarism thing. Plagiarism is probably too harsh a term. I just meant that some of your wording was virtually identical to passages from the book, so you may want to reword some of it to be more general (or at least different). You're right about the current feminist criticism section not being favorable to feminism. It's terribly written and full of problems. I just don't feel like your "Postmodernists" section is an appropriate replacement. Kaldari (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was also in the process of cleaning up blatant plagiarism from some other articles at the time, so I had plagiarism on the brain :) Kaldari (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--I'll forget it..:)--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. There is not a single instance of straight copying here except for a direct quote in paragraph 3. The other stuff is summarized, some of the ideas taken from 2 or 3 different locations in the book.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you referred to the last paragraph where it says Mestrovic worried that if all warnings are ignored...That could be put in quotation marks if you think it is necessary --Hammy64000 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that would be better as a quote unless you want to generalize his point. Google Books thought the wording was similar enough to match it to the corresponding paragraph in the book (which is how my script detects plagiarism in articles). Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other places like that, let me know before it goes in the actual article. This one was already paraphrased and attributed to Mestrovic but the last part should have been in quotation marks--I included it because it was powerfully worded by the author. He meant it as a warning, obviously and felt strongly about it. He said, "If Durkheim's insight is ignored again in the coming end of the century, there exists every possibility that victorious capitalism will mirror the effects of the ruthless Bolshevik system in its insensitivity to the other side of the mind: etc. You can see the first part was already changed quite a bit. If there are other instances, I would appreciate a heads-up.--Hammy64000 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you know I'm not trying to get away with anything. Don't accuse me--tell me what the problem is and be specific.--Hammy64000 (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the following from the article.

Male spirituality[edit]

Recently, men's groups have been organized as part of the "new men's movement", or "male spirituality movement". Some promote the biological explanations for patriarchy. [1] Others are favorable to feminism. Professor and author, Sam Keen, argues that the definitions of manhood in the world today have to do with rites of war, work and sex. He thinks gender is a language that expresses injuries done to males and females to promote “warfare, aggression, domination and control," and that it is unfortunate that teachings of men’s spirituality seem to deal only with the most extreme possibilities. They either advocate “embracing our feminine side” or “unleashing the wildman within”. He suggests a goal in between the two extremes; the redirection of “the fierce warrior energies…that men have honed for centuries…toward the creation of a more hopeful and careful future”. However, Keen does not agree with Jung and “the idea of archetypes", which he sees as the insistence on setting up the world in “two columns”. Keen argues this is simply not helpful. [2]

I'm reading Sam Keen's book, and there is a dark underbelly in "Fire in the Belly: on being a man". It has to to with Gorbachev, Joseph Campbell, and theosophy--not to mention his history about who the Hebrews are--and we all know Campbell is anti-semitic. Not good! I'm reworking all of the proposed additions now.--Hammy64000 (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]