This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Inevitability of Patriarchy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The tone of this article is not neutral, and there are some vague assertions that need contextualizing. For example:
1) "Biological research has, in fact, since provided more and more evidence of differences in brain and behaviour between men and women (see main entry Biology of gender). The existence of these differences and their effects on behaviour are clear enough."
This is disputable - however, this is not the page to detail those disputes. The point is that it's imprecise and unhelpful. I'd suggest removing "The existence of these differences and their effects on behaviour are clear enough". Either that, or at least specify differences and which effects are relevant to the book. Otherwise it comes across as unsupported "obvious-ism".
2) The tone reflects uncritical endorsement - for example, "Why Men Rule (1993) provides a stronger argument" and "Why Men Rule presents exactly the same theory, but with more evidence". As already noted, the exact nature of "differences in brain (sic) and behaviour" is debatable in and of itself; beyond that, extrapolating from that to account for social structures is problematic. Again, that's a larger beyond the scope of this page. But the point is this: The wiki entry does not provide any detail on Goldberg's reasoning - hence, there's no basis by which a reader can evaluate whether Goldberg's book did in fact make a "stronger argument". The way it's written, it cannot be taken as anything more than an opinion.
the article would be improved by doing a bit more to summarize the thesis of the book.
This has been done for 'Why Men Rule". PErhaps a basic outline can be provided here.
154.20.156.49 ( talk) 15:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Louis Cullinan June 29 08
This article needs to be completely rewritten. Statements like The existence of these differences and their effects on behaviour are strikingly clear. They provide convincing, irrefutable as well as obvious support for the causal chain from biology to male dominance. Goldberg's observations and straightforward interpretations of our natural world has been proven out by science repeatedly in recent years. are POV, unsourced, and blatantly unencyclopedic. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 17:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict, written simultaneously with above)
I think it needes a complete rewrite, according to WP:NOT#PLOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangfufu ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
To whom it may concern.
Any woman who feels that her sense of meaning is satisfied in areas not usually considered feminine need not justify this to anyone. She can never hope to live in a society that does not attach feminine expectations to women, but if she has the courage she will overcome the attitudinal discrimination that she will, undeniably, face. ... No one is denying the value of the woman who devotes her life to a career rather than to children; there is no need for her to misrepresent physiology, anthropology, and psychology in order to rationalize an unnecessary defence.
— Steven Goldberg, Inevitability (1977): 191.
It strikes me that while this article remains unwritten, people will keep jumping to conclusions about what Goldberg believes and dismiss his common-sense arguments out of fear he is pushing some anti-social agenda. Were he anti-social, he would deserve to be exposed, and the article should not be censored. As it is, however, he's almost boringly normal. LOL, don't judge a book by its cover, though I must admit other writers who say the same things find less confronting ways to say them. Alastair Haines ( talk) 02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
A question that has been of great interest in western society for the last 40 years or so, and really for a long time prior to that too, is "why do men always seem to get the best jobs?"
Several answers have been proposed.
Although editorial opinion is irrelevant. As just one of hopefully several workers on this article, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I believe 3, 4 and 5 are all correct and that 1 and 2 are false. I would be surprised to find someone show up who also believes 5. I'm willing to take some personal attacks directed at me regarding 5, although I doubt this will happen, since this article will say nothing about it 'cause Goldberg doesn't. But what I will not accept is implications that Goldberg (or I) subscribe to 1, since Goldberg's text denies it repeatedly (as can be seen by several quotes in this article).
This article is about theory number 3, and that only. If someone can point to any place at Wiki where theory 3 is already documented, we can work on merging information. If we are going to cover alternative theories (and I think we shouldn't, we should stick to criticisms of theory 3, not to trying to articulate all alternatives as well), NPOV will require we cover views 1 and 5 as well as view 2. View 4 is not really that different to view 3 but we would probably be best off covering it at the article on Goldberg's second book, since it hadn't been invented in 1973, but was a real player by 1993. Kate Millet had already offered theory 2 prior to Goldberg publishing, like Goldberg, she published prior to receiving a PhD, and like him too, her PhD was awarded on the basis of her theoretical answer to the question above. The Bible, of course, was published long before either of them, but no one got any PhDs for that work. ;)
Please, friends, can we work at dealing with this article as documenting a theory, and not a political statement. Inevitability specifies clearly and repeatedly it has nothing to offer with regard to morality or practical application. There are other articles that cover such things, and this editor anyway avoids those like the plague. Alastair Haines ( talk) 05:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Since tags are designed to attract the attention of someone who is familiar enough with the topic to address it, it would be a little odd for them to be appropriate while someone with the source in front of him is actively editing. There are other helpful guidelines regarding this at Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. For example:
Of course, it's always possible to think there is a problem when there is no problem, just as the reverse can be true. We saw examples of that above, where two people are familiar with guidelines regarding articles of fiction, that a little reflection shows are inappropriate for non-fiction.
As per the guidelines, could Midnight please provide specifics of text alleged to be unsourced undermining or promoting of the argument of Inevitability, which is the topic of this article. Then we can start working towards coming to a common mind (i.e. consensus), which is achieved by discussing opinions, rather than bypassing that step. Cheers. Alastair Haines ( talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have made suggestions. So did user:JCDenton2052. So did user: Fangfufu. So three of us reached similar conclusions of bias and undue weight. As far as suggestions I am happy to repeat
Wikipedia is not cliff notes.
The vast majority of this article is simply a wikt:synopsis of the book that is this article's topic. The vast majority of references are to the book itself ({{ primarysources}}). Both issues are problematical. There is no 'synopsis' tag, so I used the {{ Article issues}} 'plot' tag, which is its nearest equivalent, instead (if somebody can suggest a more appropriate tag, I will replace it). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to the ludicrous claim in this edit that "William Morrow and Company are third party that published Goldberg's text, we are not relying on word of mouth or manuscripts here ... remove inappropriate tag" -- I would point out that "William Morrow and Company" are Goldberg's own publisher, and to claim that the book that is the subject of this article is a third party source is completely and utterly without merit.(Oh, was I shouting? Let me say that again.)COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WITHOUT MERIT. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This section does not adequately or realistically deal with sociological criticism of Goldberg. It makes it sound like modern sociology is totally in line with Goldberg's thinking, which is certainly not the case. See Patriarchy#Sociology and its sources. Kaldari ( talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
One issue that does not seem to fully made with clarity, is the link of the necessary behavioral structure of social power positions, and the nature of the emotional structures that best enable delivery of the necessary behavioral structure.
In summary the advancement of theory offered here is that (1) in all positions of power in society, including positions in organisations, there are actions needed to both achieve those positions and to maintain those position, and that these actions are determined totally by the position, driven the goals the society or organisations expects fulfilled by the position. In addition, (2) that the delivery of these actions demands an emotional disposition that is disciplined, often aggressive, and at least competitive, maintained for often-long period of time, and where, given it is a power position, there are demands for high levels of emotional resilience in face of inevitable set backs, and direct personal attacks. Issues of self/personal expression are secondary to the need to present graciously to a particular group, and issues of emotional vulnerability, angst, uncertainty, warmth, gentleness, etc, are frequently inappropriate, unable to be exhibited or expressed.
This idea is based on the goal-action principle. To illustrate, if I am responsible for keeping the fridge full of food, and fridge is empty, and go out with idea of filling it, but go to movies, then I will hardly be surprised fridge is still empty when I get home. The point is general, in that for any goal there are action needed if the goal is to be achieved, these called ideal actions (see Nel and Little An Integrated Strategic Human Resources Model to Achieve Organisational Objectives http://www.usq.edu.au/~/media/USQ/Business/Journals/NelLittle%20Paper%201.ashx also Nel and Little, Sustainable leadership: The fundamental solution to lasting superior staff performance http://www.uunz.ac.nz/pdf/journal/edition1/Journal_part4.pdf.)
The quality of ideal actions is that if they are acted out, they do not guarantee success, but if they are not acted out, they guarantee failure. Hence, delivery of ideal actions by those seeking power positions is not a choice.
The next question is whether social power position has goals, and/or expectations of goal achievement implicit in the position. I do not wish to explore this in depth, since I think it so apparent, so obvious as to be not worth discussion. Imagine a Prime Minister position, which has no expectation of goal achievement.
The final point is that alignment of the emotional disposition needed to achieve and maintain the power positions is more ‘masculine’ than ‘feminine’. In short, gender differences emotionally pre-dispose men to the power positions more than woman. This does not mean woman are not biologically capable, there are many examples to disprove that. It does mean that the ‘average male’ is biologically better emotionally equipped than the ‘average female’, hence on average men will occupy most of the power position most of the time.
Reluctance of woman to expose themselves to the rigors of high profile leadership positions is compounded by the circumstances of marriage and relationships, perhaps summed in an attitude ‘well, by staying with him I can share a lot of it anyway’. This view, however, is decidedly not biological, but a rational decision in light of the intuitive grasp of social structures. Given choice, most rational people would accept the behind the scenes ride, privilege without the direct pressure.
A forward question is whether society is likely to redefine ideal actions associated with power positions, or at least allow their expression in a more feminine manner. Take for example, vulnerability, imagine a Prime Minister addressing the Nation, exhibiting fear and personal concern when what people really needed was reassurance the plan would work. Somehow, I do not see it quite working.
Graham Little www.grlphilosophy.co.nz December 31, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylit ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems a difficult standard, when the article is about the contents of the book. This discussion reinforces Goldberg's biological argument by emphasising male biological predisposition to actions consistent with achieving and maintaining social power positions. I lean toward the debate position of Karl Popper, who stated that before attacking the ideas of an opponent one is best advised to make them as strong as they can be made, then attack them. In making Goldberg's argument stronger, I do not think I moved beyond the core theory, but what emerged I found difficult to counter, despite emotional reaction and disposition inclined to dismiss it, such irrational leanings are not argument, merely preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylit ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's agree to differ. I think a site such as this has a priority obligation to inform... hence Popper's principle is valid. I certainly think objectivity is necesssary, but I think this contribution achieves that.
For some reason there's a serious mistake in the translation of the Cicero quote in "Overview". Right now it reads: Numquam naturam mos vinceret; est enim ea semper invicta Nature will never conquer; For it is always invincible — Marcus Tullius Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes, c. 45 BC.
"Numquam naturam mos vinceret" should be translated "Custom will never conquer nature...". I've made that change. Cxhh ( talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Inevitability of Patriarchy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The tone of this article is not neutral, and there are some vague assertions that need contextualizing. For example:
1) "Biological research has, in fact, since provided more and more evidence of differences in brain and behaviour between men and women (see main entry Biology of gender). The existence of these differences and their effects on behaviour are clear enough."
This is disputable - however, this is not the page to detail those disputes. The point is that it's imprecise and unhelpful. I'd suggest removing "The existence of these differences and their effects on behaviour are clear enough". Either that, or at least specify differences and which effects are relevant to the book. Otherwise it comes across as unsupported "obvious-ism".
2) The tone reflects uncritical endorsement - for example, "Why Men Rule (1993) provides a stronger argument" and "Why Men Rule presents exactly the same theory, but with more evidence". As already noted, the exact nature of "differences in brain (sic) and behaviour" is debatable in and of itself; beyond that, extrapolating from that to account for social structures is problematic. Again, that's a larger beyond the scope of this page. But the point is this: The wiki entry does not provide any detail on Goldberg's reasoning - hence, there's no basis by which a reader can evaluate whether Goldberg's book did in fact make a "stronger argument". The way it's written, it cannot be taken as anything more than an opinion.
the article would be improved by doing a bit more to summarize the thesis of the book.
This has been done for 'Why Men Rule". PErhaps a basic outline can be provided here.
154.20.156.49 ( talk) 15:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Louis Cullinan June 29 08
This article needs to be completely rewritten. Statements like The existence of these differences and their effects on behaviour are strikingly clear. They provide convincing, irrefutable as well as obvious support for the causal chain from biology to male dominance. Goldberg's observations and straightforward interpretations of our natural world has been proven out by science repeatedly in recent years. are POV, unsourced, and blatantly unencyclopedic. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 17:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict, written simultaneously with above)
I think it needes a complete rewrite, according to WP:NOT#PLOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangfufu ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
To whom it may concern.
Any woman who feels that her sense of meaning is satisfied in areas not usually considered feminine need not justify this to anyone. She can never hope to live in a society that does not attach feminine expectations to women, but if she has the courage she will overcome the attitudinal discrimination that she will, undeniably, face. ... No one is denying the value of the woman who devotes her life to a career rather than to children; there is no need for her to misrepresent physiology, anthropology, and psychology in order to rationalize an unnecessary defence.
— Steven Goldberg, Inevitability (1977): 191.
It strikes me that while this article remains unwritten, people will keep jumping to conclusions about what Goldberg believes and dismiss his common-sense arguments out of fear he is pushing some anti-social agenda. Were he anti-social, he would deserve to be exposed, and the article should not be censored. As it is, however, he's almost boringly normal. LOL, don't judge a book by its cover, though I must admit other writers who say the same things find less confronting ways to say them. Alastair Haines ( talk) 02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
A question that has been of great interest in western society for the last 40 years or so, and really for a long time prior to that too, is "why do men always seem to get the best jobs?"
Several answers have been proposed.
Although editorial opinion is irrelevant. As just one of hopefully several workers on this article, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I believe 3, 4 and 5 are all correct and that 1 and 2 are false. I would be surprised to find someone show up who also believes 5. I'm willing to take some personal attacks directed at me regarding 5, although I doubt this will happen, since this article will say nothing about it 'cause Goldberg doesn't. But what I will not accept is implications that Goldberg (or I) subscribe to 1, since Goldberg's text denies it repeatedly (as can be seen by several quotes in this article).
This article is about theory number 3, and that only. If someone can point to any place at Wiki where theory 3 is already documented, we can work on merging information. If we are going to cover alternative theories (and I think we shouldn't, we should stick to criticisms of theory 3, not to trying to articulate all alternatives as well), NPOV will require we cover views 1 and 5 as well as view 2. View 4 is not really that different to view 3 but we would probably be best off covering it at the article on Goldberg's second book, since it hadn't been invented in 1973, but was a real player by 1993. Kate Millet had already offered theory 2 prior to Goldberg publishing, like Goldberg, she published prior to receiving a PhD, and like him too, her PhD was awarded on the basis of her theoretical answer to the question above. The Bible, of course, was published long before either of them, but no one got any PhDs for that work. ;)
Please, friends, can we work at dealing with this article as documenting a theory, and not a political statement. Inevitability specifies clearly and repeatedly it has nothing to offer with regard to morality or practical application. There are other articles that cover such things, and this editor anyway avoids those like the plague. Alastair Haines ( talk) 05:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Since tags are designed to attract the attention of someone who is familiar enough with the topic to address it, it would be a little odd for them to be appropriate while someone with the source in front of him is actively editing. There are other helpful guidelines regarding this at Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. For example:
Of course, it's always possible to think there is a problem when there is no problem, just as the reverse can be true. We saw examples of that above, where two people are familiar with guidelines regarding articles of fiction, that a little reflection shows are inappropriate for non-fiction.
As per the guidelines, could Midnight please provide specifics of text alleged to be unsourced undermining or promoting of the argument of Inevitability, which is the topic of this article. Then we can start working towards coming to a common mind (i.e. consensus), which is achieved by discussing opinions, rather than bypassing that step. Cheers. Alastair Haines ( talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have made suggestions. So did user:JCDenton2052. So did user: Fangfufu. So three of us reached similar conclusions of bias and undue weight. As far as suggestions I am happy to repeat
Wikipedia is not cliff notes.
The vast majority of this article is simply a wikt:synopsis of the book that is this article's topic. The vast majority of references are to the book itself ({{ primarysources}}). Both issues are problematical. There is no 'synopsis' tag, so I used the {{ Article issues}} 'plot' tag, which is its nearest equivalent, instead (if somebody can suggest a more appropriate tag, I will replace it). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to the ludicrous claim in this edit that "William Morrow and Company are third party that published Goldberg's text, we are not relying on word of mouth or manuscripts here ... remove inappropriate tag" -- I would point out that "William Morrow and Company" are Goldberg's own publisher, and to claim that the book that is the subject of this article is a third party source is completely and utterly without merit.(Oh, was I shouting? Let me say that again.)COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WITHOUT MERIT. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This section does not adequately or realistically deal with sociological criticism of Goldberg. It makes it sound like modern sociology is totally in line with Goldberg's thinking, which is certainly not the case. See Patriarchy#Sociology and its sources. Kaldari ( talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
One issue that does not seem to fully made with clarity, is the link of the necessary behavioral structure of social power positions, and the nature of the emotional structures that best enable delivery of the necessary behavioral structure.
In summary the advancement of theory offered here is that (1) in all positions of power in society, including positions in organisations, there are actions needed to both achieve those positions and to maintain those position, and that these actions are determined totally by the position, driven the goals the society or organisations expects fulfilled by the position. In addition, (2) that the delivery of these actions demands an emotional disposition that is disciplined, often aggressive, and at least competitive, maintained for often-long period of time, and where, given it is a power position, there are demands for high levels of emotional resilience in face of inevitable set backs, and direct personal attacks. Issues of self/personal expression are secondary to the need to present graciously to a particular group, and issues of emotional vulnerability, angst, uncertainty, warmth, gentleness, etc, are frequently inappropriate, unable to be exhibited or expressed.
This idea is based on the goal-action principle. To illustrate, if I am responsible for keeping the fridge full of food, and fridge is empty, and go out with idea of filling it, but go to movies, then I will hardly be surprised fridge is still empty when I get home. The point is general, in that for any goal there are action needed if the goal is to be achieved, these called ideal actions (see Nel and Little An Integrated Strategic Human Resources Model to Achieve Organisational Objectives http://www.usq.edu.au/~/media/USQ/Business/Journals/NelLittle%20Paper%201.ashx also Nel and Little, Sustainable leadership: The fundamental solution to lasting superior staff performance http://www.uunz.ac.nz/pdf/journal/edition1/Journal_part4.pdf.)
The quality of ideal actions is that if they are acted out, they do not guarantee success, but if they are not acted out, they guarantee failure. Hence, delivery of ideal actions by those seeking power positions is not a choice.
The next question is whether social power position has goals, and/or expectations of goal achievement implicit in the position. I do not wish to explore this in depth, since I think it so apparent, so obvious as to be not worth discussion. Imagine a Prime Minister position, which has no expectation of goal achievement.
The final point is that alignment of the emotional disposition needed to achieve and maintain the power positions is more ‘masculine’ than ‘feminine’. In short, gender differences emotionally pre-dispose men to the power positions more than woman. This does not mean woman are not biologically capable, there are many examples to disprove that. It does mean that the ‘average male’ is biologically better emotionally equipped than the ‘average female’, hence on average men will occupy most of the power position most of the time.
Reluctance of woman to expose themselves to the rigors of high profile leadership positions is compounded by the circumstances of marriage and relationships, perhaps summed in an attitude ‘well, by staying with him I can share a lot of it anyway’. This view, however, is decidedly not biological, but a rational decision in light of the intuitive grasp of social structures. Given choice, most rational people would accept the behind the scenes ride, privilege without the direct pressure.
A forward question is whether society is likely to redefine ideal actions associated with power positions, or at least allow their expression in a more feminine manner. Take for example, vulnerability, imagine a Prime Minister addressing the Nation, exhibiting fear and personal concern when what people really needed was reassurance the plan would work. Somehow, I do not see it quite working.
Graham Little www.grlphilosophy.co.nz December 31, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylit ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems a difficult standard, when the article is about the contents of the book. This discussion reinforces Goldberg's biological argument by emphasising male biological predisposition to actions consistent with achieving and maintaining social power positions. I lean toward the debate position of Karl Popper, who stated that before attacking the ideas of an opponent one is best advised to make them as strong as they can be made, then attack them. In making Goldberg's argument stronger, I do not think I moved beyond the core theory, but what emerged I found difficult to counter, despite emotional reaction and disposition inclined to dismiss it, such irrational leanings are not argument, merely preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylit ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's agree to differ. I think a site such as this has a priority obligation to inform... hence Popper's principle is valid. I certainly think objectivity is necesssary, but I think this contribution achieves that.
For some reason there's a serious mistake in the translation of the Cicero quote in "Overview". Right now it reads: Numquam naturam mos vinceret; est enim ea semper invicta Nature will never conquer; For it is always invincible — Marcus Tullius Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes, c. 45 BC.
"Numquam naturam mos vinceret" should be translated "Custom will never conquer nature...". I've made that change. Cxhh ( talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)