Talk:Patriarchy

Unbalanced article
It's easily evident when comparing it to the matriarchy article, the patriarchy article is written in a negative way, automatically adjudicating it terms such as dominate, exploitation, oppression, etc while the matriarchy article is more neutral (Which is the right way to make an article), clearly demonstrating a political bias in this article. I'm not stating that these two social systems are good or bad, I'm only pointing out the obvious bias, which conflicts with the logic of the definitions: Matriarchy is patriarchy but with the positions swapped, nothing else, and the results of these systems doesn't influence what they are by themselves, at any case, this should be in a category about the impacts on society or criticism.

This is not a neutral point of view, and should be improved, so I left the unbalanced template (I didn't improve the article because I'm not very experienced, so I leave the task to anyone interested) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.149.130 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Neutral point of view" on Wikipedia means adhering to the predominant views expressed in reliable sources. If you disagree with the sources cited in the article, then feel free to present your own. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have enough time or interest to search more neutral sources, so I'll leave the unbalanced template so anyone interested can correct it.
 * Stop reverting the edit or you'll end up exposing yourself as very biased like the writers of this article. 186.18.149.130 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:CLEANUPTAG: "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with an article, or a method of warning readers about an article." Since you are apparently uninterested in trying to fix the perceived problem, there's no justification for tagging the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This very first sentence using "dominance" instead of supremacy as in Webster, and "privilege" when that word isn't used in any source, shows how absurdly bias this wiki page leans. 2600:8803:77E0:E800:5B0:FDE9:6BCE:4EF3 (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * how would supremacy be better than dominance? I can also instantly show you multiple sources that use both of these words. If you can not bring any sources why bother? 2A02:908:13B5:9C60:C5DD:A1C3:FC14:1E2C (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Poor introduction
I have an issue with the definition in the introduction, "Patriarchy is a social system in which men dominate over others" since men clearly occupy both dominating and dominated positions in most societies, (leaders vs. criminals and homeless etc.). I like the phrasing in the etymology much better"...refer to social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men" I would suggest this definition: "Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of dominance and privilege are primarily held by men." The current version I find absolutist and generalizing to the point of meaninglessness. Thorseth (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. Can you provide sources to back up your preferred version as more representative of what "patriarchy" means?  Of the universe (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think a technical definition (closer to a dictionary) would be good for the beginning, and then it could be expanded further down, with something like "... in most feminist theories patriarchy is used as derogatory term, encompassing only negative aspects ..." and here we could use the primary source references that are currently at the top.
 * Merriam-Webster.com
 * 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  
 * Encyclopedia Britannica
 * patriarchy, hypothetical social system in which the father or a male elder has absolute authority over the family group; by extension, one or more men (as in a council) exert absolute authority over the community as a whole.
 * Oxford reference
 * patriarchy, hypothetical social system in which the father or a male elder has absolute authority over the family group; by extension, one or more men (as in a council) exert absolute authority over the community as a whole.
 * Cambridge Dictionary 
 * a society in which the oldest male is the leader of the family, or a society controlled by men in which they use their power to their own advantage
 * Collins dictionary 
 * a society in which the oldest male is the leader of the family, or a society controlled by men in which they use their power to their own advantage:
 * PS I realize its a difficult subject because it seems to be a term primary used by people with a somewhat specific agenda. Thorseth (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Having given it a bit more thought, maybe the best way to find an appropriate definition would be to look at reputable anthropology/sociology/feminist dictionaries, since those are the relevant fields of study. (but I don't currently have time for that)
 * In the meantime, the sources you've provided seem sufficient to outweigh the primary sources in the article, so imo go ahead and adjust the definition. Of the universe (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Britannica: 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. However, some scholars continue to use the term in the general sense for descriptive, analytical, and pedagogical purposes. The contemrorary feminist theory probably says about (cis)heteropatriarchy in the Western society, not about the 'clear' patriarchy. Also, the sources who say man meaning cisgender heterosexual gender-conforming man aren't good enough. There are lots of sources about oppression of trans men, of gay men, of gender-nonconforming men, of Black men (Black Male Studies) in the patriarchal system and because of the patriarchal system. The article shouldn't look the way "The contemprorary society is patriarchal. In the patriarchal society men oppress women. dot".--Reprarina (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Great Russian Encyclopedia: Patriarchy was characteristic of many archaic societies of antiquity and the Middle Ages; it existed as a relic in modern times; preserved among a number of modern peoples. Like Britannica, the Great Russian Encyclopedia does not view patriarchy as a cultural universal. Reprarina (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Change "Male criminality" to "Male violence"
Clearly a worthwhile topic, but so poorly written at the moment. The point is of cause that human males has an almost total monopoly on all serious violent activity, and has had that for recorded history and beyond. Which has not really changed with the introduction of firearms or modern weapons where strength is no longer a strict requirement. I suggest putting the Dutch research in front and then follow up with the facts about male criminality in modern society. There are also theoeries that the "patriarchy" was originally set up as a necessary alliance between males to counter the dominance of the most brutish and destructive males in tribal societies, explaining the cross cultural predominance. Thorseth (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV
The initial statement is a description, not a definition. It tells us nothing about the causes that make a society 'patriarchal', either historically or sociologically. It also depends on ideological presuppositions: the fact that one gender is more represented than the other implies an implicit assumption that all elements of society should be equally represented in power, which is a political point, not a sociological theory. To be revised. 2003:A:A0B:4100:2C9D:34F3:CF94:926A (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The history and different theories about the causes of patriarchy are treated in the article. The first sentence should be a concise definition of the topic, so it's not possible to fit all that in there. I'm not sure where the article says that all elements of society should be equally represented in power. All it says is that patriarchy is a system where that is not true. Also, NPOV is about representing significant viewpoints fairly and proportionately. Since you are raising an NPOV complaint, which viewpoints of which sources do you think are being under- or misrepresented in this article? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * is correct; WP:NPOV means accurately representing the views of reliable sources, not armchair logical analyses about implicit assumptions contained within basic factual statements. By your logic, an anodyne claim such as that women took on more jobs in industry during World War II is inherently a political point because it implies all elements of society should be equally represented. To say nothing of describing winners and losers of actual battles, which entails a power imbalance if ever there was one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Definition of patriarchy
It has been claimed that patriarchy gives more equality to men than women by an extreme margin, but it is quite incorrect as it actually gives more power to rich men than to anyone else. Not all men are rich so this is quite incorrect Quintus rex (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It has been claimed – where? Not in this article. As per the first paragraph, The term patriarchy is used ... in feminist theory to describe a broader social structure in which men as a group dominate women and children. Even though men are comparatively disempowered, men  still dominate women and children in most societies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The section on pre-history
The section on pre-history seems to conflate 'patriarchal structures' with 'a sexual division of labour'. It cites the Betuel article from Inverse as a story of how patriarchy developed, whereas what it actually describes is the development of a stable monogamous family and of some kind of division of labour between men and women. There is absolutely no mention of 'domination of women by men', which is what patriarchy is normally understood to mean. Wrangham's theory is, again, about the division of labour between men and women connected to the emergence cooking, but nothing in the retelling seems to concern patriarchy, i.e. domination. And finally, the Alger et al article also proposes one way of development that could have led to the same things - 'paternal investment', i.e. a stable monogamous family and of some kind of division of labour. None of the three sources describes the emergence of patriarchy, all three describe the emergence of paternal investment. Using them as a source for the primeval nature of patriarchy is grossly misleading. Whoever added them apparently couldn't imagine a family or fatherhood without patriarchy and so treated them as synonymous in their reading of the sources. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I can not find where you found this reading. Maybe this was changed already? But the article only states: "Some preconditions for the eventual development of patriarchy were the emergence of increased paternal investment in the offspring, also referred to as fatherhood, and of a sexual division of labour. " Which I think is fine, no? Tornbetween (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)