Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

As there seems to be much confusion around this word, I thought perhaps we could explore it to reach a better understanding together. 

 

We'll start the discussion with standard definitions, and a Wikipedia article, and expand as we see fit from there. 

 

Definitions:


 

Quote

 

Patriarchy

 

a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. "the thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy"

 

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. "the dominant ideology of patriarchy"

 

a society or community organized on patriarchal lines. 

 

And the Wikipedia article:

 

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


 

Quote

 

Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

 

Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.[1][2]

 

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[3] Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.[4][5]

 

 

The rest of the article may also be of interest for this discussion, and I would recommend reading it to further historical understanding, and what is actually being referred to with the term. 

 

For example, hunter/gatherer tribes are generally considered egalitarian, and using them as an argument to bolster favor or appreciation for patriarchy is erroneous. 

Edited by ilumairen
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, @ilumairen, (Which by the way, thanks for the effort), I would like to focus on what is NOT male patriarchy?

 

Removing the veil, the barrier. Emotionally, we all are sensitive, men tend to admit to it less, and put up this staunch facade, I've heard a Daoist saying that "to give way is to gain strength." When we look at the male and female anatomy, we are like the differences between a mini shark and a sparrow. One flies through water, the other through the air. Our emotional complexities may be mirrored like our skeletal structure. The Man who wants to be selected by a mate has a few choices in his life to gain a selection. He could do what most men, IMO, do and outwardly break that barrier, that veil of separation, or He could do what a wise man would do, Inwardly break that veil of separation....

 

From Comedy Central's Moment of Zen:

 

"Smart man gives his wife a grand piano,

Wise man gives his wife an upright organ."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

History, I always wondered what the small people were doing.   Because "history" is a record of the rulers; the external form of a society, or it's transactions with other surrounding groups.   There were Emperesses of Rome, of Egypt, Cleopatra, included in the external record, although much of it is male.

On the body the outer meridiens are Yang, the inner Yin, so it seems correspondent that the external form is naturally male.

 

In the Bible there are 2 episodes I know of women causing/preventing executions by manipulating men.   And women have become specialised in emotional/psychological intelligence which they use for power, the men physically.

 

In discussing this question we have to consider this particular society.   I was born in the early seventies and never ever heard the word Patriarchy until after 2000.  People were happier and although they were aware of the "war of the sexes", in the end it was simply seen as a kind of natural friction, with grumbles on both sides, and then a resolution.   In the 90s at university, it was also never discussed whatsoever and people were at ease with each other.

 

Today I think the problem is that people are not growing into their adulthood, due to the increasingly unnatural environment that keeps Men being babies, and Women being babies.   There simply are not opportunities to do so.   Then there is a great deal of self-medication, with Prozac, Porn, and stupid drama news, and demanding their "rights" from a soulless politician.

Basically you have a farmed human society totally systematized, with babies who are at the age of adults, sucking on straws to make them happy.

And sometimes they discuss sexuality, but ... they are pretty far from being what they were designed to be.

All these things have changed very quickly during my lifetime.

 

And the answer is (a) keep self-medication and arguing and live as a baby, (b) attempt to wield your life forces and grow into the complete adult for which you will need to undo much crap in the head, and give yourself the very many life challenges and contacts that you will need to normalize yourself in a crazy world.

 

Also there are people who get hurt, for instance women by men sexually forcing themselves on them.   Or boys raised by single mothers.
These people have negative / faulty conditioning and requires fixing - which ain't easy.
If you give them the microphone they will demand a world will all sorts of securities and changes and this or that ... but it simply represents their own damage and their own needs - which actually should be carried out by themselves with a therapist rather than demanding the world changes.

 

 

Edited by rideforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ilumairen said:

Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

 

I found this rather interesting because it seems very difficult come up with a definition and this seems to want to side with the social interaction as helping to define it.   Although it is still rather vague, I didn't find a specific, ultimate, definition. 

 

Like I saw many that talked of men wanting to subordinate women through the use of even violence in certain circumstances... So I asked myself, 'is a matriarchal' definition the subordination of men through the use of even violence in certain circumstances?   

 

A voice in my head in my head said, NO!... but I then asked that voice in my head, based on what ?    We cannot based it on 2,000 year of matriarchal structures but, what if women had the power to yield in society on the same level... we would not see some oppression ?

 

So it's not clear to me if we would define them relatively the same, in modern day, just exchange the sexes... or we'd see completely different (or somewhat different) definitions based on what we perceive as gender qualifies.

 

I liked this article and several things mentioned:   Patriarchal Society According to Feminism

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/patriarchal-society-feminism-definition-3528978

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your thoughts guys. I'd like to give each proper consideration and some space to see what comes up before responding more specifically.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, whitesilk said:

Perhaps, @ilumairen, (Which by the way, thanks for the effort), I would like to focus on what is NOT male patriarchy?

 

Honestly, I'm not at all surprised. And you're certainly free to personally focus where you choose - keeping in mind that this thread is about patriarchy. 

 

BTW It is a bit redundant to add the word male to patriarchy. 

 

10 hours ago, whitesilk said:

 

Removing the veil, the barrier. Emotionally, we all are sensitive, men tend to admit to it less, and put up this staunch facade, I've heard a Daoist saying that "to give way is to gain strength." When we look at the male and female anatomy, we are like the differences between a mini shark and a sparrow. One flies through water, the other through the air. Our emotional complexities may be mirrored like our skeletal structure. The Man who wants to be selected by a mate has a few choices in his life to gain a selection. He could do what most men, IMO, do and outwardly break that barrier, that veil of separation, or He could do what a wise man would do, Inwardly break that veil of separation....

 

There is alot here. And I honestly don't know how to address it. Can you explain how finding a mate correlates to patriarchy for you? Or why the topic brought about thoughts of men finding mates?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dawei said:

 

I found this rather interesting because it seems very difficult come up with a definition and this seems to want to side with the social interaction as helping to define it.   Although it is still rather vague, I didn't find a specific, ultimate, definition. 

 

But patriarchy is defined..

 

My grandmother was born in Wales in 1910. She quit school while in 8th grade to care for the house and her younger brothers - her role as the female after her mother died. When she later married my grandfather and moved to the states she brought her traditional mores with her. 

 

From this ancestral limb, I'm only 2nd generation born American, and the patriarchal thoughts and ideas were not diluted before being passed on.  

 

So it's honestly difficult for me to understand this confusion surrounding the word. I can understand the protective response from those who sometimes and somehow feel the word to be a personal affront or attack.. but the word itself, is really quite simple. And certainly aligns with the dictionary definitions provided in my initial post.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

But patriarchy is defined..

 

My grandmother was born in Wales in 1910. She quit school while in 8th grade to care for the house and her younger brothers - her role as the female after her mother died. When she later married my grandfather and moved to the states she brought her traditional mores with her. 

 

From this ancestral limb, I'm only 2nd generation born American, and the patriarchal thoughts and ideas were not diluted before being passed on.  

 

So it's honestly difficult for me to understand this confusion surrounding the word. I can understand the protective response from those who sometimes and somehow feel the word to be a personal affront or attack.. but the word itself, is really quite simple. And certainly aligns with the dictionary definitions provided in my initial post.

 

In my Family my Father was mentally emotionally and physically abusive towards my mother.

 

There were two cars, he kept them both in his name and held the reigns of subjugation tightly.

 

My Father forbid my mother from going anywhere or doing anything without his consent.

 

At one point my Mother was so brow beaten she would go to the grocery store and just stare at canned goods unable to make a decision due to fear of reprisal and condemnation and verbal abuse for  whatever choice she made.

 

My Father was tyrannical and actually scorned women thinking of them as creatures and not people.

 

I remember when sex education came about in school I was asking him questions and he went to telling me how my Mother dared to show him her genitles early in in there relationship. 

 

I really did not not want to hear this.

 

His take on her inviting him to look at what to a normal man would have been the very flower of womanhood was abject disgust stating it was horrible to look at all women are horrible down there all women smell bad down there like fish.

 

I thought there is something wrong with him. I had seen playboy magazine even hustler and penthouse and only saw beauty.

 

The abuse towards my Mother reached a head when he told her you need to get a job.  

 

She did and then then he freaked out and forbade her using 1 of the two cars.

 

I as the eldest had had enough of this I was 7 at the time so I decided if he would not let her use the second car he would not either and my plan was to disable both cars.

 

I took small rocks and poured them in the gas tank of his Dodge Duster, I was on my way to the station wagon when my worthless younger brother who has always been a fink, sold me out.

 

He went and told the old man what I was doing. Yeah figured out how fast the old man was. I ran into the woods and that SOB came off the couch at Mach 2 snatched me by the hair and drug me back to the house. Proper ass beating them a serious talk. He wanted to know why I did that.

 

I told him he was unfair and it was not right to tell Mom get a job then prevent her from being able to go to work. I told him you can’t drive two cars at the same time anyway so I figured if you can’t learn to share then nobody gets a car.

 

Childhood rules I had to learn when younger brothers were born seemed appropriate to me.

 

He was a bit stunned by this reply and believe it or not let her use the car.

 

Mother however had found her inner self and was climbing out of the dank pit of his male subjugation. 

 

She worked out a loan with her her boss and bought a new car for herself. In the 1970’s in Orlando Florida this was really something to accomplish.

 

She worked hard and found her worth, her value, her strength, her confidence.

 

In many ways the pendulum once swung and held in subjegation and male patriarchal domenance had built up tremendous kinetic energy. When it released My mother became Kali.

 

My Father was no Shiva and too stupid to lie at her feet. Instead he fought with her.

 

When I was 10 My father who no longer came home anymore abducted me from the house. 

 

I did not see my Mother again until I was nearly 16 years old.

 

I was told I was the only thing keeping him from burning down the house killing my Mother and brothers.

 

Eventually a divorce was filed for,  I had to stand before both parents and a judge with Sherriffs present and state I wished to live with my Father.

 

When asked why I told the judge it only seemed fair Mom gets my two brothers and the house so why shoul Dad have to live without any family at all and be alone.

 

During those years we travelled the continental United States from one end to the other as he dodged child support and the courts and the Private Detectives my mother hired to retrieve me.

 

From my Father I learned how not to be.

 

The day I lost all respect for him was when he told me the story of how he and his buddies used to participate in gang bangs in the 1950’s with sluts.

 

It was then I decided enough is enough and started shutting him down.

 

So yeah I have seen the ugliness of male patriarchy. I have seen the hatred of women. I have seen the domenance and the cruelest behavior.

 

I have wittnessed the The strength and goodness of women.

 

I have been victim to unscrupulous women and served a marriage sentence with one such as that for close to 20 years.

 

I however refused to allow externals to change my heart my core and instead experience directly what is.

 

I as a Kriyaban know unity of the male and female in the cave of Brahman. This alone is whole and complete. 

 

From this my relations with all.

Edited by Pilgrim
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

But patriarchy is defined..

 

My grandmother was born in Wales in 1910. She quit school while in 8th grade to care for the house and her younger brothers - her role as the female after her mother died. When she later married my grandfather and moved to the states she brought her traditional mores with her. 

 

From this ancestral limb, I'm only 2nd generation born American, and the patriarchal thoughts and ideas were not diluted before being passed on.  

 

So it's honestly difficult for me to understand this confusion surrounding the word. I can understand the protective response from those who sometimes and somehow feel the word to be a personal affront or attack.. but the word itself, is really quite simple. And certainly aligns with the dictionary definitions provided in my initial post.

 

 

you mean defined by you in the two quotes... I can try and stick to that.  I wanted to see the range of thought on the definition and it was wide but likely too modern in many cases.

 

So the first one talks of 'descent is traced through the male line'... so does that mean that Jared's (Ivanka's husband) position and future potential positions or roles he achieves are not a part of the patriarchal system because he achieves it through Ivanka (the female line of descent)?  Somewhat rhetorical... 

 

I think the concept of 'descent is traced...' can be loosely applied on some level given my example but I'm not trying to argue a new definition, this is just what jumped out at me.  I see it more of an overall system and less individualistic and why I likely liked the sociological comment I already commented on...  So  I think your two quotes are better than any I saw.  Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

you mean defined by you in the two quotes...

 

I haven't yet reached a state where I personally and directly influence definitions for words as agreed upon by standard usage and set forth in dictionaries. :lol:

 

45 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

I can try and stick to that.  I wanted to see the range of thought on the definition and it was wide but likely too modern in many cases.

 

We can eventually explore that, but at this early stage in the discussion I'd settle for simple and standard understanding..

 

Perhaps we can address manipulation and agendas once we progress past the confusion and angst surrounding the word, as there appears to be much regarding all of the above. 

 

45 minutes ago, dawei said:

So the first one talks of 'descent is traced through the male line'... so does that mean that Jared's (Ivanka's husband) position and future potential positions or roles he achieves are not a part of the patriarchal system because he achieves it through Ivanka (the female line of descent)?  Somewhat rhetorical... 

 

Not really, as brides were often utilized to form alliances and gain position for the male through familial links. And he seems to have gained benefit through the marriage, and present links to the family he married into. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give you an honest answer in light of what has been shared already in this topic, no, I don't believe patriarchy is just a social convention.

 

If we look into any spiritual tradition, we encounter some form of male and female principle usually right from the start, whether this is called Yin and Yang, Lingam and Yoni or - as in Tibetan astrology - Sun and Moon.

 

Each of these comes with a number of analogies. If we stick with the latter we have for the Sun: male, active, transmitting, radiating, fire; and for the Moon: female, passive, receiving, reflecting, water, etc.

 

Now we must not oversimplify things, it goes without saying that we all have both kinds of energies in us, and moreover in different proportions according to our individual makeup. For a clear outlook on the latter, the astrology I was taught in Nepal comes in handy.

At any rate, to truly gain insight into this interesting topic from a spiritual perspective, I believe we must use the (seemingly) simple scheme given us by higher wisdom as our frame of reference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was born during an eclipse. 

 

And while I certainly appreciate the symbolism of the Sun/Moon dynamic; I don't appreciate it as prescribing my behavior as a female. 

 

As for traditions, I was taught Catholicism in my youth, and while once upon a time in history Sophia was known and the holy spirit considered the feminine principle of God, that was not part of the catechism I was taught. 

 

Socrates was clear regarding his thoughts on a woman's place, as was Confucius. Neither were overly complimentary, and both were highly influential. 

 

I've read of a Buddhist idea that it is a great misfortune to be born in a woman's body. I do not agree. 

 

And honestly, I'm not sure if I'm moving from this spot until some things are at least acknowledged.

 

Just consider it an eclipse..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

I was born during an eclipse. 

 

A solar or a lunar eclipse?

 

50 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

And while I certainly appreciate the symbolism of the Sun/Moon dynamic; I don't appreciate it as prescribing my behavior as a female. 

 

I see this not so much as a means of prescribing one's behaviour, but as a tool for understanding oneself in relation to those basic energies. And the better we understand ourselves, the more adequate (i.e. compassionate and wise) our behaviour will naturally be.

 

50 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

As for traditions, I was taught Catholicism in my youth, and while once upon a time in history Sophia was known and the holy spirit considered the feminine principle of God, that was not part of the catechism I was taught. 

 

Socrates was clear regarding his thoughts on a woman's place, as was Confucius. Neither were overly complimentary, and both were highly influential. 

 

I've read of a Buddhist idea that it is a great misfortune to be born in a woman's body. I do not agree. 

 

Neither do I. You know, in Buddhism many things have been said over time by many people and for many reasons - just like anywhere else! Oftentimes, you have to keep digging a bit for finding true gold.

 

50 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

And honestly, I'm not sure if I'm moving from this spot until some things are at least acknowledged.

 

We should only take the next step when we are reasonably sure we are not going to strumble.

 

50 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

Just consider it an eclipse..

 

 

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I`m clearly ignorant.  I just figured that "the patriarchy" was feminist-speak for systemic sexism.  Given that I happen to believe there`s an awful lot of systemic sexism worth objecting to, I`m not opposed to that usage.  That said, some words are so loaded with emotional connotation that people seeking to have a productive discussion should probably just abandon them and head for the hills; patriarchy may well be one of those words.  

 

I appreciate Armando`s acknowledgement that there are individual variations in the way people express male and female energies.  Nobodies gonna mistake me for the Marlboro Man and I like to think that my particular mix of masculine gender and emotional openness (for the most part) is as valid as more traditional presentations of masculinity.

 

@ilumairen, while I`m no astrologer I`m guessing that an eclipse is a very interesting time to be born indeed.  Michael Winn has lots to say about the power of eclipses, how we can tune into the special energy available at that time to boost spiritual development.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In patriarchy a man is qualified by virtue of being old and male. Supporting either patriarchy or matriarchy is either addressing an internal imbalance by externalizing, or creating a new internal problem from external imbalance. Once you taste balance,only trauma can make you want to seek imbalance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling the answer is similar to 'What is patronizing', ie an assumption one group (or sex) is better in charge then another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2019 at 8:03 PM, dawei said:

Like I saw many that talked of men wanting to subordinate women through the use of even violence in certain circumstances... So I asked myself, 'is a matriarchal' definition the subordination of men through the use of even violence in certain circumstances?   

 

A voice in my head in my head said, NO!... but I then asked that voice in my head, based on what ?    We cannot based it on 2,000 year of matriarchal structures but, what if women had the power to yield in society on the same level... we would not see some oppression ?

 

So it's not clear to me if we would define them relatively the same, in modern day, just exchange the sexes... or we'd see completely different (or somewhat different) definitions based on what we perceive as gender qualifies.

 

I found this quote that may address your questions:

 

Quote

In Goddess Durgā and Sacred Female Power, I am interested in the possibility of personal and planetary transformation that comes through a more female-centered, even matriarchal reality. While matriarchy has been interpreted as the opposite of patriarchy, matriarchy actually means “from the mother” and refers to a social system that is structured around environmental sustainability and the peacemaking wisdom of mothers and grandmothers.

 

However, I've no doubt there are some very angry feminists out there - who, if given the chance, would make a matriarchal society that is differentiated from patriarchal society only a matter of who is suppressed and the manner in which suppression occurs. 

 

I also have doubts regarding the sustainability and protection of a "peaceful" society. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, thelerner said:

I get the feeling the answer is similar to 'What is patronizing', ie an assumption one group (or sex) is better in charge then another. 

 

I don't want anyone in charge based solely upon what is between their legs, and this also applies to females.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if some of the confusion around the word 'patriarchy' arises because it has been misused (probably since the 60's and 70's).  The word comes from Greek/Latin words for 'father' e.g. pater + archy from arche which means 'first' - so it means the primacy of the father.  So the line of the father is the line of inheritance and more generally in society it is the word of the elder men (the fathers) which counts.

 

This has been twisted a little recently to mean 'all men' - which I admit has some partial truth but is a bit fuzzy.  Clearly if the elder men set the societal rules and values then it is likely that they favour men and tend to assign fairly strict and limited roles to women.  That is if you view society as operating in a top down manner.  Even in a society which operates in this way the power to decide is in the hands of not all men but some men - probably 1% of men.  Most men throughout recorded history lived a life of struggling to survive, servitude to labor and enduring danger such as in war.  Hardly the 'privilege' of which we are accused.

 

In fact the necessity of survival was probably the determining factor in the development of strict male/female roles - simply it kept the children fed and clothed.  In parts of society where genuine privilege existed, like the aristocracy and bohemian artists, gender roles were far more fluid and there was much more 'transgressive' behaviour.  This is simply the effect of the loosening of the material burdens - which is exactly what is happening in the west today when even the not so well off live lives of unrivalled wealth and leisure.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange thread.

 

One would think it was obvious why ,how societies developed and the division between the roles of men and women.

 

A little confused now because of many laws enabling women to seemly compete with men directly, and the programs designed to address or change areas that women would naturally gravitate towards to areas that most would not on their own.

 

"Thought some might find the irony in this

 

Nancy is a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men,” Sarsour wrote in a blistering Facebook post. “God forbid the men are upset — no worries, Nancy to the rescue to stroke their egos.”https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/06/linda-sarsour-pelosi-doing-dirty-work-of-powerful-white-men-with-antisemitism-condemnation/

 

 

"

Said by a Muslim woman.

Why is it in their countries of origin  or religious practice they never seem to find a voice to speak up.

 

Oh yes they're not allowed to.

 I forgot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The hits just keep on coming.

 

")his idea of a singular woman who upholds the patriarchal system, keeps it in place, and errs on the side of the men she works with, no matter how wrong the situation may be, in order to uphold the system instead of siding with people who are asking her not to do that, which are predominantly women, literally screaming and banging down her door in the case of the Kavanaugh hearings.” https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/03/05/amber-tamblyn-susan-collins-victim-male-grooming-kavanaugh-vote/

 

In many cases it's the women themselves who make other women toe the line as to what are the new rules and standards in society.

 

Women have power, many seem to have forgotten what it's based on and how to use it.

 

In Asia they call it soft power,  behind the scenes it is well-known that women control a lot of things indirectly through the men.

 

There is a saying:

 

 man is the face of woman.

 

As many continue to attack western society steadily degrading it, women will find themselves for the same reasons in the positions that historically they survived in.

 

Always find it odd the focus on single mothers never talking about single fathers.

 

Edited:

 

they will find themselves in the same positions until science advances enough so that it's possible to create humans by other means.

 

Robotics and AI is leading in this starting with companionship.  

 

Edited by windwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apech said:

I'm wondering if some of the confusion around the word 'patriarchy' arises because it has been misused (probably since the 60's and 70's).  The word comes from Greek/Latin words for 'father' e.g. pater + archy from arche which means 'first' - so it means the primacy of the father.  So the line of the father is the line of inheritance and more generally in society it is the word of the elder men (the fathers) which counts.

 

Which is a rather clear definition imo.

 

Quote

 

This has been twisted a little recently to mean 'all men' - which I admit has some partial truth but is a bit fuzzy. 

 

I'm still trying to sort this bit. In my (very limited) reading of the work of feminist authors, no matter what they're addressing they've been clear on two things. Regarding societal issues - it's not all men, and in spiritual understanding and practice there is inclusion.

 

Quote

 

Clearly if the elder men set the societal rules and values then it is likely that they favour men and tend to assign fairly strict and limited roles to women.  That is if you view society as operating in a top down manner.  Even in a society which operates in this way the power to decide is in the hands of not all men but some men - probably 1% of men.

 

Including familial structure would increase the percentage. 

 

Quote

Most men throughout recorded history lived a life of struggling to survive, servitude to labor and enduring danger such as in war.  Hardly the 'privilege' of which we are accused.

 

I don't like the phrase male privilege - it's not helpful to the dialog, and is far too oblique to actually mean anything. 

 

Quote

 

In fact the necessity of survival was probably the determining factor in the development of strict male/female roles - simply it kept the children fed and clothed. 

 

I was recently watching a documentary on ancient Egypt, and there was comment made regarding the different views regarding women between Egypt and Greece and Rome. Any thoughts on this?

 

Quote

 

In parts of society where genuine privilege existed, like the aristocracy and bohemian artists, gender roles were far more fluid and there was much more 'transgressive' behaviour.  This is simply the effect of the loosening of the material burdens - which is exactly what is happening in the west today when even the not so well off live lives of unrivalled wealth and leisure.

 

May I ask what you're referring to as transgressive behavior?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, windwalker said:

Robotics and AI is leading in this starting with companionship. 

 

No thanks I prefer a real girl with a heart and a soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Which is a rather clear definition imo.

 

 

I'm still trying to sort this bit. In my (very limited) reading of the work of feminist authors, no matter what they're addressing they've been clear on two things. Regarding societal issues - it's not all men, and in spiritual understanding and practice there is inclusion.

 

This is a quote from bell hooks' Understanding Patriarchy (https://imaginenoborders.org/pdf/zines/UnderstandingPatriarchy.pdf ) - and yes she does characterise the patriarchy as harmful to men through emotional inhibition and so on ... yet:

 

"Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. When my older brother and I were born with a year separating us in age, patriarchy determined how we would each be regarded by our parents. Both our parents believed in patriarchy; they had been taught patriarchal thinking through religion."

 

So its all about power and domination in her eyes.

 

10 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Including familial structure would increase the percentage. 

 

Yes that is correct I think in the sense that the family structure recapitulates the state system e.g. feudalism under a king.  Also the Biblical 'man is head of the woman' and so on.  There is no doubt that (nearly) all societies and civilisations in recorded history (from 3000 BC on say) are patriarchal and the rights and roles of women were suppressed or limited to some degree varying from place to place.  But it remains true, in my opinion, that true power was held by a very small number of people, usually but not exclusively male - and most men were slaves to the system just as much as women.  I don't think that you can break this until you become what I would call a true individual - who thinks, speaks and acts for themselves from the basis of their own understanding an wisdom.

 

 

10 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

I don't like the phrase male privilege - it's not helpful to the dialog, and is far too oblique to actually mean anything. 

 

 

No I don't like it either.

10 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

I was recently watching a documentary on ancient Egypt, and there was comment made regarding the different views regarding women between Egypt and Greece and Rome. Any thoughts on this?

 

Egyptian women had legal and property rights and compared to many societies were relatively free.  But it was still a male dominated society.

 

10 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

May I ask what you're referring to as transgressive behavior?

 

I meant for instance sexually liberated behaviour such as cross dressing, being gay and other things.  Aristocrats because they felt themselves above the rules that govern the masses and bohemian types because they explored their own psyche in a way which crossed boundaries.  So I meant transgressive of social norms.  Of interest is that also spiritual adepts like the mahasiddhas of medieval india lived lives on the margins of mainstream society and frequently broke taboos on sex and so on.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites