mic_none

Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 7 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patriarchy/Archive_7

Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

head of the article

Post made by sockpuppet

To @Bilorov Please do not remove referenced and helpful content. Or I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavius Romanus75 (talkcontribs)

No, you stop it. You will be reported. This will be removed. Read WP:In-text attribution. You have provided in-text-attribution where it absolutely does not belong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ad Orientem: The sentence about the term patriarchy being "minted" by one author in the 1970s is not supported by the article text. I'm not sure why you're leaving that in place while fully protecting the article. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 10:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if it was true, it would not be fit for the first sentence of the lead, as this is not a 2010s neologism but the basis of a large portion of academic theory. Obviously the status quo should have been the version protected—that is, the section without the rewritten lead and the criticism section. Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:WRONGVERSION. I suggest that everybody work on getting some kind of consensus so that we don't go back into edit warring mode when the protection expires. That would be... unfortunate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also thought of WP:WRONGVERSION (and thought to mention it here), but it is the wrong version. It's not uncommon for admins to revert to the WP:Status quo version or away from WP:Undue material before semi-protecting or full-protecting the article. That's not WP:INVOLVED. But I understand you wanting to stay out of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ad Orientem: the edits, in this case, were made by a 6RR-ing POV-pusher who is obviously sockpuppeteering, and has not posted a reply since page protection began. With respect, I believe you've made a blunder here. Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page protection expired a couple of hours ago. There appears to be a rough consensus favoring a return to the last stable version. Controversial changes to that should be discussed here first. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that admins have to make difficult calls and I don't wish to start berating someone who works solely as volunteer, but that isn't an admission that you made a mistake, or an explanation of your actions. If you can't justify that protection, just please bear in mind in future that protecting the current version of a page is not value-neutral and admins need to look properly at the page history first. I've restored the last stable version. Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Bilorov, besides discovering today that you opened an investigation on me, which is ludicrous, there is NO consensus in this page to revert to any previous stage this article. Before 1970 the term patriarchy meant something unrelated to feminism. If you are offended by the history and development of feminism, it is not a concern of mine. I saw also someone suggesting to eliminate criticisms, despite being a fully reference section, and this of course for ideological reasons. This is deeply sad.Aristotele1982 (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Aristotele1982 (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which Wikipedia policy says that articles must talk about things only in relation to second wave feminism? Just because you have your own little crusade against femnism doesn't mean the encyclopedia revolves around you. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please see WP:BURDEN. As the person who wants to add material to the article, you have the responsibility to provide citations for your claims. I don't feel your changes improved the article, and I think there's a rough consensus to revert them on this page in any case; but more generally, all edits require consensus (which means your additions also require consensus.) You can presume consensus per WP:BOLD when there's no reason to think anyone will object; but once someone has objected, it's normal to go back to the last stable version - ie. before your additions - while we discuss them on talk and try to work out a compromise. See WP:BRD for the general outline of how this is supposed to go. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Post made by sockpuppet

There is no crusade here. the content of an article on Wikipedia must abide by the rules of transparency and thorough referencing. The material added is fully referenced and critical. None pretends that is perfect, but is not to be removed for ideological reason, as it seems to add valuable material. Instead of being disruptive, add content. Flavius Romanus75 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section on Criticisms Added

Following up on a previous discussion I added a fully referenced section on Criticisms, which was absent before. The section can be improved from a variety of perspective but many Wiki users felt it was much needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talkcontribs) 09:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this edit, I'm afraid I've cut down a lot of the text in the section because it is not referenced with inline citations, which are required for controversial material. Feel free to add it back, if it is properly sourced. Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Bilorov, I reverted your edit, for two main reasons

1) there is nothing controversial in what I've written, as it is true that the term patriarchy is controversial 2) the article itself is not referenced at each line, so I do not need to do it either. The first part is meant to provide the reader with some context.

In conclusion, please do not remove or revert the content, if anything, try to expand on it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talkcontribs) 11:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've responded to both of these points before on my talk page. The rest of the article is not in a great state, so we should not base new contributions on those standards. I've cited an information page, WP:MINREF, which must be upheld—and it says that if content has been removed, then it requires an inline citation. It shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources if the statements are as uncontroversial as you say they are. (By the way, please sign your talk page posts by ending them with the code ~~~~. Thanks!) Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section on criticisms contains referenced material, please do not eliminate it. I do not pretend it is definitive, but it is important to keep it. The page has been denounced many times as ideologicalAristotele1982 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Philip Trueman: please do not make reversions without a valid edit summary. Can you explain why you removed the content, three times in a row, without citing a single policy or reason? Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:CSECTION, a criticism section is normally a bad way to organize material, especially for controversial subjects. Based on this, I think the first step to resolving this dispute is to break it apart and integrate the sourced parts into the appropriate part of the article. After that, we can evaluate WP:DUE weight for each of them and decide how much weight (if any) to give them. But I do want to emphasize in the strongest possible terms that "the article needs a criticism section!" is not a valid argument. Criticism sections are generally bad things, and I want to express my strong opposition to it (and strong support for anyone who wants to either remove it or take it apart and put the inclusion-worthy sections in appropriate parts of the article rather than lumping them into a section on criticism.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since nobody objected (and there seem to be substantial objections to the section below), I've taken it apart for now. Reviewing the cited text that remained to be distributed in the article, I feel that what this article might actually need is a section discussing the relationship between patriarchy and class, which all of these sources discuss to one degree or another and which seems to be at the heart of the debate they're focusing on. --Aquillion (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for doing this. I agree that a criticism section is rarely the best way of organising information. Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split

This article can't seem to decide whether it is about political activism or human history. They are not indistinct, but it might be better to split it in two to separate contemporary analysis from historical chronicles. Ethanpet113 (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't you mean into three? Don't forget Marxist theories of patriarchy; feminist scholarship is not the same as feminist activism either. The article is well under 75 kilobytes, so there's room for both the historical and the theoretical. In fact, theoretical approaches (including feminist ones) take precedence in academic reference works about patriarchy, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]. And by "not indistict", I assume you mean "not inseparable". Otherwise, there's no need for any "but". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article should not be split. See WP:Content fork. Also, there is no WP:SIZE issue. If it were split, where would "patriarchy" redirect to? Would there be a Patriarchy article with barely anything in it, summarizing the split articles per WP:Summary style? Would "Patriarchy" be a disambiguation page? Just no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My feeling is that though Flyer22 may be techically correct here, the non-engagement with the needs and desires of the OP may be rightly considered Patriarchal. That is, instead of a nurturing approach to aiding understanding, the authoritarian male Wikipedian seeks to exert an immediate dominance. That this dominance is exerted on the basis of appeal to masculine authority (male created Wikipedia rules) and the good of the family unit cypher (Wikipedia in this case) is expected and not entirely uncomplicated. Either way I feel a nurturing approach would have been preferable. Mrspaceowl (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mrspaceowl: Which authoritarian male Wikipedian are you referring to? I would tend to agree that some admins, but of both genders, have a tendency towards being authoritarian but this would be a really lousy description of your typical male wikipedia editor, or wikipedia editor regardless of their gender, which we often don't know anyway. What is certain is that wikipedia rules were not created by males and so canot be characterized as male-created. And to claim that nurturing is female and authoritarian is male is deeply offensive sexist opinionating. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV issues

This is a topic about which Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "The consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that while power is often preferentially bestowed on one sex or the other, patriarchy is not the cultural universal it was once thought to be."

Yet Wikipedia gives extreme prominance to the following:

"The sociologist Sylvia Walby defines patriarchy as "a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress, and exploit women".[18][19] Social stratification along gender lines, in which power is predominantly held by men, has been observed in most societies.""

Which foregrounds the historical and blurs the lines between historical and contemporary, and in addition lacks weight regarding current consensus. Given that there is clearly a substantial disagreement even among encyclopedic sources about the current status of at least some aspects of Patriarchy, Wikipedia should take the correct path and present a properly WP:NPOV article which does not unduely privilage historical understanding and gives WP:RSUW to all contemporary and historical understandings in its intro, which currently it fails to do. Mrspaceowl (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...patriarchy is not the cultural universal it was once thought to be. So then what proportion of observed cultures are patriarchal – one half? Three quarters? Nine tenths? It's a pretty vague statement to base any actual material on. The text "Social stratification along gender lines, in which power is predominantly held by men, has been observed in most societies" doesn't actually contradict it either. If "most societies" are patriarchal, that implies that some aren't. It's a question of emphasis only. However, the Britannica article quoted above is only about 120 words long, while we have actual scholarly encylopedias cited in the article that go into great depth on the topic. Giving this one source the same emphasis would be undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. I'm not seeing the contradiction. Both sources are saying that patriarchy is prevalent across societies, but not universal. Unless you can find an source that explicitly states a disagreement among scholars over the prevalence of patriarchy, I don't see a case for retaining the NPOV template. Nblund talk 18:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. I've removed the template. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biological basis?

The section § Biological versus social theories sets up a false equivalence, in my view (starting with the section title itself). None of the academic reference works I've seen, e.g. [6][7][8][9][10], give any space to the idea of a biological basis for patriarchy at all. I suggest drastically trimming the material that merely cites critics of the mainstream sociological view (or various quibbles regarding menstruation, brain volume, etc.) without showing how such criticisms fit into the overall academic picture. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as we don't have solid high-quality refs for a biological basis for patriarchy we shouldn't even mention the idea let alone in a header. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to curtail the statements of critics of social theory, then it means that the critics of biology must also be curtailed. Otherwise it will not be impartial. Moreover, social theory is not fundamental. And any biologist will confirm that the biological basis of the emergence of patriarchy cannot be excluded. But I agree that you need to remove the statements of different people about the biological and social theory. It is necessary to leave only scientific studies, because they are impartial. —Logvlad9 (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not how we evaluate sources or WP:NPOV. Neutrality means representing proportionally the views of published sources that actually discuss the topic. High-level sources such as literature reviews and university-level textbooks are preferred over primary research papers. Please indicate where such sources discuss the "biological basis" of patriarchy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New NPOV issues

Recent additions to the article by 85.173.130.121 (who seems to be Logvlad9?) have introduced serious NPOV and original research issues. In particular, statements like "Also, for example, in the proof of the biological basis of patriarchy, one can cite the fact that the majority of violent attacks are committed by men." and "The assumption that gender identity depends on socialization, and the sociologists' statement that people behave like "men" or "women" because they were brought up like this, was rejected by the scientific community." I would like to remind folks that sociology is a branch of science, and the broad consensus of sociologists is that patriarchy is a social construction (as elaborated on in the "Social theory" section). These strongly POV statements (which contradict other parts of the article) either need to be edited to properly attribute them as opinions of specific people or groups or they need to be removed. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made the edit and added links to sources Logvlad9 (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kaldari You misunderstood the meaning of the text. Bonobo males have low testosterone due to the fact that they do not need to compete for resources. Moreover, there is a vast amount of research (in humans, chimpanzees, rats) that show that testosterone is associated with competitive behavior between males. For example, bonobos are the only species of primates that have matriarchy. And the only type of primates in which any conflict ends with sex, and virtually no aggression. That is, matriarchy appeared due to reduction of aggression in males, they no longer needed in competitive behavior. Moreover, bonobos are not so developed that sociality changed testosterone levels so much. Logvlad9 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Logvlad9: Everything you write above makes sense except for the last sentence. There is a common misunderstanding that evolution drives behavior, but that's not how evolution works. Behavior and environment drive evolution. As the biological anthropologist Frank B. Livingstone writes, "I do not believe that a genetic or physiological change will occur first and then cause social or behavioral change. In fact, just the opposite, the behavior or way of life of a population determines the fitness values of the genotypes, and this changes the genetic characteristics of the population."[11] The original reason why bonobos became less competitive than chimpanzees is because they lived in an area with more abundant and nutritious vegetation and they also didn't have to compete with Gorillas for food.[12][13] Since resources were relatively abundant, they had less need for competition, and having a lot of testosterone was no longer an effective advantage for survival. So yes, bonobos are probably matriarchal due to less male competition, but having less testosterone was probably a result of that social change, not the cause. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaldari:Yes, I fully agree with you, the external environment forms the internal, that is, it changes the hormal, although at the genetic level it does it rather slowly. I just thought that you think that this happened because of cultural socialization (?), And not because of changes in the external environment. I made such a conclusion, as it seemed to me incomprehensible why you deleted my text regarding bonobo, because it has scientific evidence. I originally meant that bonobos had testosterone levels affected by the lack of competition among males, they had plenty of resources and no predators (which is completely not characteristic of other primates, including people who always face different threats and lack of resources), and therefore females Bonobos are always ready to mate with any males (therefore bonobos are the most depraved species of primates), regardless of the status of the male, since status is necessary for those primates who have competition, so that the females can select high rankings x male, so as a high-ranking males have greater resources, and usually testosterone affects the degree of dominance in different animals, ie affect their status. We can say that bonobos are a unique type of primates that have evolved in the best territorial and safe conditions, and in such conditions aggression is not needed at all, and therefore a decrease in testosterone in males is necessary, otherwise meaningless killing or rape will occur, unnecessary competition will occur. I think we just did not understand each other. Logvlad9 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Logvlad9, looking here and here, I see that both Kaldari and Sangdeboeuf have reverted you. Do listen to the more experienced editors and the policies or guidelines they are pointing you to. Don't WP:Edit war. Another policy for you to keep in mind is WP:Synthesis. You also need to keep WP:Tone in mind. For example, "Most did not dare to argue against Money’s theory. Milton Diamond was a scientist who was one of the few to openly disagree with him and oppose his argument." has a tone issue to it. If you reply to me, I ask that you do not WP:Ping me. This talk page is already on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Logvlad9: I think it comes down to a nuance of the wording. We seem to both agree that social behavior and genetic evolution are part of a feedback cycle. Social behavior influences genetic selection and genetic selection influences social behavior. Thus, to say that one is "due to" the other is both partially true and misleadingly simplistic. You could also say that both are ultimately driven by the environment, but that ignores the fact that social behavior can change the environment (e.g. the invention of agriculture). All three factors are part of the cycle. This is why the entire nature vs. nurture debate is so problematic. It presents a false and overly simplistic dichotomy. Regardless, I think the "due to" wording needs to be changed, as it isn't reflected in the cited source and is misleading, in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaldari: Well, it's not quite like that. The purpose of the study was to see the difference in testosterone, that is, knowing that bonobos evolved outside the competitive environment, and since testosterone is responsible for the dominant and competitive behavior, quote - "Since dominance, aggressiveness and proceptivity are suggested to relate to high T levels, we expected T concentrations of bonobo females to be high". But instead of waiting for an increased level of testosterone in females, they found significantly lower testosterone in males, thereby giving the females the opportunity to dominate. Logvlad9 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I'm just saying that it's overly simplistic to say that bonobo matriarchy is "due to" low male testosterone levels (i.e. biology). The testosterone levels have more fundamental underlying causes: lack of food scarcity (i.e. environmental conditions) and lack of female preference for high-status males during conditions of food abundance (social behavior). You could even argue that the ultimate cause was migration of bonobo ancestors across the Congo River (also a social behavior). Thus the cause(s) of bonobo matriarchy are a combination of biology, environment, and social behavior, as are the causes of human patriarchy. Kaldari (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaldari: About the fact that the social environment forms the genetic, hormonal environment of a person. The external environment has more influence. For example, social attitudes will not be able to reduce competition, since competition depends on access to resources (people have resources like money, food, etc.) and access to a woman’s body. For example, the status of men is important for human women, since high status is associated with the possession of large resources, which means there will be more investments in women. Thus, the brain gives signals for testosterone production by the testes, in order for a man to strive for a high status, thereby increasing reproductive success. Because women tend to choose more high-status men. Therefore, men have such a competition for status, for example in the form of gangs. It turns out a vicious circle. Logvlad9 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have some good points, but one can also argue that resource scarcity varies widely across different human cultures and populations, thus patriarchy is not inevitably determined by human biology (as Steven Goldberg argues). It's already been shown that patriarchy is more pronounced in societies with less economic development (Macionis & Plummer, p. 347), thus it seems natural that patriarchal social behaviors may gradually fade out in countries with a high per capita GDP and/or strong social welfare policies. It's interesting to note that Iceland and Norway, which are number 1 and 2 on the global gender equality index, are also among the top 5 countries in the world for per capita GDP. Anyway, I feel like we're going off in the weeds here and should focus back on the actual content of the article. Kaldari (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaldari: It is also important not to confuse laws aimed at equality, and the biological aspirations of men. For example, there is evidence in Western countries about the sexual harassment of men towards women who go to university. In other words, at the household level, patriarchy, or more correctly, its aspirations. Will persist. We can easily change the laws aimed at equality, but at the domestic level, men will seek to dominate.
I also meant that it also depends on the population, but the problem may lie in the population. It is growing exponentially, so there will be a lack of resources. Logvlad9 (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The global gender index I linked to isn't specifically related to laws, although clearly laws do affect women's access to power, education, and healthcare. As far as lack of resources, most countries in the developed world now have bigger problems with obesity than malnutrition and worldwide malnutrition rates are half what they were in the 1970s.[14] Of course you can argue that money is now the most important resource for humans (rather than food), but global per capita GDP is also steadily rising (despite population growth).[15] Regardless, humans aren't monkeys, and women are no longer solely dependent on men for resources (at least in parts of the world), so that changes the equation as well. As resources become less scarce and women gain more ability to support themselves, I see no reason why male dominance wouldn't subside (as it did for bonobos). Kaldari (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaldari:, Laws do not affect women's access to power? Feminists will strongly disagree with you.
We must not forget that genetic evolution is happening very slowly (certainly not in one generation). And you are right. There are countries in which very good cash security. But again, as I said, the population is growing exponentially, very quickly. So in any case there will be a lack of resources in the future. Also, you do not take into account that in addition to cash resources, or such resources as food. There is still a need for status (especially in men, again because of the large amount of testosterone in relation to a woman), which results from the need for sex, that is, the state cannot increase sexual partners. What a high GDP was not, women will not be given to the first comer like a bonobo. And men will strive for high status to increase their reproductive success to be chosen by women (remember how many women and concubines were, for example, in Genghis Khan or other ancient rulers, this significantly increased the reproductive success of the rulers).
As for the bonobos, I repeat, this is not just a drop in testosterone in the male bonobo, but a drop in testosterone in response to the fact that the females are no longer picky about the males, they are no longer selective. And the kind of bonobos became very depraved. That is, the bonobos in order to lower the aggression on the part of the males, the evolution went with them so that the females themselves became sexually open, and therefore the males stopped competing for the females, and there was a gradual decrease in testosterone. For example, in chimpanzees, females choose alpha males for mating. Therefore, the males are forced to compete for status. People also compete for status, because it increases reproductive success, otherwise humanity would not have so many wars. See what the logic?
That is, for men to have a change in biology, it is necessary that this change takes place in the biology of a woman. Logvlad9 (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding this, lay off the primary sources and WP:Editorializing. Regarding primary sources, see WP:Primary sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sociobiological theory, instead of biological, and social theory

I propose to combine the two sections, but that they complement each other, and not be hostile to each other. So as to deny the value of biology is meaningless, especially given the extensive research on this issue. But sociology is also wrong to reject. Logvlad9 (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me. Kaldari (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
we can't just arbitrarily combine sections out of a desire for everyone to get along. if there are biological perspectives, and social perspectives, we report that. if there are documented attempts to "reconcile" them (assuming they need reconciliation), we report that. i would assume that proponents have both agreed and disagreed with each other at various points, so the article should reflect that. k kisses 16:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Politics versus biology?

I can not understand if there are scientific studies that at least partially confirm the biological basis of the patriarchy, why rewrite something? Why clean up research? In this there is a difference from the social theory, the biological one can be tested experimentally, while the social one can only be philosophized. That is why biologists tend to support biological theory, while sociologists do not even pay attention to the biological basis, although they do not deny Darwin. Of course, I understand that feminists do not like biological theory, but let's be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.173.131.166 (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If reliable sources report there are scientific studies that at least partially confirm the biological basis of the patriarchy, please present them here. The current article does not make such a claim. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed {{Undue weight}}

As a biologist, I find the section on biology very balanced and that no undue weight has been put on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.74.242 (talkcontribs) 10:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 7 § Biological basis?. What you personally think doesn't matter. The question is whether the sources used are high-quality ones and directly relate to the concept of "patriarchy". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting some help

Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation.

Shouldn't there be an article about the classical concept of patriarchy, with autocratic patriarchs and the modern feminist concept? This article barely talks about the classical concept.T-man (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Declaration that most societies are patriarchal

I recently put forth edits that I believed upheld WP:NPOV by changing the line:

"Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.[5][6]"

to

"Historians and theorists taking a feminist lens commonly call contemporary societies patriarchal despite these societies not having explicitly patriarchal constitutions or laws.[5][6]"

This change was reverted by Sangdeboeuf. Sangdeboeuf, could you please explain why you believe this edit constitutes "Original Research" rather than a movement towards NPOV (specifically, impartialtiy)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.251.132 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit suggests that "feminists" erroneously call societies patriarchal despite their laws, which is POV. Ref #5 directly says, "Today, as in the past, men generally hold political, economic, and religious power in most societies thanks to patriarchy". Where do you get the idea that this source is taking a feminist lens? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This edit was to highlight the undue weight given to the perspective of Lockard, Ref #5. Undue weight is given to the view that the vast majority of modern societies are patriarchal, which is more appropriately described as a common view of feminist theorists. The Lockard textbook cited is a global history textbook - using google books to search through global history textbooks, the majority do not contain the term "patriarchy." Those that do contain the term "patriarchy" use it to refer to Japan, ancient Rome.
Global Perspectives on Global History (2011) does not use the term. Teaching Global History (2012) does not use the term. A Global History of History (2011) uses the term once to refer to a scholar reflecting on pre-20th century Japan. Anthropology and Global History (2013) uses the term to refer to ancient Rome. Global History And Migrations (2018) does not use the term. Introduction to International and Global Studies, Third Edition (2020) uses the term once to refer to feminist theories of development, elaborating that it one of many forms of incomplete analysis.
Making an explicit statement in this article that modern societies are patriarchal provides undue weight, a violation of WP:NPOV to the perspective of Lockard, which is a feminist perspective. --72.134.251.132 5:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Lockard, which is a feminist perspective – please provide a published, reliable source for this analysis. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I believe it is evident that Lockard's perspective is feminist, I understand that may be original analysis and not pertinent to editorial disputes on Wikipedia. However, a review of common global history textbooks reveals that the term "patriarchy" is not commonly used to describe contemporary societies, thus it is appropriate to view Lockard's use of the term as a viewpoint which is being given undue weight in this article, thus violating WP:NPOV. --72.134.251.132 6:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that your review of common global history textbooks is either comprehensive or accurate. Lockard's text is specifically about the history of societies, as opposed to the history of battles, ruling dynasties, technological revolutions, etc. You only cited two works that A) mention patriarchy and B) don't use it in reference to modern societies. That seems insufficient to conclude that Lockard's view (backed up by other textbooks such as The Princeton Companion to Atlantic History) is a minority one in this specific field. A Global History of History is about the field of historical scholarship, not the actual world events we call "history". Introduction to International and Global Studies, Third Edition is referencing the paper "WID, WAD, GAD: Trends in Research and Practice" by Eva M. Rathgeber (1990) which criticizes the Women and development model as failing to account for patriarchy, not saying that patriarchy is an incomplete theory. Do any of these sources say patriarchy is not a major feature of the modern world? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simply citing sources that aren't focused specifically on gender and which don't mention the concept of patriarchy at all isn't sufficient to dispute a source focused on the topic; after all, this isn't an article about general history, this is the article on patriarchy specifically. When discussing the focus of this article, it doesn't really mean anything to point to sources that aren't about the topic and say that they don't discuss it. If you want to present the idea of modern patriarchy as controversial, in other words, you will need sources that contradict the existing sources directly rather than sources that just aren't focused that much on gender-roles. --Aquillion (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Insisting that a source focus on gender doesn't seem to be the right way to get to NPOV and I hope to illustrate why. The article on class conflict does not say "Most contemporary social relations are, in practice, defined by class conflict" because we know that is the viewpoint of someone who focuses on class rather than an appropriate universal statement. The article on sin does not say "all individuals sin" because we know that is the viewpoint of someone who focuses on sin rather than an appropriate universal statement. If we're looking to determine whether an unbiased source would say modern societies are patriarchal, then insisting the source focus on gender may be inappropriate as it will likely introduce a similar type of bias. Perhaps looking at social anthropology textbooks would help us determine whether the statment that modern societies are patriarchal in practice is an appropriate universal statement. Posreg (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flawed analogy. The article doesn't say most societies are defined by patriarchy. It says they are patriarchal, meaning they possess the qualities of a patriarchy. In general it's preferred to use sources specifically focused on the topic, so it's entirely reasonable to use sources focused on gender issues. If a sufficiently reliable source said most social relations were defined by class conflict, patriarchy, etc., then yes, those would be appropriate statements to include. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the difference between "defined by patriarchy" and "patriarchal" is a distinction without a difference. The analogy holds as soon as we switch the sentence to "class struggle is a feature of all contemporary societies." The article on class struggle has this sentence, "In the political and economic philosophies of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, class struggle is a central tenet and a practical means for effecting radical social and political changes for the social majority." The issue in question for this article is whether "modern society is patriarchal" is an opinion stated as fact or whether "academics who focus on gender view modern society as patriarchal" is a fact being stated as an opinion. What is the appropriate way to resolve that dispute? Posreg (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like I said, If a sufficiently reliable source said most social relations were defined by class conflict, patriarchy, etc., then yes, those would be appropriate statements to include. Are there reliable sources that actually contradict the notion that most societies are patriarchal? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are sidestepping the analogy regarding sin. In texts where experts discuss sin, they might agree that "all individuals sin" and yet that universal statement would not be appropriate to make in the wikipedia article on sin. Let's say those who spend time on the sin article make the same request - we can't remove this statement unless you have a reliable source which contradicts the idea "all individuals sin." This would be ridiculous because we know secular sources don't even bother to debate sin. We know that if someone discusses "sin" it marks them as a particular type of thinker which we refer to with terms like "Christian" or "theologian." The same is true with the term "patriarchy." This was highlighted in The Guardian: "Until very recently, “patriarchy” was not something rightwing men were even supposed to believe in, let alone dilate upon with such apocalyptic relish. It was the sort of word that, if uttered without irony, marked out the speaker as a very particular type of person – an iron-spined feminist of the old school, or the kind of ossified leftist who complained bitterly about the evils of capitalism."[1] Your request that a "sufficiently reliable" source is one that focuses on gender and discusses patriarchy ensures the ideas being employed are coming from a certain perspective, a perspective which should be noted in the wikipedia article on the subject which is attempting to present NPOV. Posreg (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The concept of sin, unlike the idea of patriarchy, is inherently subjective and unverifiable. What would make someone an expert on sin? I never said a sufficiently reliable source had to focus on gender, only that it's reasonable to use such sources. If the Guardian think-piece is right that only iron-spined feminist[s] or ossified leftist[s] ever used the term "patriarchy" to refer to modern society, then I guess those are the sources we have to use or else rely on original research. But this is obvious hyperbole. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You asked me for a reliable source that identifies that the use of the term 'patriarchy' identifies someone as falling within the realm of thought referred to as 'feminism' and then immediately disqualified the source as obvious hyperbole. I believe this is a demonstration of your biases considering you seem to identify with Marxism and feminism and are averse to qualify statements as Marxist or feminist in general as you seem to prefer that those viewpoints to be represented as THE way to think about the subject rather than one of the ways the subject is conceptualized. If The concept of sin, unlike the idea of patriarchy, is inherently subjective and unverifiable, then you ought to be able to point to clear metrics which reliable sources across subjects use to identify patriarchy. To my understanding, such metrics don't exist as sin is like patriarchy in that these concepts are each used inconsistently and are generally assessed in a subjective and hazy way rather than on clear objective metrics. So one of the major issues I would like corrected in the article is clarity on definitions and usage -- in the introduction section, it is unclear how "patriarchy" and "patriarchal" are being used and whether these definitions/usages are agreed upon across academia or whether they vary depending on if they're used in social theory, anthropology, history, or sociology. Considering the first three sources cited in the article are explicitly works of feminist theory, I believe that that definition is how feminist theorists use the term ought to be included in the article. Posreg (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The metrics which reliable sources ... use to identify patriarchy are summarized by Lockard (2015): the extent to which men "generally hold political, economic, and religious power ... control women and children, [and] shape ideas about appropriate gender behavior". Assuming you are the same IP editor I replied to above, I was asking for a source that specifically says Lockard is taking a feminist lens. I don't think I asked for a source connecting the term "patriarchy" in general with the realm of thought referred to as 'feminism', because even if we had one, using it to claim something about a different source would be improper synthesis. Cited academic encyclopedia entries on "patriarchy" by Cannell & Green (1996), Meagher (2011), and Henesssy (2012) do not define modern patriarchy as a strictly feminist concept. Meagher specifically says, "An analysis of patriarchal social formations ... informs scholarly discussions of gender in a variety of fields, including sociology. Sociologists and feminists alike have noted the presence of sex differentiation and attendant patterns of social stratification in virtually every known society." For us to call this merely a "feminist" theory would be giving the feminist contribution undue weight. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The verify tag you added is on-point, and all the above said it might be worth delving a bit more deeply into the sources we're currently citing, at least, to see what they say say in more detail and perhaps summarize what they say about patriarchy in modern society in more detail. The current Even if not defined thus in law, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal isn't quite right at least in the first half, and can go into more detail on the second. Here's what Pateman says (note that she is summarizing and updating arguments she made in an earlier book she wrote, The Sexual Contract, which we should perhaps consider citing directly):
Extended quotes from Pateman.
“The sexual contract” came into currency in political theory in the early 1990s, after the publication of the Sexual Contract in 1988 (Pateman 1988), and has come to be used in two senses. the specific sense refers to the arguments of the book and to Anglo-American societies; the more general sense refers to forms of domination of women by men in any society or culture ...
The second dimension is the sexual contract that justified the government of women by men and thus the patriarchal structure of the modern state. ...
The heyday of the patriarchal structures analyzed in Thee Sexual Contract extended from the 1840s to the late 1970s. Since then, a great deal has changed, including the welfare state, the introduction of anti-discrimination laws,and social mores. ... A definitive answer is diffcult; many familiar elements of the sexual contract remain. Men occupy most of the authoritative positions in politics, the economy, higher education, the judiciary, and the military. Women earn less than men, and sexual harassment is still a feature of workplaces; they undertake most of the housework and childcare(including the women paid to do this work by the more affluent). The sex industry continues to grow and violence against women remains endemic. ... The subjection, ill-treatment, and neglect of women and girls are now well publicized, and bodies that range from a number of United Nations agencies to a multitude of women’s organizations around the globe are now working against it. Nevertheless, men’s government of women is one of the most deeply entrenched of all power structures, and the sexual contract is still vigorously defended.
I omitted several points from the lists at the end that might be worth summarizing, since this is already a massive quote. Here are some additional sources we might consider: [2][3][4][5] --Aquillion (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Sexual Contract is a work of feminist political theory and thus citing it would make it appropriate to caveat the statement by highlighting that feminist political theorists consider modern societies to be patriarchies. I reviewed a number of textbooks on social anthropology to see if that field would make it more clear whether the more universal statement is the appropriate one.
Extended quotes from Posreg
"Patriarchy describes a political system ruled by men in which women have inferior social and political status, including basic human rights. Barbara Miller (1997), in a study of systematic neglect of females, describes women in rural northern India as “the endangered sex.” Societies that feature a full-fl edged patrilineal–patrilocal complex, replete with warfare and intervillage raiding, also typify patriarchy. Such practices as dowry murders, female infanticide, and clitoridectomy exemplify patriarchy, which extends from tribal societies such as the Yanomami to state societies such as India and Pakistan." (Kottak 325)[6]
"Sexuality and the status of women were interconnected themes in some classic 19th-century writings on cultural evolution. Lewis Henry Morgan and Friedrich Engels (who borrowed heavily from Morgan) argued that early human groups had been both promiscuous and matriarchal. With the development of technology and human knowledge, the desire of males to pass their property to their own offspring was said to have led to the development of patriarchy. Polygamy, prostitution, and ultimately a form of monogamy, in which fathers headed families, replaced both the imagined “primitive promiscuity” and group marriage of the early hunter-gatherers and the matriarchal clans linked by “pairing” marriages, said to have characterized early village life." (McGee 1:309)[7]
"In the late 1980s, Henrietta Moore published Feminism and Anthropology and further elaborated the critiques of Rapp. Moore argued that even work done by female anthropologists reproduced a patriarchal bias. In terms of disciplinary standing within anthropology, like postmodernist anthropology, feminist anthropology was often relegated to a minor status within the academy. Critics of this approach have argued in a vein similar to those who have expressed concerns about the nature of postmodernist anthropology. For some, the feminist approach is antiscientific and too controversial for its attack on the many biases of mainstream anthropology. In the 1980s, other feminist anthropologists produced work that, in many ways, paralleled the disciplinary critiques of postmodernist anthropology. Feminist anthropology introduced important insights from academic feminism, such as standpoint theory (or the effect of an individual’s perception on the construction of knowledge), into many circles within professional anthropology. Interestingly, it is the connection with the postmodernist anthropological critiques of the late 1980s that provided both an impetus and a challenge to feminist anthropology." (McGee 1:503)[7]
"Among Anglophone social psychologists and cultural anthropologists in the 1940s, it was a widespread view that the presumedly authoritarian, patriarchal German method of socialisation was an important contributing factor to the Second World War" (Eriksen 78)[8]
"There are many ways of accounting for differences in skills and knowledge within societies. Feminists have tended to follow one or both of two lines of argument: (1) women experience the world differently from men because they are women; (2) it is in the interest of patriarchy (male rule) to keep socially valuable skills away from women. Analyses inspired by Marxism tend to link the study of knowledge and skills to that of power and ideology (see Chapters 9, 11 and 14), while social anthropologists inspired by Durkheim may relate such differences to the complementary division of labour, which thereby contributes to the integration of society." (Eriksen 113)[8]
Kottak mentions patriarchy a number of times throughout the text but the way Kottak discusses patriarchy in the selected quotation makes it clear that they do not consider most modern societies patriarchies. McGee, an encyclopedia, mentions patriarchy a number of times throughout the text, citing how various notable early anthropologists applied the concept to premodern societies and later feminist and anthropologists applied the concept in a broader way. Eriksen mentions patriarchy a limited number of times, using it to refer to theories from feminist/Marxist anthropology, to refer to early societies, and theories of social/cultural anthropologists in the 40s about Germany. I read through a few other texts which were compilations of various anthropologist's works (eg. The Sage handbook of social anthropology, edited by Fardon, Richard, et al., Sage, 2012.) where two different authors used the term in distinct, idiosyncratic ways. Looking over these texts made me surprised that Lockard does use the term in the way he does - none of these Social Anthropology textbooks used the term patriarchy to refer to contemporary societies. Posreg (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Higgins, Charlotte (22 June 2018). "The age of patriarchy: how an unfashionable idea became a rallying cry for feminism today".
  2. ^ Ortner, Sherry B. (8 August 2014). "Too Soon for Post-Feminism: The Ongoing Life of Patriarchy in Neoliberal America". History and Anthropology. 25 (4): 530–549. doi:10.1080/02757206.2014.930458. ISSN 0275-7206.
  3. ^ Levy, Donald P. (15 February 2007). Patriarchy. doi:10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosp010. ISBN 978-1-4051-6551-8 – via Wiley Online Library.
  4. ^ Miller, Pavla (14 June 2017). Patriarchy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-315-53236-3 – via Google Books.
  5. ^ Enloe, Cynthia (26 October 2017). The Big Push: Exposing and Challenging the Persistence of Patriarchy. Univ of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-29689-3 – via Google Books.
  6. ^ Kottak, Conrad (2017). Window on humanity: a concise introduction to anthropology (8th Edition ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 325. ISBN 9781259818431. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  7. ^ a b McGee, John; Warms, Richard (2013). Theory in social and cultural anthropology: An encyclopedia. Sage Publications. ISBN 9781412999632.
  8. ^ a b Eriksen, Thomas Hylland (2015). Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social Anthropology (4th Edition ed.). London: Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0745335933. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

Nonfactual statement should be fixed

This statement is factually incorrect and needs correction. The reference 93 is FBI table 66 which is arrests and not convictions. The statement equates incorrectly arrest with committing the crime.

For example, according to the FBI, in 2011, 98.9% of forcible rapes and 87.6% of murders in the suburban United States were committed by men.[93] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:243b:ea4:3670:4ac8 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just removed that sentence entirely. Higher levels of male criminality are better verified by other sources and we don't need to rely on US-centric and suburb-centric primary sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested citations

Similarly, contraception has given women control over their reproductive cycle.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naiara.murga (talkcontribs) 08:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Adisa, T. A.; Abdulraheem, I.; Isiaka, S. B. (2019). "Patriarchal hegemony: Investigating the impact of patriarchy on women's work-life balance". Gender in Management. 34 (1): 19–33. doi:10.1108/GM-07-2018-0095.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Sciences humaines.svg This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: OGCollin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]