Archives |
---|
Finally, someone has explained Patriarchy clearly—better than X is patriarchal, Y is patriarchal; get the point? Thank you. I commented on an earlier version of the page on the talk page (I think you have improved the page a lot). If you can, please add references to the information you added. Rintrah 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
1. "male physical strength resolving social conflicts"
I will take your advice and quote John Stuart Mill on this point, but it is a bit arbitrary, as everyone agrees it is a fact. The debate concerning this point is about whether armies, police forces and parental physical discipline are inevitable or not, and about whether they are actually good things or bad things, and about whether women should participate in them. It was my judgement that going into detail on those things in the introduction to Patriarchy would be considered by most readers as "too much information" and a bit "tangential to the subject". This article is about Patriarchy, not feminism, but given that feminists talk more about Patriarchy than anyone else, many readers of the article could suspect feminism was being silenced, unless there was some reference to the large volume of feminist interaction with Patriarchy.
The point of the sentence, in the context of the explanation of Patriarchy, is to give a concise, undisputed and fair expression of the strongest argument in favour of feminism, without providing any personal opinion.
The Patriarchy entry as it stands, is little more than a stub. Perhaps the best way to respond to your impression that more information is required, is to have a subsection, that expands on "Patriarchy in historical practice". In that section, we could help readers see the relevance to our current world, by mentioning debates like whether women should serve in the combat units of defence forces. Of course, it is not the place of an Encyclopedia to take a side in the debate, we would only point people to helpful references that argue each position.
2. "seen by many" and other such phrases I am glad you think that is vague, that is the deliberate intention. I could mention the "hippy" movement, but they weren't the only ones who thought it. I could say "seen by 57.8%" of Americans, but that would be questionable, it would narrow things to Americans, and to the Americans who answered a survey at the time. In many cases, language like this is just a cover for people's lack of research, however, in many other cases it is a careful, responsible way of stating a fact, concisely and without overstating the truth or being arbitrarily specific. I hope the examples I have given in this paragraph show the point. If we were to say "most people", we would have to be able to point to evidence that showed more than 50% of people thought it. If we leave out any qualifying phrase, and simply say "oppressive and corrupt". We would be stating an opinion of our own.
On the positive side, I mentioned the civil rights movement explicitly, and gave an internal link. If anyone wanted verification of the claim that "many" people held an opinion of "oppressive and corrupt" structures (but wiki has no opinion), the reader can go to the wiki article on the civil rights movement and find lots of evidence to verify the simple claim made in the Patriarchy article.
So, I used this phrase very carefully, to not only ensure verification, but easy verification. Not only that, it is there to ensure that no opinion is expressed by the Patriarchy article, it simply points to the opinions of others.
I did leave out those who have written in defence of slavery, racism and laws against homosexuality. There are many writers who have supported all these three things, and there still are! Racism is vile, in my opinion, but I didn't leave out reference to racist writers because of my opinion. I left out reference to them because I was writing an overview, and wanted to stay focussed on the feminist challenge to Patriarchy, which I would imagine is of most interest to most readers.
Again, perhaps the best way to deal with this is with a subsection regarding "historical challenges to Patriarchy". Another good reason to have such a section would be that feminism is not the only challenge to Patriarchy, it is just the best known, and most relevant. But, we are in danger of bias if we left the impression that the only challenge to Patriarchy is feminism.
3. "led naturally"
Again I agree with you, when I read essays by students, these words often hide the fact that the student has not found or followed an argument, it is a "short cut", that allows them to state something they have read and get on with explaining what they have understood.
I use the phrase here for two reasons. First, because it is the introduction. It would take a paragraph to refer to the relationship between the "black rights" and "women's rights" movements in 1960s America. That kind of detail belongs in the civil rights movement article and the feminist article. Some of it IS already in those articles in wiki, woohoo!
Secondly, I say "naturally" rather than "logically", because it is a sociological phenomenon, not a strictly intellectual one. The simple point is, while African Americans were fighting for equality, many women thought, "Wow! We face many of the same issues, perhaps we should stand up and be counted too!" In the same way, 150 years earlier, men in the English parliment were condemning slavery, but educated women said, "You are willing to give the vote to slaves, but why not to us!" It makes perfect sense doesn't it?
The point of this sentence in the context of the introduction is that it gives a concise explanation of the relevance of feminism to Patriarchy, and to the relevance of the debate between them for the world the reader lives in. If the reader needs instant verification (or more information), there are internal links. However, as I keep saying, you have helped me see that an intelligent reader will want more information on these things within the article itself.
3. "Which debate?" lol, I know what you mean, but the simple answer is "the 19th century debate". I know that's unsatisfying. The point of the sentences is to say:
there was political reform in Europe in 19th c.
there was social reform of slavery in Europe and America in 19th c.
"first wave" feminists said, "you give people a vote, even slaves a vote, why not us?"
the men (eventually) said, "good point"
there was reform regarding racism in 1960s America
"second wave" feminists said, "you give jobs to blacks, why not us?"
the men (quite quickly) said, "fair enough"
I've got to go out and run some erands now. I'm sure I've given you plenty to think about. Let me know what you think when you have some time. As I said, the main benefit I take on board from your feedback is that you are an intelligent reader who wants more information. I can see what you want and why. I think I can provide it in some subsections. I hope you appreciate my sensitivity to keeping the introduction concise. Perhaps your feedback shows the introduction is good, it raises new and deeper questions in a reader with genuine interest. A good introduction "launches" the issues related to its topic.
Regarding "you're either for us or against us", I think they do have a point here. The feminist claim (though there are exceptions) is that society has been dominated by men for so long, that social structures (and our language about them) carry *hidden assumptions* of an expectation of male dominance. The important and, I think, true claim is that we all hold many assumptions *unconsciously*.
For example, a man may NOT assume women cannot work outside the home. He may enjoy having a competant female mentor at work. He may have a wife he loves and respects deeply for her superior insight into human nature. BUT, when he is sitting in a subway train car and there is a preganant woman standing in front of him, he will stand up so she can sit down. Aha! He is a slave to patriarchy after all!
The most determined feminists will argue that women can work while pregnant, and compete on equal terms with men while they are preganant, otherwise there is an obvious advantage in employing men over women. If preganacy does not limit a women's value in the workforce, it cannot be a logical reason for special treatment in other situations either. Feminists have taught women to refuse special, preferential and positive treatment -- like men openning doors for them, carrying things for them, standing up for them, etc. They can see there is a direct connection between giving women special *positive* treatment in some places, and *negative* treatment in other places. Positive discrimation is still discrimination. This form of feminism argues that no social behaviours should be based on the biological sex of the persons involved, however nice the sentiments involved.
Like you, I am a man who considers himself positive towards women and their contribution in society. I freely acknowledge that Margret Thatcher is one of England's great leaders, for example. However, I also freely acknowledge that testosterone affects the way I think and feel, and that my thinking is also influenced at an unconscious level by my experience, including the social patterns I encountered as a child, and continue to encounter. It is part of the nature of being human, that we have beliefs at an unconscious level, that we don't even know we believe, because we've never had to stop and think about them. A sad example of this is the Boxing Day tsunami. People had the unconscious belief that their family members would be alive on Boxing Day. Their unconscious mind did not wake up that morning and remind itself that massive natural disasters are always a possibility. So shock, along with grief, is something the survivors experienced.
So, although men like you and I know in our conscious mind that women share with men every human dignity. We also know women are different to men, so we treat them differently. The way we treat them is influenced most strongly by our respect and reason, but there are also other factors, some of them are unconscious.
What I think matters most of all, though, is not whether we treat women differently to men. What matters most is whether the way we treat them shows genuine respect for equal members of the human race. I treat my boss differently to customers, and treat police differently to neighbours. I treat all equally as humans, but differently according to role. However, I also treat schizophrenic people I meet differently to drunk people and differently again to angry people. When I teach, I teach the very smart students differently to those who struggle. So again, I also treat people differently based on who they are and what they are like, independently of their role in society; and again I am sure that even when I treat people differently as individuals, I am still respecting them as equal members of the human race. In fact, not to be sensitive to people's diversity of culture and personality, is to fail to treat them as human.
The biggest internal debate among feminists is concerned with this very issue. "Feminists of difference" argue that women have special needs that men should respect and special contributions that men should appreciate. "Feminists of equality" insist that men have "feminine" sides and women have "masculine" sides and we are more mature humans if we grow both sides of our nature and bring them into balance.
What do you think? Do you think men are from Mars and women are from Venus, or do you think we are much, much more alike than we are different in any particular way? If you think men and women are different, what is the difference? And where do you think the difference comes from? Are we born that way? Or does society (especially the family) teach us to be different?
I will be in Indonesian for the next couple of weeks, and after that I have some writing deadlines to meet. I will be submiting a chapter on feminism and patriarchy, so I'm sure I'll have a lot of material to select from, to add depth to wiki's patriachy entry, at least until someone has time to bring it up to date again later. ;-)
Anyway, best wishes for the New Year, tchuess, alastair
Archives |
---|
Finally, someone has explained Patriarchy clearly—better than X is patriarchal, Y is patriarchal; get the point? Thank you. I commented on an earlier version of the page on the talk page (I think you have improved the page a lot). If you can, please add references to the information you added. Rintrah 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
1. "male physical strength resolving social conflicts"
I will take your advice and quote John Stuart Mill on this point, but it is a bit arbitrary, as everyone agrees it is a fact. The debate concerning this point is about whether armies, police forces and parental physical discipline are inevitable or not, and about whether they are actually good things or bad things, and about whether women should participate in them. It was my judgement that going into detail on those things in the introduction to Patriarchy would be considered by most readers as "too much information" and a bit "tangential to the subject". This article is about Patriarchy, not feminism, but given that feminists talk more about Patriarchy than anyone else, many readers of the article could suspect feminism was being silenced, unless there was some reference to the large volume of feminist interaction with Patriarchy.
The point of the sentence, in the context of the explanation of Patriarchy, is to give a concise, undisputed and fair expression of the strongest argument in favour of feminism, without providing any personal opinion.
The Patriarchy entry as it stands, is little more than a stub. Perhaps the best way to respond to your impression that more information is required, is to have a subsection, that expands on "Patriarchy in historical practice". In that section, we could help readers see the relevance to our current world, by mentioning debates like whether women should serve in the combat units of defence forces. Of course, it is not the place of an Encyclopedia to take a side in the debate, we would only point people to helpful references that argue each position.
2. "seen by many" and other such phrases I am glad you think that is vague, that is the deliberate intention. I could mention the "hippy" movement, but they weren't the only ones who thought it. I could say "seen by 57.8%" of Americans, but that would be questionable, it would narrow things to Americans, and to the Americans who answered a survey at the time. In many cases, language like this is just a cover for people's lack of research, however, in many other cases it is a careful, responsible way of stating a fact, concisely and without overstating the truth or being arbitrarily specific. I hope the examples I have given in this paragraph show the point. If we were to say "most people", we would have to be able to point to evidence that showed more than 50% of people thought it. If we leave out any qualifying phrase, and simply say "oppressive and corrupt". We would be stating an opinion of our own.
On the positive side, I mentioned the civil rights movement explicitly, and gave an internal link. If anyone wanted verification of the claim that "many" people held an opinion of "oppressive and corrupt" structures (but wiki has no opinion), the reader can go to the wiki article on the civil rights movement and find lots of evidence to verify the simple claim made in the Patriarchy article.
So, I used this phrase very carefully, to not only ensure verification, but easy verification. Not only that, it is there to ensure that no opinion is expressed by the Patriarchy article, it simply points to the opinions of others.
I did leave out those who have written in defence of slavery, racism and laws against homosexuality. There are many writers who have supported all these three things, and there still are! Racism is vile, in my opinion, but I didn't leave out reference to racist writers because of my opinion. I left out reference to them because I was writing an overview, and wanted to stay focussed on the feminist challenge to Patriarchy, which I would imagine is of most interest to most readers.
Again, perhaps the best way to deal with this is with a subsection regarding "historical challenges to Patriarchy". Another good reason to have such a section would be that feminism is not the only challenge to Patriarchy, it is just the best known, and most relevant. But, we are in danger of bias if we left the impression that the only challenge to Patriarchy is feminism.
3. "led naturally"
Again I agree with you, when I read essays by students, these words often hide the fact that the student has not found or followed an argument, it is a "short cut", that allows them to state something they have read and get on with explaining what they have understood.
I use the phrase here for two reasons. First, because it is the introduction. It would take a paragraph to refer to the relationship between the "black rights" and "women's rights" movements in 1960s America. That kind of detail belongs in the civil rights movement article and the feminist article. Some of it IS already in those articles in wiki, woohoo!
Secondly, I say "naturally" rather than "logically", because it is a sociological phenomenon, not a strictly intellectual one. The simple point is, while African Americans were fighting for equality, many women thought, "Wow! We face many of the same issues, perhaps we should stand up and be counted too!" In the same way, 150 years earlier, men in the English parliment were condemning slavery, but educated women said, "You are willing to give the vote to slaves, but why not to us!" It makes perfect sense doesn't it?
The point of this sentence in the context of the introduction is that it gives a concise explanation of the relevance of feminism to Patriarchy, and to the relevance of the debate between them for the world the reader lives in. If the reader needs instant verification (or more information), there are internal links. However, as I keep saying, you have helped me see that an intelligent reader will want more information on these things within the article itself.
3. "Which debate?" lol, I know what you mean, but the simple answer is "the 19th century debate". I know that's unsatisfying. The point of the sentences is to say:
there was political reform in Europe in 19th c.
there was social reform of slavery in Europe and America in 19th c.
"first wave" feminists said, "you give people a vote, even slaves a vote, why not us?"
the men (eventually) said, "good point"
there was reform regarding racism in 1960s America
"second wave" feminists said, "you give jobs to blacks, why not us?"
the men (quite quickly) said, "fair enough"
I've got to go out and run some erands now. I'm sure I've given you plenty to think about. Let me know what you think when you have some time. As I said, the main benefit I take on board from your feedback is that you are an intelligent reader who wants more information. I can see what you want and why. I think I can provide it in some subsections. I hope you appreciate my sensitivity to keeping the introduction concise. Perhaps your feedback shows the introduction is good, it raises new and deeper questions in a reader with genuine interest. A good introduction "launches" the issues related to its topic.
Regarding "you're either for us or against us", I think they do have a point here. The feminist claim (though there are exceptions) is that society has been dominated by men for so long, that social structures (and our language about them) carry *hidden assumptions* of an expectation of male dominance. The important and, I think, true claim is that we all hold many assumptions *unconsciously*.
For example, a man may NOT assume women cannot work outside the home. He may enjoy having a competant female mentor at work. He may have a wife he loves and respects deeply for her superior insight into human nature. BUT, when he is sitting in a subway train car and there is a preganant woman standing in front of him, he will stand up so she can sit down. Aha! He is a slave to patriarchy after all!
The most determined feminists will argue that women can work while pregnant, and compete on equal terms with men while they are preganant, otherwise there is an obvious advantage in employing men over women. If preganacy does not limit a women's value in the workforce, it cannot be a logical reason for special treatment in other situations either. Feminists have taught women to refuse special, preferential and positive treatment -- like men openning doors for them, carrying things for them, standing up for them, etc. They can see there is a direct connection between giving women special *positive* treatment in some places, and *negative* treatment in other places. Positive discrimation is still discrimination. This form of feminism argues that no social behaviours should be based on the biological sex of the persons involved, however nice the sentiments involved.
Like you, I am a man who considers himself positive towards women and their contribution in society. I freely acknowledge that Margret Thatcher is one of England's great leaders, for example. However, I also freely acknowledge that testosterone affects the way I think and feel, and that my thinking is also influenced at an unconscious level by my experience, including the social patterns I encountered as a child, and continue to encounter. It is part of the nature of being human, that we have beliefs at an unconscious level, that we don't even know we believe, because we've never had to stop and think about them. A sad example of this is the Boxing Day tsunami. People had the unconscious belief that their family members would be alive on Boxing Day. Their unconscious mind did not wake up that morning and remind itself that massive natural disasters are always a possibility. So shock, along with grief, is something the survivors experienced.
So, although men like you and I know in our conscious mind that women share with men every human dignity. We also know women are different to men, so we treat them differently. The way we treat them is influenced most strongly by our respect and reason, but there are also other factors, some of them are unconscious.
What I think matters most of all, though, is not whether we treat women differently to men. What matters most is whether the way we treat them shows genuine respect for equal members of the human race. I treat my boss differently to customers, and treat police differently to neighbours. I treat all equally as humans, but differently according to role. However, I also treat schizophrenic people I meet differently to drunk people and differently again to angry people. When I teach, I teach the very smart students differently to those who struggle. So again, I also treat people differently based on who they are and what they are like, independently of their role in society; and again I am sure that even when I treat people differently as individuals, I am still respecting them as equal members of the human race. In fact, not to be sensitive to people's diversity of culture and personality, is to fail to treat them as human.
The biggest internal debate among feminists is concerned with this very issue. "Feminists of difference" argue that women have special needs that men should respect and special contributions that men should appreciate. "Feminists of equality" insist that men have "feminine" sides and women have "masculine" sides and we are more mature humans if we grow both sides of our nature and bring them into balance.
What do you think? Do you think men are from Mars and women are from Venus, or do you think we are much, much more alike than we are different in any particular way? If you think men and women are different, what is the difference? And where do you think the difference comes from? Are we born that way? Or does society (especially the family) teach us to be different?
I will be in Indonesian for the next couple of weeks, and after that I have some writing deadlines to meet. I will be submiting a chapter on feminism and patriarchy, so I'm sure I'll have a lot of material to select from, to add depth to wiki's patriachy entry, at least until someone has time to bring it up to date again later. ;-)
Anyway, best wishes for the New Year, tchuess, alastair