Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

]See conspiracy theories about a white male patriarchy.

The only conspiracy theory here is that patriarchy is just a weird thing made up by OMG TUMBLR SJW FEMINAZIS instead of an accurate description of the world.

There are countries that are run by actual patriarchies, where we can identify who the patriarchs are, where they convene, and by what institutions and mechanisms they exercise control. So if there's a patriarchy in the United States, I don't like that one bit, and I want to know who they are.

So who are the members of the patriarchy in the United States? Where do they convene? By what institutions and mechanisms do they exercise patriarchal control over us?

Doesn't have to be the definition of a patriarchy (nice try btw) to have a country dominated by men. Even when the UK had both a Queen and a woman prime minister in the 80s and now, we're still ruled, predominantly by white men. The US is much the same.

 jasper76 wrote:
There are countries that are run by actual patriarchies, where we can identify who the patriarchs are, where they convene, and by what institutions and mechanisms they exercise control. So if there's a patriarchy in the United States, I don't like that one bit, and I want to know who they are.

Well, when was the last woman president? Or maybe I'm mistaken and no woman president ever is just an effect of pure random chance with absolutely no bearing on how the US society is organized. At all.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
There are countries that are run by actual patriarchies, where we can identify who the patriarchs are, where they convene, and by what institutions and mechanisms they exercise control. So if there's a patriarchy in the United States, I don't like that one bit, and I want to know who they are.

Well, when was the last woman president?

None of which were good candidates.

Watch out for UN Abassadors NIkki Haley in the future...

 jasper76 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Patriarchy is not a government. It's a system of social conventions.

Good rule of thumb; If you hear things like "women's work" and "don't be a girl" (or variations there in including those not to be used in polite company) used as a derogatory, chances are you're living in one.

As far as I understand it, women are allowed to take any job that a man is. We even have anti-discrimination laws that protect women from discrimination in the workforce and in hiring.

"Don't be a girl" is something I've rarely heard.

Since people are now fond of the phrase "toxic masculinity", does that mean we also live in a matriarchy?

Only if you're a 20 something fantasist, or breitbart contributor.

I'll also add that the phrase "don't be a girl" was on telly last night in the UK, and I hear it, and use it very frequently. Toxic masculinity sounds like something made up by butthurt man children, and I've never heard of it until you just brought it up.

 Compel wrote:
The Patriarchy != The Illuminatii.

The Patriarchy is used as a term of reference for "a system of governence which favours male members of society over female members of the society."

Linking this tangent back to politics, someone I know made a succulent point about patriarchy in US politics by pointing out the extremely high amount of vehemence and scrutiny directed at female politicians, arguing that they receive criticism and attention far in excess of their male counter parts (namely Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi were the examples she used). You could actually lump DeVos in there too, because she was hardly the only idiot put forth by Trump for a high cabinet position but she's received massively more attention and internet rage than other idiots like Ben Carson, and Tom Price. Not to mention the extremely low amount of attention paid to people like Ken Blackwell who famously claimed the gay marriage causes mass shootings, and Michael Flynn who said he wanted to reinstate Don't Ask Don't Tell as "Throw them out whether they tell or not."

 jasper76 wrote:
As far as I understand it, women are allowed to take any job that a man is. We even have anti-discrimination laws that protect women from discrimination in the workforce and in hiring.

I can't believe it's 2017 and we're still stuck on basic concepts like "making a law about something doesn't guarantee that the problem is gone". Discrimination still happens, even if it's technically illegal.

Also, lets stop with the degradation of the language FFS:

pa·tri·arch·y
ˈpātrēˌärkē/
noun
noun: patriarchy

a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.

 jasper76 wrote:
There are countries that are run by actual patriarchies, where we can identify who the patriarchs are, where they convene, and by what institutions and mechanisms they exercise control. So if there's a patriarchy in the United States, I don't like that one bit, and I want to know who they are.

So who are the members of the patriarchy in the United States? Where do they convene? By what institutions and mechanisms do they exercise patriarchal control over us?

Sigh. If you're going to argue about this could you at least spend some time looking up what people actually mean by "patriarchy"? The fact that we don't have an explicit system of rule by men has nothing to do with the subject.

EDIT: Deleted for redundancy

 jasper76 wrote:
See my post directly above.

Do you actually have a constructive point here, instead of just dictionary nitpicking? Because obsessing over whether the concept should be called "patriarchy" or "dfnmkogiodtrghief" isn't really worth my time.

It would be helpful if people used words according to their actual meaning.

It would be nice, but in this case "patriarchy" is the term people have chosen. Either address the argument that "the left" is actually making, or concede that you don't have any point.

 jasper76 wrote:


"Don't be a girl" is something I've rarely heard. "Don't be a b---" I've heard, and "Don't be a p----", but I hear "Don't be a d-----" just as much.

Since the phrase "toxic masculinity" is gaining ground, and "don't be a d---" is a common expression, does that mean we also live in a matriarchy?

Actually feminists would qualify "don't be a dick" as a patriarchal phrase as well Patriarchy is about more than just keeping women down. It's about an aggressive regime of social conventions that keeps women down and enlists men to help do it. On the one hand it punishes women for not being men, on the other it forces expectations onto men and if they fail to uphold those expectations it brow beats them with their "failure" to be sufficiently manly. This includes presumed expectations of "gentlemanly" conduct, which often contain double standards that box men into a position where it's almost impossible not to fail.

Toxic masculinity is actually used specifically to refer to how patriarchy harms men, not women. This blog article is actually a really good explanation of how toxic masculinity plays out in pop culture

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
See my post directly above.

Do you actually have a constructive point here, instead of just dictionary nitpicking? Because obsessing over whether the concept should be called "patriarchy" or "dfnmkogiodtrghief" isn't really worth my time.

Not worth mine either. In this case, I was using the term correctly, and other people are using their own pet definitions.

 jasper76 wrote:
In this case, I was using the term correctly, and other people are using their own pet definitions.

And, by resorting to dictionary arguments, ignoring the substance of what they're saying in favor of "THATS NOT THE WORD I WANT YOU TO USE." Perhaps, in the interest of having a constructive discussion of the subject, you could simply use the definition of "patriarchy" that "the left" is using in their claims about society for purposes of this debate, even if you don't agree with their choice of words?

 jasper76 wrote:
Also, lets stop with the degradation of the language FFS:

pa·tri·arch·y
ˈpātrēˌärkē/
noun
noun: patriarchy

a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.

I can play that game too. Emphasis mine.

Merriam Webster wrote:
Definition of patriarchy
plural patriarchies

1
: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

Further, in gender studies and feminist theory the concept of "patriarchy" has a definition that isn't quite the same as in common parlance, but you don't care. You could literally look it up on Wikipedia and understand that the definition of patriarchy you're arguing against isn't the one being argued in feminist theory. It'd take you a whopping one minute. The fact that you haven't bothered isn't very flattering.

Guys, again, we're getting a wee bit confrontational and going off into the weeds on a very minor issue here. We all fall into this trap, myself included, but lets draw it back or move onto another topic before a thread lock.

 jasper76 wrote:


Not worth mine either. In this case, I was using the term correctly, and other people are using their own pet definitions.

Virtually all academic fields use their own nuanced definitions of some terms. For example;

a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

This definition is used in Anthropology for analyzing family dynamics and gender roles.

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

This definition is a rather dumbed down version of what feminists might use, but it is in a dictionary and a dictionary can hardly contain a concise treatise on a complex philosophical/sociological idea.

a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.

I'd actually consider this one to be redundant by the first XD

Tothe extent that gender studies and feminist theory are degrading the language, its annoying.

Patriarchy used to mean something, but to a certain segment of thinkers it now means something else. Maybe if they'd come up with a phrase that didn't actually mean something else, this whole conversation about the "The Patriarchy" wouldn't be so difficult.

IOW, I shouldn't have to learn the reformed lexicon of a gender studies professor in order to converse with them using the common meanings of words.

 jasper76 wrote:
Also, lets stop with the degradation of the language FFS:

pa·tri·arch·y
ˈpātrēˌärkē/
noun
noun: patriarchy

a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.

What was your point again?

 Compel wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Also, lets stop with the degradation of the language FFS:

pa·tri·arch·y
ˈpātrēˌärkē/
noun
noun: patriarchy

a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.

What was your point again?

Women are not largely excluded from political power in the US. In fact, they are elected to political offices all the time in the United States. It wasn't always the case, but it certainly is now.

Women are not largely excluded from power in the workforce, and indeed we have laws that are meant to prohibit exactly that kind of discrimination. It wasn't always the case, but it certainly is now.

Perhaps things are different in the UK than they are here.

 jasper76 wrote:


IOW, I shouldn't have to learn the reformed lexicon of a gender studies professor in order to converse with them using the common meanings of words.

Sorry, but to me that reads as "I shouldn't have to have a basic understanding of the subject I'm discussing in order to discuss it.". The concept of patriarchy is the entire fundament of modern feminist theory, to the point that it's impossible to have a useful argument about the subject without understanding the concept. It's not as though it's obscure or arcane knowledge.

 jasper76 wrote:
Maybe if they'd come up with a phrase that didn't actually mean something else, this whole conversation about the "The Patriarchy" wouldn't be so difficult.

There is nothing difficult here. At this point you've been told what is going on with the definitions, and there is no reason to stubbornly persist on arguing over dictionary definitions. Whether or not you're right about "they should have picked a different term" it has nothing to do with the substance of any of the issues here.

IOW, I shouldn't have to learn the reformed lexicon of a gender studies professor in order to converse with them using the common meanings of words.

This happens in every field. If you want to have a discussion with me about engineering stuff you're going to have to learn the lexicon of an engineering professor instead of the common meanings of words.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


IOW, I shouldn't have to learn the reformed lexicon of a gender studies professor in order to converse with them using the common meanings of words.

Sorry, but to me that reads as "I shouldn't have to have a basic understanding of the subject I'm discussing in order to discuss it.". The concept of patriarchy is the entire fundament of modern feminist theory, to the point that it's impossible to have a useful argument about the subject without understanding the concept. It's not as though it's obscure or arcane knowledge.

Sorry, but I have a basic understanding of what a patriarchy is. It's the modern feminist theory version that has diverted from the meaning of the word.

Leave the feminism/patriarchy/definition war now. That topic is cooked, pick another

 Vaktathi wrote:
Guys, again, we're getting a wee bit confrontational and going off into the weeds on a very minor issue here. We all fall into this trap, myself included, but lets draw it back or move onto another topic before a thread lock.

Heh... I like this 'self-moderation' thing you got going on here...

...

Trying to change topic...

So... if Russia offers Snowden back to the US... does that mean Russia would expect something back? Like the end of US Sanctions?

Another example is weight. When you use the term weight in the Physical Sciences you are referring to the force exerted by a mass as a result of its presence in a gravitational field (or undergoing some other acceleration). However if someone asks you your weight in everyday speech they are referring to your mass.

See also: velocity and speed.

Knowledge of the definition of a term when it comes to the subject you are discussing is important.

 whembly wrote:
So... if Russia offers Snowden back to the US... does that mean Russia would expect something back? Like the end of US Sanctions?

I thought Putin already got what he wanted...

Over 60 million people voted for a man who runs a pageant where women are judged based on looks, who has bragged about being able to walk into their dressing room and look at them naked, and complained about them getting fat afterward. A man who attacked his political opponents based on their looks and who attacked reporters who were tough on him by talking about their bleeding vaginas. A man who bragged about being able to sexually assault women simply based on his position as a rich powerful man, and getting away with it. A man who denied sexually assaulting someone by claiming that he would never assault someone that ugly.

That man is our president now. You have to be stupid to claim that there is no such thing as systematic sexism in our country.

 jasper76 wrote:
Tothe extent that gender studies and feminist theory are degrading the language, its annoying.

Patriarchy used to mean something, but to a certain segment of thinkers it now means something else. Maybe if they'd come up with a phrase that didn't actually mean something else, this whole conversation about the "The Patriarchy" wouldn't be so difficult.

IOW, I shouldn't have to learn the reformed lexicon of a gender studies professor in order to converse with them using the common meanings of words.

Not sure where this is coming from but you do realize that the field of gender studies comes from the same background as linguistics studies, rhetoric, and entematology and pretty much every field that law students come from, right? I mean you claim you want dictionary definitions of things and then totally ignore the definition of things. That's just dumb thinking.it doesn't help matters when the ideal is a twitter feed.

 d-usa wrote:
Over 60 million people voted for a man who runs a pageant where women are judged based on looks, who has bragged about being able to walk into their dressing room and look at them naked, and complained about them getting fat afterward. A man who attacked his political opponents based on their looks and who attacked reporters who were tough on him by talking about their bleeding vaginas. A man who bragged about being able to sexually assault women simply based on his position as a rich powerful man, and getting away with it. A man who denied sexually assaulting someone by claiming that he would never assault someone that ugly.

That man is our president now. You have to be stupid to claim that there is no such thing as systematic sexism in our country.

Trump didn't become President because of that. He became president in spite of that. Very few people actually like Trump, they just hated Hillary MORE. I voted Trump, only because Hillary has a larger pile of historic vileness. I didn't particularly like Sanders, but would have voted for him over Trump.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Over 60 million people voted for a man who runs a pageant where women are judged based on looks, who has bragged about being able to walk into their dressing room and look at them naked, and complained about them getting fat afterward. A man who attacked his political opponents based on their looks and who attacked reporters who were tough on him by talking about their bleeding vaginas. A man who bragged about being able to sexually assault women simply based on his position as a rich powerful man, and getting away with it. A man who denied sexually assaulting someone by claiming that he would never assault someone that ugly.

That man is our president now. You have to be stupid to claim that there is no such thing as systematic sexism in our country.

Trump didn't become President because of that. He became president in spite of that. Very few people actually like Trump, they just hated Hillary MORE.

Honestly I think that just makes it worse.