Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

Thank you for joining the conversation @windwalker.

 

Would you please explain how what you've shared helps us define patriarchy?

 

I've provided examples of who is doing the defining, how its used,

and the inevitable  outcomes when its not understood.

 

I see little need to "define" it  since its used by those who don't accept the 

the root and historical definitions from which it originated  from now being used 

by many in an over arching role to support their narratives

 

Why are the real time examples  that I used not being questioned as to how

"patriarchy" is commonly used and thought of ?. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Pilgrim said:

 

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

 

In today's time, a "real girl" may mean many things

 

heart and soul,  

 

you may "want to think on this further"  like the bomb did...:mellow:  

 

Edited by windwalker
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

I've provided examples of who is doing the defining, how its used,

and the inevitable  outcomes when its not understood.

 

I see little need to "define" it  since its used by those who don't accept the 

the root and historical definitions from which it originated  from now being used 

by many in an over arching role to support their narratives

 

Why are the real time examples  that I used not being questioned as to how

"patriarchy" is commonly used and thought of ?. 

 

On 3/2/2019 at 4:56 PM, ilumairen said:

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. 

 

Share this post


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

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. 

 

 

I see

 

as its your thread,,,please continue 

Edited by windwalker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

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.

 

I've read, and will likely re-read the essay. 

 

However, I'm trying to work out why you seem to be setting forth that the first bit you summarized is somehow negated by what you quoted. 

 

Would you help me understand?

Share this post


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

 

I see

 

as its your thread,,,please continue 

 

In my mind this topic is a bit like the sage cautiously traversing ice, as we could easily find ourselves plunged into some very cold water.. And there are also some underlying thoughts of sitting quietly as the mud settles.. it's a muddy issue, and a whole lot of thrashing about isn't going to lend itself to clarity. 

 

Thank you for your patience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then I propose then since no one agrees upon the historical that we instead speak from our own point of view as to what Patriarchy is from having observed it's behavior in our lives.

 

Right or wrong this is my view of Patriarchy.

 

1. First and foremost I view Patriarchy as something old fashioned that was in place before I was born and has been slipping and loosing its position for the close to 60 years. In the past a man, a real man carried the burden of the family and the stress and the financial burden of being solely responsible for everyone under his roof. That is allot to put on someone. He had to deal with all the pressures and perform no matter what or others would suffer.  From this appreciation from the family and deference to his wishes at-least on the surface. :) as times changed and 1 paycheck was no longer enough so has the right to expect such control of the family especially the Wife.

 

1a. In my Family the roles got reversed and Mother became the Primary Bread Winner and took on all the afor-mentioned stress, obligations and responsibilities and was honored and respected by the children to the chagrin of an unjust Father who demanded to be in charge but brought nothing to the family except for problems.   He thought coming and going as he pleased and laying around on the couch was his just due in life. Work? a 4 letter word to him. 

 

2. I identify Patriarchy in the family  as an accepted "this is the way it is because it has always been this way with our people type of thing."

 

3. The something that Patriarchy is, is an adherence to the Male in a relationship or the family being the authority. The final Authority.  Authoritarian subservience and deference being given to the male weather they are right or wrong and allot of this came from the Male being the primary source of income which fed the family. Now with women having to be in the workforce not by choice but due to the fact most people can not survive on one paycheck things have changed.   

 

Women are now saying now hold on a minute, if I am doing the same job why does a male by virtue of male birth receive more money for the same job?

 

Women are saying wait up who says you are right? and I have to put up with your "I am right and you better agree with me B.S. I am educated too you know and I can google an answer to any question.

 

I think we can all agree that same work = same pay.

 

This however is still not the case and is in fact another form of Patriarchy. In other words maintaining the male preferential treatment and by doing so ensuring female subservience by keeping them financially handicapped.  

 

This begs the question why?  I suspect the answer is that most institutions are still ran by men at the higher levels of business etc...

 

Men and women have both been conditioned to accept Patriarchy to some degree or another. I have seen one person here @ilumairen

Trying to have a conversation and presenting facts as to what the word means, even historically. I have seen many others having conditioned reactions and some hostility to having their conditioning explored.

 

Conditioning is not something allot of people can take having explored as it goes to the root of identity and ones secure identity place in the world.

 

My conditioning by living has shown me the Patriarchy while still present is baseless and will continue to dissolve as time moves on.

 

Furthermore I clearly see a future of equal roles as we move further and further into a more technological society and that becoming the new healthy paradigm where neither man nor woman have a dominant role but a mutually loving and supporting relationship instead. 

 

Father Knows Best, and Leave it Beaver days are gone, way, way gone.

 

What I see happening now very slowly is that women who have been oppressed are not taking it anymore, Women no longer need a dominant male making their decisions for them especially when he is not paying the bills but more often than not now is in a more financially symbiotic relationship with his female for mutual benefit of a higher standard of living.

 

I am glad the women stood up and demanded fair and equal treatment, yes they had to get pushy to be taken seriously and like all examples there are ones that are really over the top but even that is mellowing, we are going to see less and less of the younger generations even really having experienced Patriarchy.  

 

Just think about it only 100 years ago a man's word was law and law supported this. 

All the people grew up with this and as it has been wearing away the conditioning on both sides is having a hard time coming to grips with what comes next but it is coming :) 

 

I do not think there will ever be a Severe Matriarchy as there once was a severe Patriarchy,, conditions of living just will not support this anymore than they can continue to support a Patriarchy.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

I've read, and will likely re-read the essay. 

 

However, I'm trying to work out why you seem to be setting forth that the first bit you summarized is somehow negated by what you quoted. 

 

Would you help me understand?

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Share this post


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

And there are also some underlying thoughts of sitting quietly as the mud settles.. it's a muddy issue, and a whole lot of thrashing about isn't going to lend itself to clarity. 

 

Thank you for your patience.

 

 

I see others asking and pointing out the same things, I hope you take the time to comment on their thoughts also

would be interesting reading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

In today's time, a "real girl" may mean many things

 

heart and soul,  

 

you may "want to think on this further"  like the bomb did...:mellow:  

 

Further proof that logic is a whore that serves all equally and the by mere intellect and logic one may always arrive at a state of Paralyses by analyses.

 

Love the Ol'school SCI-FY And since you presented a Darkstar I feel obligated to Bring Jame Tiberius Kirk to the conversation as well.

 

Here is a fine example of not only Patriarchal Behavior but an excellent job of mansplaining.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by Pilgrim

Share this post


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

I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

22 hours ago, Apech said:

 

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:

 

You used the word yet - which to me implies something akin to "in spite of". 

 

22 hours ago, Apech said:

 

"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.

 

 

To you the acknowledgement that the patriarchy is harmful to men, and it being about power and domination, seem to be a juxtaposition.

 

And I found this curious. In your understanding how are these two ideas at odds with each other?

Share this post


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

Strange thread.

 

There have been a few people who have expressed strong views regarding patriarchy, while at the same time expressing that they don't know what it is. Hence, this thread. 

 

23 hours ago, windwalker said:

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

 

So you accept that patriarchy has and does exist, but that there are obvious reasons for this?

 

23 hours ago, windwalker said:

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.

 

Actually the "confusion" as it would most effect society arose when during WWII soo many men went off to war, and women began (out of necessity) doing jobs that were previously considered "man's work". The women weren't trying to compete; they were supporting. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2019 at 1:30 PM, rideforever said:

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.   

 

You could seek the answer to what you claim to have always wondered about, and the amount of information available may surprise you. 

 

As to the rest of your post, I find it poorly written, and mostly emotionally presented. You're simply all over the place - scattered thoughts thrown about like seed on a windy day. 

 

And upon further consideration, I've decided that I am, in my interactions with you, going to apply the rules my father applied with me. They assisted me in learning to speak and communicate my ideas more clearly - for as harsh as they may have seemed at times. 

 

:giggling: welcome to the patriarchy

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Actually the "confusion" as it would most effect society arose when during WWII soo many men went off to war, and women began (out of necessity) doing jobs that were previously considered "man's work". The women weren't trying to compete; they were supporting

 

You do understand that at that time a single wage earner was all that was needed to support a family, usually this was the man understanding that the raising of the family was very important job that the woman handled.

 

In native peoples lives the distinction of work and responsibilities was quite clear due to necessity, and ability.

 

In modern societies it is less clear due to the societies themselves, attempting to generderize ability, equalize necessity.  

 

In reality it's very destructive.

 

In the time mentioned

 

The men were off fighting a war that allowed the women to live in the society they live in. 

 

The women were supporting the men in the only way they could by supplying materials products needed for war.

 

You might want to read about the marriage rates, I wonder how many single mother families there were  at that time.

 

No one seems to care about single father families. Doesn't make the news I wonder why.

Edited by windwalker

Share this post


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

 

The men were off fighting a war that allowed the women to live in the society they live in. 

 

The men were fighting against the intended world domination of Hitler. 

 

"Allowed the women to live in the society they live in" is an interesting way to summarize and phrase things.

 

Quote

 

The women were supporting the men in the only way they could by supplying materials products needed for war.

 

In so doing they learned that they were, indeed, capable and competent in jobs that were previously male dominated, and able to put food on the table themselves. 

 

Quote

 

You might want to read about the marriage rates, I wonder how many single mother families there were  at that time.

 

There was a boom in marriage, as young men about to be sent off to war wished to marry their sweethearts before leaving. And while they were married, many women were left on their own, and in this there would have been many mothers raising children where the father was absent. 

 

What is the point you are attempting to make?

 

 

Edited by ilumairen
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you've added to your post..

 

21 minutes ago, windwalker said:

You do understand that at that time a single wage earner was all that was needed to support a family, usually this was the man understanding that the raising of the family was very important job that the woman handled.

 

Yes, I recognize that, while married couples with two incomes believed they would be able to get ahead financially, the economic structure shifted to make two incomes a near necessity. 

 

And I understand that as a generalization women seem more invested in the care and raising of children. 

 

21 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

In native peoples lives the distinction of work and responsibilities was quite clear due to necessity, and ability.

 

In modern societies it is less clear due to the societies themselves, attempting to generderize ability, equalize necessity.  

 

In reality it's very destructive.

 

Just as in the past women realized they were indeed as able as men to make an informed vote, women realized they were able to do certain jobs they would not have performed prior to the war. 

 

There is ability that was found not to be gender determinative. 

 

And necessity (through what happened during the war), was the catalyst through which ability was discovered. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There is ability that was found not to be gender determinative. 

 

this might be what you believe but in reality it's not true there are many jobs that have been gender normed enabling women to work in them.

 

really not much point of a discussion if one cannot approach it with honesty and clarity.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But ...historically seen the period that there was a structure with married couples, dad earning wages and mom staying at home is tiny. 

 

lets go back to industrial revolution, every body from age 6 and up ( sometimes even younger) needed to work to get some scarce food on the table.

 

before that there was agricultural society, everybody worked as able, you can't run a ( small) farm on dad and sons alone. Women have always worked whatever work there was to do. And in time of war, long before WW2 there have been many wars, they've always done everything that needed to be done

 

Patriarchy is much older then the period were the dad/mom/kids-marriage with working dad was the norm  and at least in Europe the christian church had a big hand in putting women lower then men.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

this might be what you believe but in reality it's not true there are many jobs that have been gender normed enabling women to work in them.

 

really not much point of a discussion if one cannot approach it with honesty and clarity.

 

I was discussing what occurred during WWII, and in this I am accurate. 

 

That you now wish to jump to a later time in history and believe it to be an argument against that being the turning point in the U.S. and what actually happened, does not speak against my honesty and clarity.

 

Edited by ilumairen
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

You used the word yet - which to me implies something akin to "in spite of". 

 

 

To you the acknowledgement that the patriarchy is harmful to men, and it being about power and domination, seem to be a juxtaposition.

 

And I found this curious. In your understanding how are these two ideas at odds with each other?

 

My view, rightly or wrongly, is a patriarchal system is system which holds and transmits authority through the 'fathers'.  So the way in which society is ordered and structured is primarily based on men.  I think that all historical examples which we have are like this and the product has been the civilisation that we have today.  My intuition about this is that this arose because of success in holding order in the face of the natural entropic tendency to decay, for things to fall into disorder.  The model provided and encoded in western culture is the king who sacrifices himself for the people - the Judeo-Christian model in other words.  This is recognition that having authority is not easy - it is a burden or responsibility which few can master.  In fact all historical examples fail eventually because the task is so hard.  Witness how dictators of which there are many examples quickly decay into paranoia, poor health and bizarre behaviour and decisions.  The institutions of western society have been developed to allow authority to be given with enough checks and balances to prevent tyranny.  Or that is the intent.  So we allow authority because it is necessary but limit it in time or in the extent to which it can be exercised.

 

If you are an individual, man or woman, within a structured society then you will experience to a greater or lesser degree limitations placed on your personal freedom.  Compulsion to fulfil roles, to form particular relationships and so on enforced by church and state through spiritual and temporal law and social convention (which is mostly enforced through peer pressure and morality and so on) - and in this sense we all suffer since as individuals we may not feel happy or fulfilled by the box into which we are fitted.  So there is suffering and struggle brought about by the inhibition of energies which can become violent when they try to express themselves.   Particularly this violence may be directed towards those closest to you when you mistakenly feel that they are responsible for your feelings of discontent.  So even the perpetrator of domestic violence is in this sense a victim because they have been deposited by nature with unresolved internal energetic conflicts without the kind of educative help which could help them resolve their own conflicts.

 

It is true that the morsel that men have been handed traditionally for fitting themselves in a box is that they are at least the master of their own home and as such have authority over a woman.  Hence the origin of macho cultural stereotypes.  Along with this is the myth of 'power'.  bell hooks describes this as:

 

"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."

 

But you have to compare this with the actuality that most men are not dominating anyone, they are working hard to survive and provide (through most of history) and that any use of 'terrorism and violence' is the exception not the norm.  If it were the norm then society itself would quickly break down into a rabied mess.  In fact the success of patriarchal societies is that they do not break down in this way and that any authority granted comes hand in hand with responsibility.

 

Not sure if answered your question though :)

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Apech said:

Not sure if answered your question though :)

 

 

It seems as though an answer is really not wanted but nice write-up.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


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

 

It seems as though an answer is really not wanted but nice write-up.

 

 

What are you getting on about now?

 

Are you equating my interactions with @Apech with my interactions with you?

 

I asked him a question, and appreciate his answer - which is entirely different than someone jumping in and pushing answers to questions that weren't asked, insisting on their correctness, and degenerating to attacks on my honesty.

 

If you'd like me to respond to you in a manner similar to how I respond to Apech, then watch how he interacts with me. The dynamic is entirely different. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If you'd like me to respond to you in a manner similar to how I respond to Apech, then watch how he interacts with me. The dynamic is entirely different. 

 

Actually it doesn't matter what your response is.

Its not about what or how I like a response, a response is just what  it is. 

 

The dynamic is a reflection of you. Respond or not its the same.

 

"True words are not fine-sounding;
Fine-sounding words are not true.
The good man does not prove by argument;
The he who proves by argument is not good.
True wisdom is different from much learning;
Much learning means little wisdom."

 

Share this post


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

 

Actually it doesn't matter what your response is.

Its not about what or how I like a response, a response is just what  it is. 

 

The dynamic is a reflection of you. Respond or not its the same.

 

"True words are not fine-sounding;
Fine-sounding words are not true.
The good man does not prove by argument;
The he who proves by argument is not good.
True wisdom is different from much learning;
Much learning means little wisdom."

 

 

You told Apech a response was not wanted. That is a lie. And this is true - even though it was my honesty called into question.

 

And if the dynamic is all a reflection of me, then why do I experience healthy and natural dynamic in interactions with @Apech and stilted forceful ones with you?

 

 

Share this post


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

And if the dynamic is all a reflection of me, then why do I experience healthy and natural dynamic in interactions with @Apech and stilted forceful ones with you?

 

sounds like you might want to spend some time with your self and figure out way this is so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites