Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 4

Notice of reversion
Over the last six months I have observed a steady erosion of this article. Sourced material regarding the subject has been removed. Unsourced POV and weasling has been used in other places.

The problem is that the word patriarchy is more common in contemporary discourse as a pejorative term within feminist influenced thought. This leads editors familiar with feminism to expect documentation of the neologism, and creates surprise when a classical, objective treatment is found instead.

However, simply because the term ownership, for example, has extensive use within 1990s packaging of management theories, does not mean that a Wiki article on Ownership should be primarily about a specialist theoretical usage.

Relativity has sufficiently large number of sufficiently notable related but divergent specialist uses, that the main entry is a disambiguation page.

This article must primarily be about patriarchy, and only derivatively about any feminist criticism of patriarchy.

There is a huge literature regarding the social benefits of patriarchy, by both women and men, that goes back five millenia to the beginning of history. There is a rather mixed bag of popular, affluent, recent Western writing, that speculates about alternatives in the course of raising criticisms about what appears to be a fairly basic aspect of human nature.

It is a notable and worthwhile thing for Wiki to record debate regarding the merits and demerits of patriarchy. It is, however, putting the cart before the horse to place evaluation prior to objective data. It is also contra Wiki's NPOV stance, to presume to take a stance on the subject, which is what recent edits having been doing.

I am writing this prior to major reversions as a last attempt at assuming good faith. In future, weasling, either with words or with tags, will simply be reverted for what they are, and I will not feed trolls or Wiki lawyers.

Genuine contributions and genuine questions are always welcome at Wiki, but ideologically motivated censorship is not. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bla bla bla. Just contribute citing your sources, and please quit commenting as if you were in some kind of authoritative position, that sounds ridiculous.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand what authority you are claiming to tell me what to do, and what not to do. Please follow Wiki guidelines at the top of the page. Assume good faith. Address specific issues in the article. Don't make personal attacks on other editors. Welcome to Wiki, and to this article. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis and Sources
Is there a reliable source that states the table contains all societies claimed to be matriarcle? Is there a reliable source that states that all societies claimed to be matriarcle are actually patriarcle? If not, then this it is unpublished synthesis of published material. Neitherday (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You might have missed the second paragraph of the article -- Encyclopedia Britannica says this. About half a dozen other sources are also cited. Or are you suggesting Britannica is not reliable on this topic? What source do you have for that? Alastair Haines (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Patriarchy (ethnographies)
Template:Patriarchy (ethnographies) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neitherday (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal made by Neitherday on 31 March 2008. After one month of listing, not a single editor supported the proposal. Proposal declined 1 April 2008. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Autonym?
I think in this line "Bamenda Africa Cameroon patrilocal only Kom matrilineal patriarchy Phyllis Kaberry 1952 female" in the Patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal there is an error. Bamenda is a city and the name of an area in Cameroon and not the name of a ethnic group. Moreover in the article on Phyllis Kaberry is said that she lived with the Nso but in the article on Bamenda only Tikar, Mankon people and the Mbum are mentioned. And Mbum seams to be a language. Can anyone fix the entry? thanks.--Dia^ (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In short, there is no autonym for the Bamenda people -- they are linguistically diverse. The designation Bamenda for these tribes is due to academic precedent among cultural anthropologists. It designates the "chiefdoms" of the "grassfields" (see preface to reprint of Kaberry's work, there are several free online copies). It is the similarity of their social structuring as "chiefdoms" and their traditions of common origin that have led professionals to group them together.


 * The introduction to a reprint of Kaberry's work describes the region of Cameroon as the "grassfields", noting that the Nso are but one of the local tribes. The Nso were Kaberry's hosts, however she observed, as commissioned, all the tribes in the area, you have listed some of them by their autonyms.


 * Interestingly, she was commissioned due to the British government being concerned that women were mistreated in these areas. Kaberry's final judgement was contrary to this. She politely explained how such an impression might be formed by a casual observer, but that closer scrutiny showed men laboured to benefit the community just as hard, but differently to women, and that women were not excluded from participating in the benefits of the common wealth of the Bamenda societies. But I'm sure you've read this.


 * The fact that the modern town of Bamenda (lying not too distant from the grassfields) is so-called, is perhaps the best (but not adequate) argument to support Bamenda as an approximation to an autonym. It is most analagous to classifications like Scandinavian, Slavic, Mediterranean, European, Amerind, etc.


 * In placing Bamenda in the table, I was not entirely satisfied myself. However, I simply have to accept what the academic literature uses. Thank you for your eagle-eyed observation, but I fear there is no published alternative. Feel free to correct it if you find one. I, for one, will be delighted! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My edits to the "Feminist criticism" section
Imprimis: I have removed the following paragraph:


 * During the democratic and anti-slavery movements of early 19th century Europe and America, kingdoms became constitutional monarchies or republics and slavery was made illegal (see abolitionism). The civil rights movements of 20th century America also sought to overthrow various existing social structures, that were seen by many to be oppressive and corrupt. Both social contexts led naturally to an analogous scrutiny of relationships between women and men (see Mill above). The 19th century debate ultimately resulted in women receiving the vote; this is sometimes referred to as first-wave feminism. The late 20th century debate has produced far ranging social restructuring in Western democracies – second-wave feminism. Although often credited with it, Simone de Beauvoir denied she started second wave feminism, "The current feminist movement, which really started about five or six years ago [1970-71], did not really know [The Second Sex]". Some consider the "second wave" to be continuing into the 21st century, others consider it to be complete, still others consider there to be a "third wave" of feminism active in contemporary society.

I do not see the relevance of this; perhaps it could be moved to history of feminism?

2: I removed the claim that "patriarchy" has "been arguably overused as a rhetorical device" since this is POV in the absence of a specific claim to this effect.

3: I moved a few quotes inside the cites.

4: "However, the basic issue stands out even more clearly now than at the peak of second wave activism in the early 1970s." Which issue is this? Patriarchy? Real differences between men and women? I've removed it for now.

Ben Standeven (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By and large I agree with your edits Ben, thank you for them.
 * When I have time, I'll investigate the edit history to see if text has been removed that made the issue clear in context. From memory, the point used to be, as follows. "Current western society is still considered patriarchal (various evidences and interpreters cited). This is despite legislation to correct it. So why is patriarchy so stubbornly persistant in human society?" This naturally leads to the biological discussion, fronted by Goldberg's work.
 * With this article, unfortunately, people remove cited text and parts of the logical flow if they don't like what they think are the implications. Later editors notice the non-sequiturs, so introduced, and remove them. As I mentioned in a comment above, every six months or so, the article is reduced to triviality. That's fine, it's just a slow form of vandalism. It can be corrected by rolling back from time to time. Which is precisely what I do.
 * Over the course of time, some edits are, however, genuinely constructive. Yours fit this class. Thank you. When the inevitable roll back occurs, your edits will stand.
 * One disagreement though. You're welcome to remove uncited text like "overused as a rhetorical device". Words to this effect are, however, found in several recent works. Several feminist academics try to be gracious about the rhetoric of other parts of the movement, while seeking objective terminology to express their own work -- hence androcentric will generate google scholar hits. Androcentric is an important word for this article, because it is the academic synonym for patriarchy in 21st century feminist writing. Rather than deleting text, it would be easy for you to add dozens of references from the internet alone ... if you had the time. ;)


 * Fine, but I think it should be worded "So-and-so argues that the term "patriarchy" has been overused as a rhetorical device", rather than just "The term "patriarchy" has been overused as a rhetorical device". Ben Standeven (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember the source I took the idea from. It was a recently published textbook of Gender Studies by two Englishwomen. Unfortunately, it was on loan and I'm not keen to borrow it again for the page number. I've only got so much time.
 * I just found a [www.ciaonet.org/book/hoc01/hoc01_02.pdf page] (41) by a male feminist arguing a theoretical form for his views on masculinity. It's very well written. It is a feminist arguing precisely as my text described.
 * Unfortunately, casual (or biased) readers will overlook that. They'll not expect a feminist to be male, nor advocating something called masculism. I'll try to find something more obvious, and online.
 * However, I'll be returning the text on the strength of the source linked above. The burden of proof will be on critics to prove this writer is anti-feminist, and from reliable sources. There's plenty in the text that demonstrates his general alignment with feminism, he certainly nowhere condemns it.
 * And, the bottom line is that the use of patriarchy by many feminists is obviously loaded with specific implications, which are not neutral. It doesn't mean "father rule" (which they oppose, of course), it means male oppression in general. The quotes already in the article show that already -- Mary Daly et al.
 * They are entitled to use the word this way, of course, but it makes it a special use of the word, it doesn't replace other uses.
 * BTW if you're interested in thorough treatment of misandry in feminism, Nathanson and Young are the award-winning authors to have done this work. My concern in this article is NOT to get involved in documenting such views, it starts spinning off topic. My aim here is has been to give appropriate credit to moderating voices within the movement, close down the section and get back to the topic of the article. The more such things are challenged, the more I realise we need to remove feminist criticism from the article, it's such a big topic in itself it needs its own space.
 * Anyway, as I have time, I'll be both responding to some of your requests and restoring some sections removed by others.
 * Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, naive editors will jump at words like "overused" and "rhetorical" and presume a POV against feminist commentary on patriarchy. This is, of course, far from the truth. Feminism is the proof of patriarchy. If men didn't dominate, women wouldn't complain about it, would they? Is male dominance a human issue? If yes, humans are patriarchal and feminism makes sense. If no, humans are not patriarchal and feminism is a local, recent, western phenomenon.
 * The fact that all societies, including our own, have been patriarchal, and the fact that there are evolutionary, hormonal and genetic causes for this, is absolutely no argument to justify perpetuation of it. Rape exists, castration stops it. Precedent and testosterone uncontroversially do not justify rape. Is patriarchy like rape? Well, that is controversial. Feminists say yes, all traditional cultures and religions say no. Scientists tend to dodge the issue, except sociologists, who are divided.
 * The bottom line is you can't have "protestants" without something to protest about. Feminism assumes patriarchalism, and opposes it. This article simply documents the raw data that provides a foundation for feminist protest. I think the article would be best majoring on the facts, and minimizing the morality. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Taken Out
Took out "However, since Eve caused Mankind to Fall from Paradise, this is a small price to pay." which was the last sentence in the Feminism section. Please keep this shit off wikipedia. I also agree with the "Biased Introduction". This whole article seems slightly twisted and biased in favor of Matriarchy, even the feminism section. =\ I created an account just to edit this vandalism out, so sorry for posting in the wrong spot. Tavenfuzzle (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts and comments. This is a long way from being the most vandalised or biased article at Wiki, but I'd guess it's above average (or below, depending how you look at it). Alastair Haines (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No examples
No examples of matriarchy? Really? What about the Jewish people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.142.130 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Jewish people have been mentioned in this article for a long time. There are three references:
 * Patriarchs in their earliest traditions—Abraham and others;
 * Matrilineality not matriarchy in contemporary tradition of defining Jewish decent; and
 * Kibutzim as examples of contemporary patriarchal societies, despite being established with a different ideology.


 * Only the last of these is sourced, but none of them have ever been challenged. Many sources are available to provide further verification if needed, but only the last has been controversial afaik. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

sexism and selectivity of sources
This article is shockingly sexist. As other contributers to this forum have already said, there is no consensus in the current literature whether there have been matriarchal societies or not; that issue is very much a matter of debate. Furthermore, patriarchy can not only be explained with referrence to biological findings. The sources this article makes use of are too selective. I am aware of the fact that selectivity cannot be avoided, but I am convinced that a historical approach to the topic would be a great advantage. There are many gender historians who try to historicise patriarchy as a concept. The historisation of patriarchy is even more desirable as it is, first and foremost, a category established in the past and not, as the article tries to show, an inevitable outcome of natural facts. This article is sexist, too selective and confirms normative concepts; analysing and explaining patriarchy from a historical point of view could be a way to break up and come to terms with this category instead of justifying it.

Kamelfuss (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for taking the trouble to explain your evaluation of the article. It accords very closely with the early second wave feminist POV.
 * I'm not sure what definition of sexism you are using, but I would agree that the article unfairly gives feminist theories more of a voice than social commentators with opposite opinion, despite the other voices being more numerous. If treatment of feminism is equated with treatment of women (which is not normally done in serious literature) then this would make the article biased in favour of women. We've had several complaints at the page regarding that, and ideology will probably eventually be moved to another article, where both points of view can be more adequately presented.
 * As you note, the consensus of people who have not read the literature and do not note the citations in the article is contrary to what is actually published on this topic. (Though, I imagine there are a lot of people, like me, who would admit they can't know the answer without consulting the literature.) You may want to re-read the lead to the article and click on the references, most of them are available at public libraries.
 * Regarding biology. Again we agree. This article is actually explicit that patriarchy is not 100% biological, in fact, I have not found a single book that suggests this, despite reading many times that such books are supposed to exist, but never seeing an actual title or author mentioned. However, Goldberg's argument (followed by many others) is now supported by even more results from research. In fact they are being published at an increasing rate, there is simply too much to report in detail. Brain Sex way back in 1991 boldly said there is no reason but "mental indolence" to believe biology does not influence gender differentiated behviour, the correlations are too broad and too profound to ignore. As popularisation of science, this book was a decade behind the research that informs it.
 * I think perhaps you may be alluding to a theory that was advanced over the course of the 1970s that patriarchy is socially constructed from nothing—ex nihilo. That theory was only tenable because it didn't examine the scientific literature that was already available at the time. You are quite correct though, there is still considerable literature that speaks of that theory as though it is established fact, and such things are even more common in various informal modes of discourse. These, however, do not represent the best available sources on patriarchy, being ideological rather than scientific works. The ideological approach is explained in the feminist section. But, in any case, we are again agreed that all-nature, just like all-nurture, are extreme views that do not reflect the scientifically researched literature.
 * The historical approach to patriarchy, as currently understood in a consensus of the literature Britannica considers most reliable, is now considered "discredited". I am very happy for that discussion to be added to the article. I didn't research it in detail because it meshed with what I read anyway, and I didn't want to add even more "no matriarchy" material.
 * As it turns out, cross-cultural study of societies that have been claimed to be matriarchal gives a sense of how patriarchy may look with different levels of technology anyway. You may like to consult the appendix for a feel of that. As with most things in the article, they are heavily slanted documenting the concerns raised by "anti-patriarchalists". So, when we look at the details, we are looking at the most "matriarchal" cultures, or least patriarchal ones. It should be evident why the consensus holds that these societies are better considered patriarchal despite the claims sometimes made by some gender scholars working outside anthropology.
 * I conceed that the literature debunking the prehistorical matriarchy theory is very substantial, and would help authenticate Britannica's conclusion, while providing an opportunity to articulate a theory that was, for a time, considered a possibility in the absence of evidence. (Such speculation being typical of the normal working of the scientific method.) The only problem would be giving undue weight to what was a speculation based on limited evidence, but that would only happen if we failed to source it from the references in Britannica. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Flagcruft?
What an interesting article! I've posted here though about the data table, as I don't know what the flags add there. I think it would look better and convey more information if we just had the country names linked in that column. --John (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this very civil comment and well-founded suggestion for improvement. Please find my reply at the link you provided. Looking forward to hearing back from you. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Feminist criticism
Why does this section have claims like the fact that western culture is male dominated, and that it remains patriarchal that are not only pure POV, but unsourced? JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest reading anything published by a major feminist writer in the last couple of years if you'd like to confirm this datum. I'd recommend Naomi Wolf, 'cause I like her best, but feminist writers will explain the situation most clearly. There are men's movement moaners who won't deny it, but it clearly doesn't fit with parts of that movement to focus on things that haven't changed. However, despite my dislike of the men's movement, there are plenty of writers I don't deserve to sharpen a pencil for, who'd admit that many things haven't changed in forty years.
 * But to answer your question, I presume there is no source because you're one of few, of a thousand hits a day, over the last eighteen months (total c. 1/2 million hits), who's actually proposed there is an alternative view. Please tell us! All POVs in published sources are permissible at Wiki.
 * If you're asking for a specific source, every feminist and sociologist cited in this article claims western society is patriarchal at the time of writing, the most recent being 2007 from memory. None saw definitive change in the immediate future. Many are, however, working for change over the next couple of generations that might approach the ideals.
 * But, until the day feminism becomes a study of what people used to have to argue for, and when market forces rather than laws produce equal opportunity, that day we'll know we've arrived at gender equality. Many suspect this will only happen when men give birth to half the babies.
 * I'm sorry, but feminists are too smart to have invested time into seeking matriarchal or egalitarian societies in the most remote of places if they thought they could prove their point by observation of western society itself.
 * But if you know someone who's published that "feminist criticism is about the fact that western culture is not male dominated, and isn't sufficiently patriarchal", or that the Day of Equality has already arrived, please type up the text or give us the reference so we can add this important POV. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing the beginning of the sentence to something like Despite decades of legislation and affirmative action virtually all feminists agree that western culture is still male dominated, and that it remains patriarchal would deal with the POV. Many masculists and men's rights activists (including women who also call themselves feminists but would probably be labeled anti-feminists by other feminists) would argue that in some areas, society is male-dominated and patriarchal and in others it is female-dominated and matriarchal. Just check out the writings of Warren Farrell or Cathy Young. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Steven Goldberg
There is much more recent research on the effects of testosterone. For example, see the references for Testosterone poisoning. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Testosterone poisoning is a "pejorative neologism" (cite Wikipedia, lol). The effects of testosterone are likely to be the subject of research ad infinitum since it has an influence on all sorts of health issues, not just on behaviour. If you have some research that says that testosterone is not as influential on female hyena phallus development and behaviour as it is believed to be, nor with the behaviour of other mammals, including Homo sapiens, please fire away. It's the beauty of science that incomplete theories are being constantly modified by additional data. Perhaps psychology could prove a social cause for female hyena phallus development based on Freud's "penis envy", perhaps there's "biofeedback", many things are possible with incomplete data, and data is often incomplete. Please write up any new research pertinent to the article. The [edit] button is there waiting for you. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the concept of testosterone poisoning. However, that section in the testosterone poisoning article is well researched and some of the sources could be used for this article. For example, according to research, it's not clear whether high testosterone levels increase aggression or whether high levels of aggression increase testosterone. Additionally, depending on which study you look at, high or low levels of testosterone have advantages or disadvantages. The reality is more complex than high testosterone bad and low testosterone good. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd not be surprised to find that the details are complex and could include feedback, whichever causal flow was the main one. Also, see below. Any published research related to the biology of gender is welcome, of course. Interpreting the results also needs published sources. Whatever the story, it would appear that it is now somewhat old news that biology does influence preferences and abilities in behaviour. But it is a matter of record that people did, at one point, suggest biology had no significant influence. That's an important thing to document I'd have thought. But I'm all for plowing on with new results as far as they are relevant. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"(...)At the time he wrote (1973), there were only very limited results from biological researchers to support or contradict his hypothesis. The situation has changed a lot since then." I think this would be a great point to provide an example of such research, like the recent study by the University of Michigan's Departement of Psychology into estrogen's effect on women's need for dominance (a characteristic traditionally attributed to androgens only): http://www.lsa.umich.edu/psych/news/department/news/?id=245 Cherryleaf (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to add any sourced text, Cherryleaf. I'll check out the article, it would be an interesting experimental verification of the traditional interpretation of the curse on the woman in Genesis 3. Experientially, I believe I perceive "control freak" behaviour more often in women than in men, which is why I first rejected the argument of Goldberg's book in my own thinking. However, I've now read so many articles about testosterone in mammals, and speculate that "control-freakishness" is "differently shaped" in women and men. Hence, I'm more happy with the scientific consensus regarding testosterone and aggression. For people like me, though, who are inclined to believe the Bible on such things, we're well aware that science has not, as yet, uncovered the processes with sufficient refinement to prove or disprove the nuanced view available in the biblical text.
 * But that's all another story, although I like this result for various reasons, those reasons are not relevant here. Biology of gender and Sexual dimorphism in humans would be the core places I could think it would be relevant. I see a problem with including the result specifically at the point you mention, though, in that summarising all the results of sex steroid research as well as genetic dimorphism of the brain is well and truly beyond the scope of the article. The text above is suitably vague: "support or contradict", "changed a lot". Consensus says testosterone results alone provide very substantial support. The result you quote needs published evaluation with regard to how it compares quantitatively with testosterone effects in men. It appears the tests were designed quite specifically to be qualitatively analagous, which is perfect, but do we know if women are more dominating by nature than men, as men appear to be naturally more aggressive than women.
 * Perhaps the best thing to do is get the full journal cite for the study and add it to the bibliography of this article and the other two I mentioned (as well as any others that cross your mind). We need to document the result without guessing the interpretation regarding comparisons. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Alistair, thank you for your reply. I understand the concept you are talking about with regard to quantitative vs. qualitative research, however the addition I would like to make is not to state that either hormone is the more dominant one overall. Rather, the article I am quoting states that the research models of the past were male-centric in their approach, and that this has influenced the results : "Women have long been overlooked in biological research on dominance. Using a male model, the small body of existing research has struggled to link testosterone to dominance motivation and behavior in women. However, estrogen is very behaviorally potent and is actually a close hormonal relative to testosterone. In female mammals, estrogen has been tied to dominance, but there has been scant research examining the behavioral roles of estrogen in women. (...) Our findings perfectly parallel what we have observed for power motivation and testosterone in men.(...) In men, power motivation is associated with heightened levels of testosterone, particularly after a contest victory. In women, estrogen appears to be the critical hormone for power motivation.". The results are therefore still valid in my eyes, as they expose a fatal flaw in a reasoning that bases itself on the overall low amount of testosterone found in women. Cherryleaf (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read the article before posting my last. Thank you for quoting it here.
 * In the context of my reading on the subject, which is limited to only a couple of dozen books and several dozen scientific articles, this is an outstanding new result. Indeed, all I've read focusses on testosterone and what it does in mammals male and female, including Homo sapiens. Or it focusses on estrogen and progesterone and its effects on women, especially in fertility and menopause, but not in terms of any "dominance tendency". Note please that study of women has certainly not been neglected, nor has study of their sex steroids.
 * What has indeed been unbalanced is presuming men are more aggressive, and discovering that there is a link to testosterone, then concluding (erroneously) that this proves men are more aggressive and provides an explanation. It doesn't. Studies in the 1990s showed 40% of domestic violence was perpetrated by women on men. This was not expected. But men don't go telling everyone, "help me please, my wife is beating me." No one sets up groups or raises funds to support battered husbands.
 * Anyway, please write whatever you like into the text, it belongs to everyone and if people don't like it they can change it, but they can't remove quotes and citations without good reasons and (normally) support. I'd caution you a little, because the link was to a short journalistic description of the study results and their significance. Some of it seems a little off to me. The basic result sounds fine. What really matters is that women's hormones have also been linked to dominance tendency. I expect that result will be reproduced many times in future studies. If it hasn't yet been done, a comparison of dominance in men to dominance in women, and the relative hormonal correlations will be studied.
 * Finally, I'll note that no one has ever argued that men should dominate simply because they want to. Strangely, I half expect that some may indeed end up changing their minds and deciding women should dominate (or at least have the chance) if their biology leads them to that. Certainly some will probably say dominance should be shared for healthy life. But these things drift into the ethical and political questions.
 * Please, please ignore my comments if they make you shy about editing. Believe me, I want your edit there, because I love facts, and I love people contributing. However, you need to put it into the article, because I'm too busy to think through how to do it well. That's probably a good thing, because you'll probably come up with something better than me anyway! I'm only talking here to let you know someone has noticed you and values this input and sketch a bit of background regarding why others my come and play with whatever you enter, so you won't be surprised if it happens. Tchüß Alastair Haines (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again :) I know and thank you for noticing. It is nice to discuss changes that go beyond gnoming on the talk page first, so I don't really want to ignore the replies I receive! :)

And in fact I think you are correct in saying that this research doesn't fit in at this point as well as I first thought. Having re-read the article, as well as researched a bit about Goldberg and his other books, and his publisher, and the Guiness Record for most rejections, I feel very doubtful about the entire section, and most of the article, so I don't think that simply adding a little bit of balancing research will help. It will actually look quite out of place at this point. To be frank, when I first saw this article I was stunned (and still am). Other language-Wiki articles on patriarchy appear much calmer and more rational, like an encyclopedic entry should. This article to me reads like an advert or argument for patriarchy in too many places. For example, the inclusion of a section on benefits bewilders me, but not as much as the long table in the "Patriarchies in dispute" section, which reads like a list of places "won back from the other side". Goldberg's book, though controversial, may well deserve mention, but one would hope it contained better paragraphs to use as a first quote than "In every society a basic male motivation is the feeling that the women and children must be protected. But the feminist cannot have it both ways: if she wishes to sacrifice all this, all that she will get in return is the right to meet men on male terms. She will lose." Goldberg is clearly arguing for patriarchy. Wikipedia should not. Cherryleaf (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these comments Cherryleaf. Goldberg is pretty much a standard text on what has become consensus. The inevitability of patriarchy got the rejections prior to 1972 when it was "published to acclaim". His second volume, Why men rule, did not receive the same rejection treatment, Brain Sex came out about the same time. He is widely cited.
 * The benefits section should probably be moved to Patriarchy (ideology), along with Feminist criticism. Or maybe not. The problem is, Wiki can't say patriarchy is good, nor can it say it is bad, but there are many people who do hold each POV. The main reason the benefits section is there is simply to make some appearance of including both points of view.
 * The Feminist criticism section is important for a second reason, though. In feminist usage, patriarchy implies sexism—advantaging men at the expense of women. This is a specific and technical usage. It is clearly not the only usage, because the word was used prior to the rise of second wave feminism. In Women of the grassfields, Phyllis Kaberry, sent by the UK govt to investigate if women were being exploited, describes a patriarchal system that she thought fair to women, because although men were often idle while women were working, at other times men took a disproportionate share of heavy work. Also, the commonwealth of the societies were shared communally, women not being excluded from the fruits of their own labour. That responsibilities of "public office" like chief were work loads carried by men did not lead Phyllis to conclude women were in any way disadvantaged. A more recent commentator may differ with Phyllis on this, but Phyllis is the authority on the Bamenda tribes at that earlier point in history, before more modern influences had impacted their culture more deeply.
 * "Won back from the other side" is a cute expression, I get your point. "List of failed misappropriations" would express the opposite POV. Britannica notes that the consensus among anthropologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed, or words to that effect. Does that sound suitably encyclopedic? ;) We don't need to trust Britannica or Goldberg, we can explore the data they list, the societies that have been claimed to be matriarchal, according to the standard ethnographers for those societies.
 * Both Goldberg and Helena Cronin point out that just because all societies are male dominated, it doesn't mean we should accept that, a theologian goes further to say it shows how deep the problem we're facing. Goldberg doesn't argue for patriarchy in his book, except on the very last two or three pages. I can't remember Cronin taking any side. Daphne Hampson is against patriarchy, but thinks its everywhere, and probably biological. But the point is, that simply because something is so, it doesn't imply that it ought to be so. Denying that something bad exists, is like burying our head in the sand. Cynthia Eller makes that point in Why an invented past won't give women a future.
 * This article gets criticised as being pro-feminist because of the FC section and somewhat more regularly, and usually more articulately, criticised along the lines you are proposing. I don't see either myself. It describes the scope of the phenomenon of the title according to reliably sourced consensus. It provides the scientific hypothesis generally offered to explain the phenomenon. It provides examples and history, killing two birds with one stone, by providing the list critics of the consensus have compiled, but the standard sources for those societies, which explain the consensus position.
 * The Goldberg quote at the top of the section was added to verify that Goldberg predicted that feminism would not achieve many of its aims, because the title Inevitability of patriarchy was not deemed sufficient, if you don't like the quote, feel free to put reference tags around it and hide it in footnotes. That should make both parties happy. If you think the section is a quote farm, you can do the same with some of the other quotes. If the section then looks thin, put some back! :) Alternatively, I'd be happy to expand the section with more of an outline of Goldberg's data and argument.
 * Helena Cronin, David M. Buss and Simon Baren-Cohen are biologists and psychologists who have investigated the same sorts of things more recently. Your source is the only one I've heard of that proposes anything like a biological argument for female dominance tendency. It gives me a good excuse to email Goldberg again, ask him what he thinks (not that we can publish an email response), but also ask for appropriate permission to use the photo he sent me.
 * Sorry for the wall of text, but you did raise a lot of substantial points. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again :) thanks for your detailed reply. I will try to be brief.
 * Yes, I think moving several sections, such as the benefits, to a more appropriate place would be a great idea. Personally I think a section on the History of Patriarchy or Views on Patriarchy, with a link to a dedicated page perhaps, could work well, also for the list of countries (with references) currently placed under Appendix. In a page like that, appropriate criticism and comments can then be added, which needs to include issues raised on the influence of class and race, as well as implications of different definitions of the terminology.


 * Quoting Britannica on matriarchal societies should certainly be encyclopedic - for articles concerned with matriarchy. Why present patriarchy, which is itself called a "hypothetical social system" in Britannica, as dependant on or influenced by the existence of matriarchy at this stage? This is especially problematic as not only are both terms loaded in popular use, but both have several different interpretations and usages (and once in popular use, these cannot simply be discarded by stating they are "wrong").


 * Neutrality is not always quite the same as being balanced, because whereas balance can also be achieved by adding extreme statements (like for example gendercide) to give each side a voice, what I mean with neutrality here is that the article does not get so deeply involved in perceived "sides". Their existence should not be ignored, but in-depth discussion should not be attempted here.


 * Regarding Goldberg, quotes should be representative, and wording is extra important with sensitive terms like this. While the quotes state that no value should be judged from this, they say that patriarchy is a natural consequence. The section alludes to reasons beyond testosterone, but never states them, making is simply sexist. If that is doing Goldberg an injustice, then this section has to be changed a lot, too.
 * Cherryleaf (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making my reply worthwhile by providing your own reply. Never feel the need to be brief, it's a written medium and if I fall asleep while reading I won't have the embarrasment of being seen to do so. ;) Just give as much or as little as you have when you're free.
 * It's exciting that you're interested in both starting sub pages and in moving the opinions. I hope you agree that both POVs—in favour of patriarchy and against—need to be in the same article. It's the Wiki NPOV policy, neutral because it both presents all major views and doesn't decide for the reader which is correct. There's also a policy to support the NPOV policy, which forbids POV forking, i.e. splitting oposing opinions, so editors supporting either view don't fight with one another. Wiki insists people play fair and work together to ensure both views are heard.
 * Anyway, what's exciting for me is that you may share my opinion that neither benefits, nor criticisms need remain in this article if we simply focus on the history, geographical diversity, and biological research. There's a Wiki tag we can put right at the top, "For arguments pro and con patriarchy see Blah blah blah".
 * I appreciate your point about usage. That's why the first thing I did when I arrived at this article was create or extend Patriarchy (disambiguation). There is ordinary English usage, which this article addresses, then there are other uses. But, of course, there is also a lot of overlap, articles and information can be reorganized quite flexibly, up to a point. Everything can be merged here, or even more articles could be created.
 * Personally, I think most people are interested in the debate for or against patriarchy, that debate doesn't need a lot of historical, geographical or biological detail, except at points where it's relevant. Should women get equal pay for equal work, for example. I know some sources that say no, and lots that say yes. Neither argument interacts with history, geography or biology, or at least not much beyond pregnancy. The main argument for equal pay focusses on individual rights, the main argument against focusses on efficiency, market forces and derivative benefits for everyone. At least, as far as I remember. Anyway, the point is, we don't need to reproduce the whole feminism article under another heading, nor the whole "plain English" patriarchy article in a "Patriarchy and justice" article.
 * The sort of things you are saying about terminology and race and class sound exactly like Patriarchy and justice issues. It's a huge topic. There are thousands of accessible sources. And there's certainly little regarding ethical issues in the current article. It really needs writing up, and a link from this article. If you're really interested in starting such an article, it will be an asset to Wiki that can be built upon. You don't need to do it all yourself.
 * I haven't addressed everything you wrote. But I've raised a whole lot more issues. Do these trigger any specific suggestions or further comments? Alastair Haines (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of removed tags
I've removed three tags that have been placed without discussion:
 * 1) neutrality and factual accuracy of the feminist section,
 * 2) an update request for the Goldberg section, and
 * 3) a "too many quotes" tag, also on the Goldberg section.

Tags are designed to reflect talk page consensus, or a failure of consensus to address the issues raised.

The tags above cannot be addressed unless specific points in the feminist section are indicated that are considered non-neutral or inaccurate. Since the section purports to document the feminist view, it cannot be held against it that it presents that POV. If it presents it unfairly, or inaccurately, please specify where, or feel free to add to it.

Goldberg first wrote in 1972, he updated in 1993 and Britannica 2008 confirms his data still reflect anthropological consensus. Historical societies don't change, and interpretations of their social structures tend to stabilize over time, not change radically.

Finally, quotes can be buried as footnotes, and their contents paraphrased in the main text, if a few people agree that there are too many of them. The section is not a list of quotes, but an overview supported by quotes relevant to the topic of the article. This is a style issue with much flexibility to accommodate taste, but taste cannot be addressed if it isn't explained here in talk.

If there is any support for the tags, please provide specific suggestions or even general discussion of the issues here. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No matriarchal societies?
What about the Mosou? &mdash;Memotype:: T 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Mosuo are indeed frequently called a matriarchal society in non-technical publications and the popular press. Technically they are considered matrilineal, not matriarchal. The Wikipedia article has more information about this, including the talk page, where a professional anthropologist, who lives with the Mosuo has provided a range of references.
 * In fact, the Mosuo are sometimes billed as the "only" or the "last surviving" matriarchy. Thus, they are an important "boundary case" for this article, however, they are not quite unique. There are other matrilineal societies that have been similarly proposed to be matriarchies. The list at the bottom of the article includes the Mosuo, along with other similar societies, and provides quotes from the standard ethnographies, as listed in various works.
 * If I remember correctly, the Mosuo are closely related to other tribes, collectively known as Na or Nachi. Other Na tribes are uncontroversially patriarchal. There is evidence, though not conclusive, that in relatively recent history the Na were defeated in battle and many men killed or enslaved, and that this indeed resulted in women taking roles normally held by men in other Na tribes.
 * If you ask me, the Mosuo probably are close to a matriarchy, but I'm not an expert. The experts are very careful in how they define the terms matriarchy and matrilineal and how they use them. I recommend the Wikipedia article on the Mosuo as a good start for anyone wanting to investigate the question in more detail. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make the claim that there's no matriarchy society, then there's need to introduce the concept of matrilineal society upfront. Else this article will sound VERY biased to any lay person.

As for the Mosuo, they certainly do NOT consider themselves as Naxi. They have different languages and religion. The gender roles are not simply being reversed. For example the men do not marry into the women's families. Their relationships are completely devoid of materialistic consideration as properties stay with their respective families. These and other features make the claim that their society had been historically patriarchy a bit hard to swallow. Cindy6 (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those comments Cindy. I'll reply to you, although I make no claims personally, I've just been involved in copying published views into the article. But your first point, since it addresses editorial discretion in layout, is something we have a lot more freedom with.
 * To rephrase your point, if the article is to present Britannica's assessment that the universality of patriarchy in Homo sapiens social structure is now a matter of "consensus" among anthropological scholars, you believe any non-specialist reader's potential suspicions of bias might be averted were we to introduce, in parallel (as though it were an alternative POV) that matrilineal societies are, however, uncontroversially common.
 * I think that's a very clever suggestion indeed. The talk page alone is sufficient evidence that readers have thought the anthropological opinion biased. Some have though the article biased towards feminism, most have thought it biased against. Of course it is neither, but it's tedious reminding people that something is a sourced opinion, if we can present things in a way that deflects the rash judgements normal people quite understandably make.
 * I've already implied that introducing matrilineal societies in parallel (not in advance) should achieve the same aim, while avoiding another criticism readers have made, viz the article is about patriarchy, not matriarchy (or matrilineality). Of course, you can't please all the people all the time, not all criticism is valid etc. etc. But where we can accommodate feedback without compromising reliable sources, that's got to be a good thing.
 * Your suggestion pushes me to thinking we should indeed do something like this, right at the top of the lead. In fact, we already do, but we can do even more if we simply utilize the basic principle of "summary style". There are a few significant caveats to the "anthropological consensus". That it is science not ethics is already mentioned, matrilineality could also be mentioned (in summary style). Additionally, that there are small societies with arguably no structured community leadership ("egalitarian") societies is addressed in the literature in a variety of ways, including a published debate between Lipowsky and Goldberg regarding the Vanatinai (which ought to be in the bibliography here imo).
 * Obviously, we can't give WP:UNDUE weight to topics, either those held by individuals or ideological groups only, or those tangential to the subject of the article; however, I'd argue that reasonable readers would endorse editorial discretion catering for other, more ideologically sensitive readers, so long as we don't allow it to complicate what is ultimately a clear, published consensus based on extensive evidence.
 * With regard to the Mosuo. You speak as though you know much more about them than I do. Certainly, your suggestion sounds reasonable to me and I believe you, but it is contrary to what I have read in several, independent, otherwise reliable sources, including the professional anthropologist who lives and works with them, and edits at Wiki. I think this is because there is equivocation on the term patriarchy between you and some of the major sources. Personally, I (and some sources like Goldberg) would agree with you, the lack of materialism renders mute much of what many associate with the term patriarchy, however, there are other factors, they are discussed in the literature, and we are bound to limiting the range of POVs expressed in the text to those that have already been published somewhere, and without being drawn into some of the "hair-splitting" academic literature can do so well and helpfully, but sits ill in the encyclopedic medium.
 * Sorry if my reply is too wordy. I like your ideas very much indeed, and trust you would concur with the minor (if wordy) cautions I've noted while articulating substantial agreement with you. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section
The discussion of etymology and terminology as it stood nearly made me weep. For some reason it was discussing Greek genitives and vowels instead of the term in question. I have tried to fix it. It is important to note that the term in the meaning discussed here was coined in the Early Modern period, according to OED first used by Francis Bacon. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The etymology material made me weep once and was part of prompting my very first edits at Wiki. But it was accurate and relevant. I agree that usage information should be added to etymology. I'll look at your work when I get time. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions
Two paragraphs have been added under the Feminist criticism section. One of these reads as a non-neutral endorsement of various feminist views, the second makes claims that contradict the reliable sources cited in the rest of the article. Hopefully neither is much trouble to fix, the first para can be rephrased to express the information from the NPOV; and the second, if it can be sourced, would provide an alternative POV--so long as it is not simply a defunct or otherwise marginal POV and hence WP:UNDUE.

Apparently two weeks is considered reasonable time to offer editors a chance to source any additions challenged as WP:OR. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

... and the Lead
A considerable portion of sourced and stable lead was removed and the following unsourced and partisan text provided.

Perhaps we can work out some tweaking to work the new material into the article. Here is what was provided.

Historical Western civilization has been pronouncedly patriarchic until the 19th century, and has been gravitating towards a more egalitarian form during the 20th century under the influence of the Women's rights movement. The major non-Western civilizations in the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia remain pronouncedly patriarchic. Tribal societies, by contrast, are not universally patriarchal, and a number of indigenous matrilineal societies with egalitarian structures are on record.

Patrilineality in countries suffering from overpopulation tends to lead to female deselection and a youth bulge of supernumerary young males.

Issues
 * style: patriarchal rather than patriarchic would seem to be accepted usage
 * neutrality? clarity?: "pronouncedly" — How is degree of patriarchy measured? Who has done this? Do all agree?
 * precision?: "gravitating" — Which aspects of 20th C west. civ. are egalitarian? How measured? Who says? Minority opinions? If 20th C west was egal in 1970s, why did 2nd wave fem. start? If 21st C is egal, why is there 3rd wave fem? etc.
 * cause and effect: egalitarianism is often attributed to the enlightenment, and women's issues seen as arising out of this (so say many feminist and neutral historians). Specifically who, says specifically which features of contemporary west. civ. are evidence of "women's rights" movements bringing egal. rather than vice versa?
 * style: which specific movement is intended by the partially capitalised "Women's rights" designator?
 * fact: name one non-patriarchal tribal society, with ethnographic commentary on that society in support of the conclusion (i.e. professional eye-witness reports by anthropologists).
 * facts: does overpopulation lead to female infanticide, or are there other causes? Who says? Is the well-known male "accident hump" (see Life table) leading to dramatically higher male mortality around adolescence and early adulthood ever even close to being challenged by female infanticide rates? Who says?

This is some number of issues to cover, but there's no rush. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

well, it's a suggestion for an actual WP:LEAD. The lead as it stood was addressing matriarchy rather than patriarchy. This is a fallacy: while matriarchy is a concept significantly based on patriarchy (i.e., a notion arrived at by "inverting" patriarchy), the concept patriarchy isn't in any way derived from that of matriarchy, and doesn't need to take recourse to the more theoretical concept of matriarchy in order to be introduced. Patriarchy is simply the predominant form of societal organization in the world's historical civilizations.

Now if we can agree the lead needs a conceptual and historical outline of the actual article topic (per WP:LEAD), we can address your concerns point by point, and arrive at an improved phrasing. To begin with, I would appreciate it if you showed the good grace of actually visiting the articles linked and see if they have proper references as opposed to a tongue-in-cheek devil's advocate attitude airily asking "who says". which specific movement is intended by the partially capitalised "Women's rights" designator? isn't a bona fide criticism of the statement that the women's rights movement resulted in a change in Western society over the 20th century towards egalitarianism. I am not here to play games over perfectly undisputed points. If you don't like the capital W, just change it to w in a minor edit, I won't revert you.

Regarding "non-patriarchy". We should note, as I did at the matriarchy article, as well as the List of matrilineal or matrilocal societies one, that "male dominance in the public realm" is considered a cultural universal. I suppose this is what you mean. It is nevertheless true that there is such a thing as egalitarian society. There is a sliding scale between "patriarchic" and "egalitarian" (not between "patriarchic" and "matriarchic"): if there wasn't, we could just redirect this article to society and categorize the egalitarian one as "fiction". While centralized empires are universally patriarchic, tribal society, especially "primitive" band society, tends to be less patriarchic, especially if their lineage is matrilineal. You are preaching to the choir if your point is that matrilineal societies may still be patriarchic.

If we can agree on the general shape of this, we can address specific phrasings and specific unreferenced or dubious points in good faith. But I am not prepared to carry all the burden of constructivity in the face of passive resistance, so let's collaborate. --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored the sourced material from the lead and had a go at rewriting the second section according to my understanding of sources. I imagine both will be somewhat frustrating to you. I'm very happy for you to delete or replace my reworking of your material, however I'm very reluctant to deprive readers of the sources that establish the universality of patriarchy, especially since Britannica notes this is the anthropological "consensus". That's a pretty key datum, I'd have thought.
 * I take your point that the second paragraph addresses patriarchy less directly. Specifically, I like your suggestion that matriarchy is a concept derived from patriarchy rather than the reverse. I don't recall reading anyone saying just that, but the hypothetical "matriarchal age", passingly refered to in the Britannica quote, I know to be a theory of just the type you describe. So I don't think we'd be deceiving readers to be working together using your idea.
 * Mead's comment has nothing to do with matriarchy, given as it was as an endorsement for a book on patriarchy. Not only is she a reliable source, but even your removal of her points indicates how close the two concepts have been from about Mead's time until the "consensus" Britannica mentions. She's talking about patriarchy, but you inadvertently thought she was talking negatively about matriarchy. I don't think you were wrong! They are the same thing. ;)
 * On reflection, I suspect logically Mead should precede the matriarchy comments. That would be an improvement I've overlooked because I'm concerned to "break the news gently" to a reader. It looks pretty strong to a reader for us to quote a writer, even as famous as she is, saying: "Men everywhere have been in charge of running the show. ... men have been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home." And even though Britannica follows her lead, albeit 35 years later.
 * The Mead quote would raise the "no reason to believe they ever existed" point, leading to matriarchy being a more concise way of speaking of that competing view. That in turn would encourage some statement regarding debate related to the possibility of egalitarian societies.
 * Would you agree that's the order in which the terms have come into the literature: patriarchy, matriarchy, egalitarian? That's not such a bad summary both of concepts and history of scholarship I'd think, in regard to what a lead could be.
 * But I'm not sure you're convinced that Britannica is correct. I'm not sure what to do if that's the case. But I won't know what you think unless I ask. What do you think? Alastair Haines (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I just noticed the "passive resistance" comment. I so agree with you! Not about me, here, of course, I think my edit history shows I've been "actively contributing" sources here or there at this article. But the biggest bugbear I find at Wiki is the passive resisters—"I still don't understand what you're saying". Don't worry, I'm not that type, but I am a stickler for sources. I think you and I have different angles on this topic, that's a good thing so long as we both play fair. Everything you've said so far suggests a man of erudition, courtesy and sincerity. You're welcome to your "passive resistance" aside. I wouldn't say that to everyone! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Mead and Britannica misquotes?
Please forgive any breach of etiquette -- this is my very first edit -- but my position is so unusual that I believe some background is in order. My mission is to re-establish patriarchy around the world, and crossing swords with feminists, wherever and whenever they will allow me, is a core (and enjoyable) activity.

There is a crucial ‘always’ missing from the last sentence of your Margaret Mead quote, according to the back cover of “Why Men Rule”. This seriously weakens her statement, if true, but I do not have access to the original Red Book review to check it out. Please reinsert, if possible.

Your emphasis on Encyclopaedia Britannica’s use of the word ‘hypothetical’ to describe matriarchy, though understandable, is cheating; for they also describe patriarchy as hypothetical! I know it is wrong, I know it’s unforgivable, but it’s just one more sign of how far women have triumphed in the last century. I am afraid that in all honesty you ought to take it out.

Congratulations on fighting such a stalwart rear-guard action in defence of a word that is at the heart of humanity, but I fear you are destined to defeat, unless you confront women directly. Despite directives to the contrary, I believe Wikipedia is an appropriate forum for this effort. After all, you know very well that the women are never going to give up! And, in all honesty, would you really want them to? Duncan Butlin (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Duncan,
 * I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Perhaps I'll check out the Mead quote on microfilm, though I'm not sure adding "always" would enhance what is already in the article, nor that omitting it alters the sense.
 * As regards Britannica, I'm well aware of the use of "hypothetical" in both articles, but in the patriarchy article it is used to distinguish a nineteenth century view that human civilization was matriarchal until some point in prehistory, only after that becoming patriarchal. Both are hypothetical in the sense that "we have no reason to believe them", to again quote Mead. They were fashionable theories extrapolated from archeological artifacts and reconstruction of proto languages.
 * I do believe it would be an asset to this article to discuss those 19th century views, because they do still have currency in educated circles, although they are debunked in anthropology 101 all over the world these days (or so I've been told by people I read). In this long article, I think we need to stick to scientific treatment of the topic, moving ideological treatment to androcentrism or something.
 * It sounds to me like you would be the perfect volunteer to write up the "pro" case for androcracy at the ideological page, and I'd be happy to provide moral support as you struggle on against the "unwashed hordes".
 * Of course there is a place for published material regarding the evergreen benefits of patriarchy at Wikipedia. ;) Just as its many references to condemnation of this besetting sin of humanity are also part of offering the mature reflections of human knowledge at no cost to readers. Wikipedia welcomes sourced material in favour of patriarchy, and there are many good people here who will defend that, despite their personal convictions to the contrary. You should not feel shy about contributing. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I checked my copy of Why Men Rule, our version of the quote was indeed marred by the absence of that word. Very occasionally sourced material vanishes from Wiki for no apparant reason. More likely this was my negligence in typing up the quote. Please feel free not to trust my skills as a typist. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alastair,

Thank you so much for fixing Margaret Mead’s statement. It warms the cockles of my heart to read the words as I know them. I learnt them by heart, many years ago, and quoting them in pubs has won me many an argument. I quote George Eliot to similar effect. “Why Men Rule” is my weapon of choice in public: I brandish it extravagantly at every passing women, in the hopes of provoking an attack. In restaurants I carefully aim the spine at those seated nearby. It works like a charm -- every such encounter so far has been an absolute delight.

On Britannica I beg to differ: they apply ‘hypothetical’ to the general meaning of the word, not to any particular period of time. Their ‘modern consensus’ comes close to placing patriarchy and matriarchy on an equal footing! If this is not plain evidence of a word in its death throws, I don’t know what is. The definition of sexism in the ‘Oxford Companion to Philosophy’ is in a similar state of disarray.

Thanks also for the encouragement and your offer of support, but I fear I am far from ready to go into print at the moment. Every time I set pen to paper, I remember the poor men who have been disgraced or sacked for talking as I do. . .  and my confidence just flies out the window. Duncan Butlin (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A man's chief quality is courage according to Cicero. Whether or not George Eliot had it I do not know, but I do know she was a woman. I hope that your confidence picks up. I'll revisit Britannica, since one as erudite and passionate as yourself suggests my reading is mistaken. But if the ethnologies cited in this article are examples of matriarchy, as people have proposed, indeed there is equality between matriarchy and patriarchy, not merely equality, but isomorphism it would appear. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alastair,

I had not seen the cited ethnologies listed under “cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal”, under ‘See also’ at the end of the article. I presume these are the ones to which you refer? I cannot believe you have done so much work on this -- please accept my heartfelt congratulations and gratitude -- but I worry that by bending over backwards to be fair, you lend strength to the opposition (see last para).

My erudition is skin deep, I fear -- I am a retired electrical engineer from the oilfield! I call myself an amateur sociobiologist for academic purposes, and suffrageur extraordinaire when I mount my high horse. It is the last paragraph of Middlemarch that I quote. George Eliot had the courage to acknowledge women’s place in the world, and to write it down in (reasonably) plain English. Dorothea stands for all of womankind.

The proposed ethnologies are NOT matriarchies, however, and the urge to hark on about them must be vigourously suppressed. If man stands idle by, or worse, talks up the female side, woman’s gossip takes over the world. All talk of equality and isomorphism is mere feminist propaganda, and as such has no place in Wikipedia, other than under that very heading. But there is absolutely no way to keep it out -- we are all human, after all, and enjoy a dig at the opposite sex. Accordingly, I propose each author should declare his or her sex, to warn us of potential problems. The easiest way would be to print the text in different colours: red for men, green for women. Anything printed in black would have to be the result of a collaboration between a man and woman, hopefully husband and wife? Duncan Butlin (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do so enjoy you dropping by Duncan. Yes indeed, we are all the result of collaboration between a man and a woman, marriage or no. We have a saying in Australia, you might find cheering, Duncan: "Don't let the results of unmarried collaboration get you down!" Illegitimi non carborundum! Cheers mate. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alastair,

Watcha, cobber! I am glad you enjoy my visits. But maybe not after this one! Please allow me to correct you: your Aussie saying does not support bastardy -- nor should it. Even when they stick around, unmarried men in the UK abandon their children twice as quickly as married men. Single motherhood is far worse, of course, but the fatherless child is still to be pitied, however late in his childhood he is abandoned. He is quite properly called a bastard. If we were honest, we would extend the term to cover children whose father abandons them in a divorce.

Bastardy is closely linked to patriarchy, because it undermines the male roles of husband and father. Every illegitimate birth diminishes male authority -- a crime for which all parties should be punished. Duncan Butlin (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Duncan, there are subtle clues in your language that suggest you are familiar with Wikipedia conventions. One of those conventions is avoiding discussing the subject of an article except so far is it is relevant to improving the article.
 * If you are for real, you show the classic misunderstanding so often overlooked in discussion of patriarchy—it is about a burden of responsibility not a license to power. In what society do masters give dimond rings to their slaves?
 * I've been good natured until now, but I'm afraid I can only spare the time to interact with you regarding specifics of the article from here on. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
Thanks to the tagger who recently provided me with a mandate for an overdue and widespread cleanup. This article is regularly subjected to injections of unsourced POV by addition or subtraction, including removal of sourced material that establishes facts. Having said that, genuine improvements are sometimes made, the recent expansion of the Etymology section being an outstanding example of helpful additions.

I will shortly restore the article to something like the form that has previously been accepted, under much scrutiny, as being sourced and stable, retaining those improvements that have survived other edits.

Once I have done so, I would appreciate content changes being discussed prior to inclusion. Of course that may be bypassed (as a short-cut), but at the risk of being reverted should it be out of line with sources or policy.

If anyone would like to request a peer-review for the article--that might better satisfy some readers with strong POVs. If there is a peer-review I am happy to scrutinise the reviewers, to ensure sourced material is not silenced to accomodate any desire among a team to maintain internal harmony, and that any individual reviewer is not overlooked as a potential source of systematic bias.

Discussions of content at this article are always welcome. Especially if they are courteous and address being faithful to sources, rather than comporomising this for the sake of perceptions of future harmony. Silencing what has achieved consensus among academics promotes disharmony, not the reverse. This is the wisdom of WP:RS. Reconcile people's sensitivities to sources, rather than sources to people's sensitivities. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Better organization of article
Per the above, it would be helpful to list the diff to better versions. Besides having huge expanses of unsourced, WP:OR, WP:POV or questionably relevant material, the current organization is very poor. To make it more in keeping with wikipedia standards and formatting (not to mention even the most basic academic standards), I recommend something like the below, depending on sources. (Note matriarchy could benefit from similar structure where WP:RS exist and will cross post much of this there).
 * Short Lead
 * Etymology and related terms
 * Scientific views
 * Biological sciences
 * Sociology/Psychology or Social Psychology, as most appropriate
 * Anthropology
 * Political science
 * Gender studies (which is interdisciplinary)
 * Other viewpoints
 * Historical
 * Religious and mythological
 * Popular culture
 * Feminism
 * Sexual supremacist (male or female)
 * Issues (that cut across some or all of the above):
 * nature v. nurture-related issues
 * debate over whether and what societies matriarchal/patriarchal (short and link to table article)
 * debates on whether patriarchy is good, bad or neutral
 * etc.

Other issues with current article:
 * The "Table Patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal" aka List of patriarchal societies and its reference below only should be linked to; they don't belong in the article.
 * Goldberg when entered where relevant should be short paragraph at most; currently way way WP:Undue CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to have someone to talk to.
 * Your proposed structure seems workable at a quick glance. Please go ahead and start adding text, citing as you go! :)
 * I'm presuming you must know the literature better than I, cause WP:UNDUE requires knowledge of that context to establish it.
 * Goldberg is everywhere when the science of patriarchy is considered. Who do you think are the earlier and more notable figures? Who has taken over from Goldberg? What are the other big names? I expect I'll learn from the books you reference.
 * I'm looking into the evolutionary biologists at the moment, Pierre van den Berghe seems to be a pioneer in that field, coming a little later than Goldberg, and refining the theory to sexual selection, not merely hormones.
 * List of patriarchal societies needs to be deleted, don't you think, since it lists only the societies thought to be least patriarchal. All societies are patriarchal according to the academic consensus, so the current list is like having a West Pole article. ;)
 * We could just rename the list, but is there a policy to allow lists to be orphans relevant to only one other article? I haven't looked into it, but I have created orphaned lists before that were promptly deleted.
 * Could you have a go at stating Goldberg's theory in two or three sentences? Take more if you wish, but I'd also be interested in your personal views regarding it. It certainly was central in the late 20th century scientific and sociological discussion of patriarchy, so it's a good place for us to start according to your proposed structure. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One purpose of better organization is so that people who might want to edit can find a place to slot in their WP:RS info and not throw up their hands at disorganization, or worry that there is some strange POV implicit in disorganization that will delete their material for some weird reason - which does happen in a lot of articles. So let's encourage editors who know the literature to join in.
 * With search engines one doesn't have to be an expert on every topic one edits; fast and motivated wiki researchers who know how to tease out the best experts and best sources can get up to date pretty quick and get a good overview which will put the contributions of all researchers and academics, with or without strong POVs, in perspective. How do you think I came up with that outline in one hour?? ;-) Follow up with in put from others with more knowledge of area and off we go. After that it's just a matter of finding main points, sourcing them, and letting interested wiki readers follow the WP:RS links for more details.
 * Re: List and Table here, it took me several passes to figure out that the table was a reference for the list. That needs to be made clearer.
 * Re: List of patriarchal societies. Since you are more familiar with what's in that article and what's in this article, maybe you can save some time and explain what the issue is. Some people call it a list of patriarchal societies and others of societies that were called matriarchal but really were patriarchal? Which ever, the Lists article name should reflect what it is and be changed if necessary to do so. Then it's relevance to this article becomes clear. Having the same table with two difference descriptions is very confusing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that this article needs some serious reorganization. It appears to have grown rather organically and thus assumed a rather haphazard arrangement. I went ahead and moved all the remaining list material from this article to the newly renamed Cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal article and linked to it from the See Also section. Hopefully, that will give us a bit of room to work at least. :) Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I think the lengthy "Biology of gender" section here is unnecessary. There should be a few paragraphs discussing specifically how biology relates to patriarchy and a See Also link should be provided to the full Biology of gender article. There is no reason for this article to include discussion of why men are more likely to have autism, how sexual dimorphism in rat brains is genetically programmed, how John Money pioneered the study of gender identity, or how the "PCDH11X/Y gene pair is unique to Homo sapiens". Much of that content is not directly relevant to the subject of patriarchies. Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @Carol: Yup, you describe exactly the process I use when working on an article just because I want to learn about the subject, and what I tend to do if seeking to bring myself up to speed to help in an existing article. It was a pleasure to see you show up, because many other people get involved because of ideological commitments. That sometimes leads to tense exchanges.
 * @Kaldari as well: The list survived a month at TfD with no objectors save the proposer. Some of the comments noted that the list belongs in the article, it is very specific, it establishes the grounds on which anthropologists have decided that all societies are patriarchal. Personally, I agree. Who would look for a "list of patriarchal societies that have been considered by some to be matriarchies"? Only someone who wanted proof of the extraordinary claim that all societies are patriarchal. Where is that claim made? In the Patriarchy article!
 * However, I also disagree! ;) The matriarchy article could certainly do with referencing the same list (only the weight of editorial feeling at that article means it may not be as popular). Perhaps we should do a Wiki-esque POV merge (rather than fork) and have Patriarchy and matriarchy as an article, forcing the two ideas into the same namespace so we don't get silly contradictions flowing from a POV-fork.
 * @Kaldari only: I'm glad you've become sufficiently confident about the issues involved in academic debate of patriarchy that you're satisfied that brain sexual dimorphism is no longer central to the subject. That's news to me, but I don't follow publications closely. I admit it's not the first thing that would have crossed my mind either, were patriarchy my interest, and I'd be happy to learn that this aspect of the subject had been resolved in a more obvious way. But I can only work with the anthropological and evolutionary biological sources that seem most prone to discussing the subject.
 * Back to Carol: thanks for reflecting the Goldberg question back to me. But I'll flip it back again, if you'll forgive me, it's not hard to find his famous theory of patriarchy and once you've found it, you'll see why it is foundational. Certainly we need to work on presenting it more fully and clearly in this article. I get the sense you're a writer and researcher in the Wiki context. It'd be great to have your help with this, likewise you too Kaldari. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good starts!! Especially with List/Table! I have a bunch of projects on my plate right now so researching patriarchy and matriarchy will happen over the next month or so, with ocassional comments, and maybe a crack at etymology, and then I'll probably be ready to make more concrete proposals and changes to both articles. Though I can see matriarchy may be more problematic for reasons those of you who edit there may already be aware ;-( As for Goldberg, the point is that no matter how important a person is to any topic (not named after themselves), unless its a WP:BLP biography, that's just too much info for one person. Some of that info could be moved to his bio, if not already there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plausible generalisation, but I recommend you withhold judgment until you read the literature. Special Relativity has a fairly large section on Albert Einstein's views on the subject. English literature may have a section on William Shakespeare. WWII articles occasionally have sections on Adolf Hitler. Feminism typically discusses Simone de Beauvoir. Sexology refers to Money and Diamond. I'm sure you take my point.
 * Drop a note on my talk page when you're ready. I've never had anyone volunteer to help with this article before. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @Alastair: I would certainly never propose that we remove the issue of sexual dimorphism from the article, I'm just saying that this article needs to be more focused on the topic of patriarchy. Going into detail about sexual dimorphism in rats and chimpanzees is unnecessary digression. This is also true regarding the issue of patriarchal cultures that have been called matriarchal. Yes, we need to discuss the issue in the article, but we don't need a detailed examination of the role of the garden magician in the Boyowan culture. This is an encyclopedia article, not a research paper. Our role is to summarize information and opinions, not to present them in minute detail, especially when the article is lacking in many other areas. Kaldari (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's deal with one thing at a time. Sexual dimorphism in regard to male dominance behaviour is widely discussed in the literature and this article currently has only scattered interaction with that. I agree we need to expand treatment. We can nut out how to do that when you have time to contribute sourced text on the subject. I'm in no rush and I'll be around when you're ready.
 * I think sexual dimorphism in humans is relevant to the article, the rest can be cut or summarized. Kaldari (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read about testosterone and female hyena anatomy. We don't need that in the article, of course. But please consider that sources determine what is relevant to human sexual dimorphism. Who's proposing that male sea-horse pregnancy is relevant here? Looking forward to evaluating sourced opinions on the topic. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As regards garden magicians in the Boyowan culture, I prefer to accept the testimony documented in the literature that professionals consider that social role to be significant in considering dominance behaviour. You and I really couldn't judge things like that could we? Gardners? Status? Slap me with a trout! We rely on things like encyclopedias to point us to what professionals think are pertinent. Again, I'll wait until you have time to engage more with the literature. Then we can refine together how to fairly and realistically present what the experts tell us about the subject. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it's tangentially relevant, but so are 10,000 other things. Encyclopedia articles are about presenting broad concepts, not hashing out all the minute details. Surely you don't believe that an encyclopedia article about patriarchy should include specific and detailed refutations of every culture in the world that has been called matriarchal? Would you expect to find such a table in the Encyclopedia Britannica article on patriarchy? Personally, I think the table doesn't really belong on Wikipedia at all and should probably be deleted, per WP:SYNTH, but I'm OK with letting it live for the timebeing as a list article that can be referenced by both the patriarchy and matriarchy articles. We do, after all, have a lot of random junk in Wikipedia. I suppose leaving it doesn't hurt anything. It definitely doesn't belong here, though. Kaldari (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Before expressing your opinion on this, it might have been worth reading the archived debate regarding precisely the suggestion you make. After one month of listing for comment, that position was not supported by anyone but the proposer. Additionally, at least one editor (other than me) expressed the opinion that the table was specific to this article and should be located within it. It only makes sense in this article (or matriarchy). Because it could be used at matriarchy, though, I think a template or list does make sense. I don't really care where it is, but do you really believe readers will swallow the universality of patriarchy whole, without seeing the evidence that has been published to establish the point? Lots of comments at this talk page show that people do indeed need to see evidence. When they don't, they rewrite the article to reflect their own, unsourced opinion. The table is long, dammit, but unfortunately readers demand it ... somewhere. Where? Well, let's keep talking, I'm pretty open. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

- Alastair, fight off these masked invaders! Please stand firm. Do not be seduced by their clever words. Both Carol Moore and Kaldari sound helpful, despite their insulting criticisms, but they are actually bent on castrating your article!

Far from pioneering in this area, Dr. John Money’s work was destroyed by Professor Goldberg’s criticism, as confirmed by more recent investigation. Though Professor Pierre van den Berghe heroically tried to defend the male perspective on many occasion, he ended up weakening it; and by accepting the name change from sociobiology to evolutionary psychology he admitted his own defeat. Kaldari’s canard that sex differences are irrelevant (oh, all right then: the “Biology of Gender” section, or sexual dimorphism) is just that. “Equality of the sexes” is anathema to defining patriarchy, so there is no better place to rubbish it.

Balance is the key. We all accept that the idea of patriarchy cannot be separated from matriarchy, so maintaining an appropriate balance is paramount. The relative length of the two articles should reflect the relative importance of the two concepts. Since patriarchy is fundamental to human society, while matriarchy is simply a myth, a ratio of fifty to one would be about right.

At the moment the balance is an utter disaster -- your are only about 20% ahead of the game. After CM and K have finished with their cutting and ‘tidying up’, I can guarantee you this advantage will have been reversed. Can you not see what they are up to? Surely there is a way you can stop them? The patriarchy entry must grow, not shrink, relative to the matriarchy article. Of course, by far the better solution would be to reduce the size of the matriarchy article, but I fear no-one on God’s earth has the power to do that.

Here is my enhanced, two-sentence version of Professor Goldberg’s theory, based on a May 1998 survey carried out by Dr. David Lewis, for Pitman Training in the UK (subsequent reinforced by several others), and an informal survey carried out by myself in the same year:

“Why do men rule? Because we are better at it; we try harder;  and few men or women trust women to be fair.”

Everyone knows it, but no-one dares say it. Is Wikipedia also to be silenced? Every single woman who has told me she prefers a male boss, has said it is because she does not trust a female boss to be fair.

Please, Alastair, do not allow these two to desecrate your grand achievement. Britannica has given up; only Wikipedia is left holding the fort. Your opponents do not seek balance, they seek to destroy what you have built. Duncan Butlin (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I think User:Duncan Butlin needs to read: WP:assume good faith, WP:no personal attacks and especially WP:ownership. This is a collaborative effort and one or two people don't "own" articles. I would ask Duncan to remove his hostile comments.
 * Second, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be comprehensive, encyclopedia overviews on most of the main and some of the minority views on any topic with every single entry having a source so it is not just somebody's personal opinion, i.e. WP:orginal research. This article is not up to that standard yet.
 * Third, discussion of the article should happen on this talk page and no one has to go to another editor's talk page to tell them they are about to make changes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I wanted to add some information on the sociological views of patriarchy, but there was nowhere in the article to put it, I decided to go ahead and begin Carol's reorganization. Please note that I have not removed any material, just rearranged it and added a new section for sociology. Kaldari (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good start. Feel free to add some more details from that and other authors. Motivates me to do some research myself, this weekend. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @Alastair: There is now a dedicated section entitled "Existence of matriarchies". If you would like to add some summarized information from the list subarticle, that would be the best place to put it. The detailed tables should remain in the subarticle, however, as they would overwhelm the article here. A couple paragraphs should be enough to present the basic ideas, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Carol Moore,

Thank you for responding. I have to confess that I am a total novice at editing on Wikipedia, and have read none of the instructions -- I was shooting from the hip, so to speak. Of course I realised I was breaking etiquette, but I felt it was in a good cause. If I find I was speaking out of turn, I will humbly apologise.

I will read, therefore, the four guidelines you mention, and then get back to you. I will be reluctant to remove my comments, because I am a firm believer in the sex war. . .  where (polite) hostility is the name of the game. Wouldn’t the world be a boring place? if nobody confronted anyone else? Sex just adds spice. Please rest assured that I will make no alterations whatsoever to Wikipedia itself -- my aim is to persuade responsible people like yourself to implement any change we might agree on Duncan Butlin (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * More importantly, you may want to review Wikipedia is not a battleground and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Discourse about article content on Wikipedia is a serious matter, to be undertaken in a spirit of neutrality and collaboration. It should not be regarded as part of a "war" or "game". All collaboration on Wikipedia is welcome, so long as it follows the Five pillars of Wikipedia editing policy. Kaldari (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kaldari,

Oh dear, yet more instructions to obey! Yet I am grateful that you have responded --- you could easily have just ignored me -- and I will also read the three guides you mention, and get back to you. You have been extremely perceptive: my nickname in my running group is ‘soapbox’! Thanks for the input. Duncan Butlin (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Duncan,
 * please don't spoil the entertaining way you entered this talk space, by pushing your joke too far.
 * Two serious minded people are attempting to come to terms with the literature. I think they are going to be surprised.
 * Please don't make things more difficult for them by playful treatment of real and important issues.
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alastair,

Forgive me, but I am not joking, Alastair, nor do I seek to entertain you -- though I do try to speak light-heartedly. I take the feminists seriously, and I would like to persuade you to do so too. By publishing my real name and address, I expose myself not only to their anonymous attack, should they decide to misbehave, but also to my local community, since it makes it easy to google me. Please remember that Larry Summers was forced to resign for saying far less than I. Edward Wilson was insulted and marginalised at the heart of academia.

I withheld my spoil-sport response to your kindly joke under Margaret Mead (see above), but I have posted it up there now to show you how far from joking I really am. I hope I do not offend?

Men can only show true respect to feminists by fighting them every inch of the way. The pendulum has swung over to women’s side, and the feminists are taunting you, to get you to do something about it. This is why you are having such trouble maintaining any semblance of order in this article. Men who support feminism are saying that women are so weak that they need men’s help. They are wrong: women are eminently capable of standing on their own two feet.

No, it is I who respect the feminists, their strength and their achievements, and accordingly I trust them not to attack me improperly. It is men who avoid confronting them, who are treating them as a joke. Duncan Butlin (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Duncan, please see my last post in the earlier thread, this is my last interaction with you unless it regards specifics of the text here. Katie Roiphe argues cogently against women mollycoddling women and I agree with her. Indeed, real women throughout history have been perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. The literature also suggests you are right about smear tactics being used in modern sexual politics too. You may choose discretion as the better part of virtue if you will, but you are wrong to fear either feminism or politics, your error is getting caught up in the adversarial nature of western political discourse. Returning to this article, the universality of patriarchy is the foundation of feminism, it is precisely what they protest and seek to change. Good for them! "Is" never implies "ought". People die, is that an argument against hospitals? But when we do consider the humane side of patriarchy, I'll tell you a secret, my own personal view, what do women want? It is not power, about which modern debate turns in endless cycles, it is love. The modern debate despairs of love and turns to power as a substitute. But there is no substitute for love, and there is no law against it. Weep, young lady, for the ways your heart has been betrayed. Weep, but do not despair, retain space in your heart for hope. There is no other path to joy. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation (continued)
I'm pleased that Kaldari has moved scientific treatment to the top of the article, we certainly have consensus on that. There is a lot of literature (and a little debate) that can be organised either logically (data first, then interpretation of data) or chronologically (tracing paradigms, discussion and new models). There are other options too.

In any case, the universality of patriarchy is the consensus understanding at least from Mead (70s) through to Britannica 2008. This is the data. Debate is simply the nature/nurture kind of debate in explaining the data. Unsurprisingly, biological sciences note the importance of biological phenomena in explaining the data, where sociological sciences tend to minimize the significance of biology in favour of purely sociological explanations.

Anthropology (historical hard evidence), biological data (principally hormones mid 20th c., MRI 90s, genetics turn of millenium) and other dry factual material leads naturally into interpretation of the evidence and discussion of nature/nurture. The nurture/sociological commentary leads naturally into the spiritual/ethical reflections of feminists and others.

I think we need to place the history and anthropology first, for both logical and chronological reasons, but I'm sure the sense of this will recommend itself as other editors engage further with the literature. Keep up the good work. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes on my revert: The matriarchy material was not removed from the article as you assumed, it was moved to the section discussing the existence of matriarchies, as there is no reason to devote more than half of the lead to debunking matriarchies. There's more to the issue of patriarchy than the writings of Steven Goldberg, you know. I also don't understand why, despite the fact that the article is already almost entirely devoted to Goldberg's ideas, you can't tolerate the addition of 2 sentences discussing the fact that sociologists have a different point of view. Indeed you even label my edit "POV" despite the fact that it is not my POV I am adding, it is that of sociologists, which is certainly worthy of discussion here. You keep insisting that we add sourced material rather than just removing material. Yet even though I added new material that reflects almost verbatim the contents of the source, and the source is a reliable academic source, you remove half of it, and then change it into a paragraph about Sanderson praising Goldberg. Not only does that not reflect the contents of the source (Sanderson is strongly critisizing Goldberg, not praising him), it has nothing to do with the subject of sociology. I would appreciate it if you would try collaborating in a constructive way instead of just lording over the article and reverting changes. Kaldari (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should be a mention of any of the issues in the lead, unless all are mentioned. FYI, I am someone who doesn't really care if there were or were not matriarchies in the past, and thinks there's probably some amount of inherent biological influence - but nothing that can't be overcome by cultural training. So I want to see all WP:RS views given an airing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Kaldari, I note that I was wrong to think the simple statements of the universality of patriarchy were removed; sure, you had only moved them.
 * You offer your opinion to address my challenge, thank you.
 * But you have bypassed seeking consensus, that offers a critic a chance to come on board with you before progressing, or indeed a chance for you to revise your opinion too.
 * At this point I am getting the impression that both you and Carol are genuine contributors approaching this article like any other they might work up to an improved standard. However, I'm also getting the impression that there's an underlying fear that I might be dogmatic about Goldberg in particular. Please resist such assumptions of bad faith, apart from undermining collaborative editing, they are false, as only I can know.
 * Having said that, the onus is on you, Kaldari, to write in a way that is faithful to the whole literature. You quoted a writer who agrees that patriarchy is universal, but considers that Goldberg's theory is not alone sufficient to explain this, evolutionary biology is needed as well. Indeed, that is probably the consensus view, it is certainly mine (since Carol has been willing to offer her personal opinion, I'll declare mine).
 * There are reasons for us not to make much of sociological claims that patriarchy does not depend on biological factors, they are talking outside their field and are therefore not reliable sources. That sounds harsh, and I don't want to be that harsh, Goldberg himself is obviously a sociologist willing to incorporate biology into his analysis. I can't argue that sociologists should be silent, when at least one is taken seriously on the subject by academics of all types.
 * As you gain more familiarity with the feminist literature in particular, you will see that many feminists agree that not only is patriarchy universal, it would be extraordinary if there were no biological factors. Stephen Sanderson is one of many sociobiologists who also concur on this point. But, where the scientists fall silent is in expressing evaluations of the social utility (rather than the evolutionary adaptedness) of patriarchy. Here, social commentators, feminists and others fall into three camps: those who stress essential differences between men and women needing fairness however they are dealt with (Moir and Jessup and Hoff Summers are popular exponents), those who think such differences should be counter-acted by intervention (legislation or other), and those who challenge every new scientific discovery and keep pointing to the overall psychobiological likenesses of the two sexes of the species.
 * The lead is not restricted to three paragraphs. There is one point on which almost everyone agrees--the universality of patriarchy. I invite you to note that the lead does not even mention Goldberg, it points out concisely from the best and multiple sources that the universality of patriarchy is the "hegemonic paradigm". There is indeed a lot more that needs to be said, but until it is written we cannot summarise those things in the lead.
 * All I really need to hear just now is that Kaldari understands how I might get the impression he is jumping to conclusions without having read all that much yet, and insisting on his changes despite that fact. Understand this, please, I want other people contributing to this article, I'm exceedingly tired of maintaining the limited progress that has been achieved so far. Other editors collaborating willingly is what I've longed for. However, that does not mean any who join in are above criticism. It is suspicious that my opinions on improvements are not being sought. It looks as though Kaldari wants to push his changes through without collaborating. I'm sure this is a false impression, please reassure me Kaldari.
 * I'll be restoring the clear statements of the universality of patriarchy to the lead, since there are no substantial alternative PsOV. The main interest in this topic regards the complex questions:
 * Why is this so?
 * How much do cultural factors modify biological inclinations?
 * What is the value of patriarchy to human society?
 * Until a view contrary to the universality of patriarchy that is not WP:UNDUE is sourced, this is the most simple common ground and starting point for discussion. It does also grab the reader's attention. ;) It cannot be "buried" without being unfair to the literature and the reader. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is trying to "bury" the universality of patriarchy. Indeed the lead unequivocally states that it is universal, and as far as I can tell that is the standard view, both in academia and popular perception. No one here is challenging that, so I don't understand why you are so defensive of this point. We're just trying to organize the article in a way that makes more sense and is easier to expand on. Also, from reading your comments above it seems that you have a broad understanding of the topic and the viewpoints of various disciplines regarding it. It surprises me then that the current state of the article seems so singularly focused (and was even more so before). Please feel free to expand the article in whatever way you believe will contribute to it being more comprehensive. I really don't think it needs a lot more about biology and Goldberg, however, as those areas seem to be well covered. Kaldari (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this well phrased answer. Indeed, I also think the article doesn't need much more about Goldberg, though I do think the Goldberg section needs re-writing. I think the article does need a more systematic treatment of biology, though whether that would mean expansion I'm not quite sure. When it comes to expansion of the article, though, I'm willing to help anyone willing to do that, but this particular article is not on my personal priority list. It's hardly the only unfinished work at Wiki. As for whether it is me or you who is "defensive". What on earth would I have to be defensive about? But I don't need to know, it's rather besides the point. One slip of addressing editor rather than article is no big deal. I'll not hold it against you. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Patriarchy isn't "universal". "male dominance in the public/political realm" is. It is true that the historical pre-modern civilizations were universally patriarchic. This isn't an equivalent statement. I do not live in a patriarchic society, I live in an egalitarian society, and so do many Europeans, especially Northern Europeans. This society has existed for a mere 20 years, it is true, which is a tiny period of time compared to 4,000 years of civilization, but it is nevertheless sufficient to falsify the "universality" claim. I challenge you to present evidence at Gender egalitarianism that this is merely a hypothetical form of society which has never been implemented because biologically ingrained patriarchy always got the upper hand. It is a false dichotomy, and unduly suggestive, to present evidence for the non-existence of matriarchy in support of the universality of patriarchy. The opposite of patriarchy isn't matriarchy, it is gender egalitarianism. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with a lot here. The only thing I disagree with is that modern western society is gender egalitarian. I do understand that's the ideal enshrined in various forms of legislation, but the sources tell me it is not the reality. I will take up your challenge by providing sources at the gender egalitarianism talk page. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! That article is almost only links. The first of the See also links is an idea I am very familiar with indeed—Complementarianism. In fact, let me admit that this is precisely my own personal view, already documented at Wiki, so people need not fear me after all, there's a notable, reliably sourceable POV for which I can be but a handmaiden to serve others with sources if ever desired.
 * Not today, but at some point, I'll open a new section here. I think Dieter is right, one of the objections to the universality of patriarchy that readers have noted from time to time, is the very understandable thought that our own western societies are places of gender equality. This is not a common view among feminists, nor among a range of other types of scholars, but it is certainly a widely held view in the media and other sources. I'm convinced we should document it.
 * I will also source the counter view. But not today. Best regards to all. It is an excellent thing we are all here at this article. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sanderson
Text reads: Stephen K. Sanderson notes that "Goldberg's work is important and it rings true." He notes other scientific views (like his own) that differ from Goldberg by incorporating evolutionary biology into explanations for the universality of patriarchy. Sanderson also notes that most other sociologists dismiss the theories of the biological sciences in favour of social and cultural conditioning models of the universality of patriarchy.

Please note specific objections to this text, if there are any. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have one very strong objection. This text is in the Sociology section--it should be discussing the views of sociologists in general, not Sanderson's opinion of Goldberg or theories of evolutionary biology. That content does not belong in that section. Kaldari (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please place the text in whichever section you wish.
 * I'm detecting emotion from you--"strong objection" above.
 * Some of your edits consist of removal of sourced material, others of "burying" such material, yet others of prioritising things according your educated guesses on the topic.
 * That's fine, I'm happy to give you space to "think aloud".
 * But please don't "edit and comment", over the top of objections, please discuss.
 * It becomes embarassing if one can be discovered to have insisted on things that the literature does not support.
 * It looks high handed and uncooperative if this was done without seeking to maintain harmony with editors who were expressing objections at the time.
 * I trust that's not what you're doing. Please slow down and talk. Is there a rush?
 * I believe I've been waiting for colleagues at this article for two and a half years.
 * And now you aren't interested in discussing the work?
 * Please Kaldari, be collegiate, not unilateral. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Alastair, you've done a few reversions today of material that two other editors opined makes this article a great deal more WP:NPOV and encyclopedic. These are pretty standard types of edits, nothing that needs long discussion. Your reverting them repeatedly ''discourages other editors from editing at all' and thereby harms the encyclopedia. Time spent arguing with you over common sense edits is time wasted that we could better spend researching more sourced information.
 * That you would replace a general by reliably sourced statement about sociology with one promoting Stephen Goldberg who already has an WP:Undue section in the biology section makes me feel that you are engaged in very aggressive POV pushing.
 * That you feel compelled to put a whole paragraph in the lead about just one of many issues, when either all or none should be mentioned, also looks like POV pushing on that issue.
 * If there is a real problem that goes against WP:policy, feel free to bring it up. But these constant reversions of WP:RS are quite disruptive. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am glad to hear that you are willing to research sources, and look forward to progressive interaction as you do so.
 * But you are currently insisting on relegating Encyclopedia Britannica's clear statement that the universality of patriarchy is the consensus view to the very last lines of the article. Additionally, you are insisting of citing Sanderson, a supporter of biological explanation of patriarchy, as though he were a critic. Sanderson says Goldberg's view "is important and rings true." A reliable source you and Kaldari appear now to be colluding to repeatedly revert, which is damaging for a co-operative editing relationship.
 * The appearance I have is two editors attempting to silence reliable and neutral sources that simply state the consensus that patriarchy is a universal phenomenon, and being unwilling to try to source any alternative view and offer that for consensus.
 * That you should insist on quoting a source as though it is against Goldberg when it is for him, and to do so with additional personal attacks against another editor, suggests to me that your judgment is impaired by presumptions of bad faith.
 * It will be obvious to reasonable members of the community that the universality of patriarchy is a matter of emotion for some people, and that it is far more likely that you and Kaldari wish to deflect attention from it, particularly by misrepresenting Goldberg, than that there is anything unreasonable in my calling on you to discuss these specific changes before you opt to remove uncontroversial, reliably sourced, neutral material by forceful editing.
 * I suggest you stop assuming bad faith and misrepresenting my actions. I can understand people being suspicious, on a topic like this when they don't know the literature, so I can easily forgive. But you are assuming bad faith, and you are not accepting the burden of proof for claims you are making. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If your rather paranoid idea that we are here to discredit the universality of Patriarchy were true, I assure you we would be making far more radical edits than we have thus far. Consider for a moment that your singular focus on this one issue may be clouding your judgement of our intentions. Kaldari (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike Duncan Bultin who refused to delete hostile comments when I requested it, I'll delete my speculations.
 * Re long paragraph on matriarchy in the lead, seems POV/WP:Undue to me. I also had that concern about even two short sentences, however, if other neutral editors think it's OK, that's fine with me.
 * As for Goldberg/Sanderson, there's too much WP:UNDUE material glorifying Goldberg already, so some criticism of him which omits Sanderson's praise seems justified.
 * As for possible revert wars, which last couple days verging on... Well, let's just say I ran across and read the arbitration on you and it looks like you have a revert quota, so I don't have to be as uptight about that as I was.
 * Meanwhile, til I get around to researching this, I will support other editors who make edits that I think improve the article. (Actually right now greatly improving a messy article about one of my favorite patriarchs who made fun of me a few too many times before he passed on.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @Kaldari are you really saying it is "we" v "you" are you? That doesn't sound like collaborative editing. Suggesting other editors are "paranoid" and have a "singular focus" doesn't sound like civilly addressing the topic, does it. I repeat I am seeing two editors adopting an adversarial approach and using edits rather than discussion to determine text. They are willing to cite a reliable source regarding Goldberg where it notes general sociological opposition to Goldberg, but they are not willing to note that the same source's own evaluation is that Goldberg is "important and rings true". It is trivial to resolve this point, yet reversion and personal attack are being used instead of proposing compromise. I don't presume to know your motives, I'll thank you not to presume to know mine. Please demonstrate your openness to collaboration and being challenged by addressing the criticism not the critic. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @Carol your words are clearly a personal attack on my motives, which you cannot know. For one who claims to value time to address sources, you do not demonstrate doing so. Your words are potentially an embarassment to yourself, I recommend you strike them as an easy demonstration of good faith, or remove them, and we can forget them. Let's discuss the topic, not your speculations about a fellow editor, namely me. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reply to Carol, I really love your response to my request. I take you at face value that you have only just read about the current arbitration. I would like you to remove that reference for several reasons: 1. it is irrelevant to improving the article, 2. it could be used to encourage people to take advantage of the ruling, and 3. the only reason the ruling has not currently been challenged is because I rarely need or use reverts anyway. There is another good reason to do it, and to avoid reverting me, in that by so doing you avoid providing me with grounds to have the arbitration overturned. ;)
 * By the way, if material glorified Goldberg it would be non neutral not undue and should be rewritten to be neutral. I think you are also overlooking that Kaldari quoted Sanderson, not I, my point was that he was misrepresenting the source, due to the vagueness of his paraphrase. Kaldari added the extra reference to Goldberg, not I. I merely rephrased it to be a more accurate and neutral presentation of the source. I'm not having a go at Kaldari, he's new to the topic, it's a minor detail that shouldn't have been blown-up into some kind of evidence of bias in me. But this is a touchy subject and I wouldn't have got involved if I didn't think I could take some heat. So I'm happy to forget it and move on, we can get back to the issues when we all know one another better. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sharing the story that sources tell
It seems good to close off an exchange that went off topic and got personal. Let's forget it. This topic is not rocket science, there's more content agreement than heat of the moment words above may suggest.

My reading of the content component of the disagreement is that editors haven't come to a clear common mind in appreciating that Goldberg is known for two things in regard to the topic of the article. He is known for documenting the universality of patriarchy, but he is also known for explaining it on the grounds of biology, but only the biology known at the time of publication. It may take some time for editors to work through that issue. But we can ignore Goldberg for a while, since it seems to arouse emotions, and sort out other issues.

The good news is that three editors currently agree that the sources establish that the universality of patriarchy is a long standing consensus. But what else does this article need to say? Obviously a basic definition and the general fact of universality are natural places to start. Where should it go from there? Again the three editors appear to be agreed that science is the place to start.

We need to tell a "story", what should that story look like? There are many good options. Here's one.

The empirical data is a conventional place to begin, and the anthropological classifications associated with this data. Then we come to theories to explain the data, Goldberg's was just the first, and pretty crude, utilising only information about sex steroids. Since then it has been added to: first by evolutionary biology; then (from 1990) MRI based studies of brain dimorphism; and finally, more recently by tracing genetic influences on brain structure. These are not competeing theories, but a growing picture that is still far from complete.

The biology often leads people to two wrong conclusions, one of which Goldberg can probably be considered to be culpable of inflaming. Biological causes do not always work deterministically, patriarchy might not be "inevitable" as Goldberg's original title suggested. The other wrong conclusion overlooks that biological explanation does not imply moral justification. Biological antecedents do not preclude the possibility of legitimate criticism suggesting a "pathology".

In discussing these things, we naturally find the need to turn to sociological expertise. And at that point things get really interesting, because politics enters the scene as well. I won't open that can of worms at this point.

What might be helpful is editors "laying their sources on the table" with regard to the science area first, so we can compare notes and see that we're all up to speed on that part of the story. I'd like to know which sources Kaldari and Carol are consulting regarding the science and how they reconstruct the narrative of scientific treatment of the topic. Let's get back to sources. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * this sounds reasonable at last. So can we please stop making this about the non-existence of matriarchy? Discussion of biology and Goldberg is completely justified in this article, but at present, the weight given to this topic is excessive. This article lacks a sociological, and above all a historical perspective. I have added a brief paragraph intending to give such a historical perspective, but for reasons best known to yourself you kept removing it. The dwelling on feminist critique and matriarchy is also overblown, and your dedication to ridiculing feminism is unnecessary and "too loud". This article needs to discuss patriarchy in relation to gender egalitarianism, not in relation to crackpot 1970s second wave feminism. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Short update for others here, Dieter and I have interacted at talk pages. I think he is much more direct about certain forms of feminism than I have ever expressed a view about at Wiki. It is refreshing to hear him say these things. I don't see much disagreement about generalities at this article at the moment, except where speculations about my motives are concerned. ;) I do hope that's pretty much over now, though I've not really heard back from Kaldari. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree all editors should keep emotions and attacks on various views down. A few comments on Dbachmann's changes which I have problems with and think need reversion/changing/consideration:
 * It's really important to define matrilineal in relation to matriarchy before using it or it causes confusion; best in etymology.
 * The new "historical" unsourced material in the lead also addresses just one issue and I still have a problem with that. (Other wiki articles can't be sources and the chart doesn't prove your point anyway. You have to have a real WP:RS where ever you put that paragraph.
 * I strongly believe we need to keep the two main categories - science and issues - to prevent the article from again becoming a confusing, POV mishmash and guide people to insert new info
 * All varieties of feminist views should be presented and it would be nice not to have WP:Soapbox attacks on any
 * Gender egalitarianism should be one of several issues. That article itself could stand more refs from civil society sources CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Honeymoon" of article involvement can last only as long as fellow editors (mutual collaborators) have a respectful give and take, a mutual respect, grounded in civility and candor. It is good to see agreement by quality editors. You are the best ambassadors---helping to dispense and disperse a high level of Wiki participation and results. Weening Wikipedia editors from adversarial conversation should be high on all our agendas as we wander WikiWorld.--Buster7 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

More proposed outlines

 * Agreed, there is no reason this article can't be constructively developed just because of strong opinions. I'm glad to see some other experienced editors getting involved in this article. Back to Carol's points: I also think this article needs a more defined structure. Strictly segregating "science" from "issues", however, may prove quite difficult in this article. What would people think of a structure along the lines of:
 * Etymology and related terms
 * Anthropology (or History)
 * Egalitarian societies
 * Nature vs. nurture
 * Biology
 * Sociology
 * Views
 * Benefits of patriarchy
 * Feminist criticism
 * This seems like a good way to organize the content we currently have. Kaldari (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

back dent<--- I think that listing still makes it harder for people to figure out where to put existing viewpoints. And that views are very different than issues for debate. Whether some things fit more in views or in issues will really depend on what the sources say; and there may be some overlap.
 * Etymology and related terms
 * Biological sciences
 * Viewpoint 1
 * Viewpoint 2 plus any others
 * Social Sciences
 * History and Anthropology (egalitarian/alleged matriachal either here or issues depending on sources
 * Sociology
 * Social psychology (should there be material)
 * Gender studies (interdisciplinary)
 * Political science (some political structures explicitly patriarchal, like Saudi Arabia?)
 * Issues
 * Benefits of patriarchy
 * Feminist criticism
 * Pacifist criticism (I've got some WP:RS on that :-)
 * Others which surely will arise. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, yes. Now we're cooking with gas! :) Thank you to everyone for obviously responding to alerts I've been sending, despite suspicions that I might be pushing a bias. I think we are all genuinely coming to a common mind (though we're not there yet). We don't need to set these things in concrete now, but the overall pattern Carol first suggested was, I think, basically correct and the modifications above seem in line with what everyone is learning (or already knew) from the sources.
 * One thing to add, please consider. The patriarchy of western societies has a common language name "glass ceiling". Essentially, what that phrase means is precisely what is intended by the anthropological definitions of patriarchy. The biologists explain the persistence of the glass ceiling, despite decades of legislation and deliberate social changes, by noting that men and women have complex motivational differences that are not surprising given brain dimorphism.
 * Let us assume that we want to be rid of the glass ceiling, what should we do? Sociologists suggest social reforms have not gone far enough, biologists suggest we have a more profound issue, we would need to change what men and women's brains prompt them to prefer.
 * It's a fascinating thought, in theory most men and women sign up for the gender equality model, but over time, men still pursue status etc more diligently than women, who seem to find, on average, that there are other things they'd rather pursue. There's no doubt modern western society officially proclaims gender egalitarianism, and it's people sincerely believe in this in theory, but in practice they do what they've always done.
 * I'll add one last thought. Who says high status makes people "more equal" than others? At some point the "difference" feminists need to enter this picture. Their argument (and I endorse it personally) is that the most problematic aspect of gender inequality is male disrespect for many of the sorts of contributions women prefer to those normally associated with status.
 * Do people see the "difference" feminist perspective? Considering presidents and generals to be high status, and mothers and charity cause leaders to be of no great status is simply to buy into the masculine system of evaluating status. If the difference feminists are right, we are perpetrating the ultimate abuse on women to insist that they conform to masculine ideals of status! Think about it, they may be wrong, but they have an argument don't they? Alastair Haines (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sociology, one more time
I'm removing the "according to Sanderson" clause, as it is trivial to find citations for the fact that most sociologists disagree with Goldberg's ideas, and I've added a new citation to that effect. Also, please stop adding weasel words like "still insist" and "according to such-and-such" when the views being discussed are current and predominant—in this case the view that "most sociologists disagree with Goldberg's ideas". Kaldari (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The section now has three independent reliable sources (one of which is a standard and current sociology textbook). Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In case there is any ambiguity, here's a quote from one of the sources I just added, Essentials of Sociology: (in the section "Inequalities of Gender") "Almost all sociologists take the side of 'nurture' in this 'nature vs nurture' controversy, but a few do not. The dominant sociological position is that social factors, not biology, are the reasons we do what we do". From this it appears that I am actually being generous in saying that "most" sociologists disagree with Goldberg. Perhaps I should change it to "almost all"! If you still need other sources, I can give you dozens. Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never had any quarel with the fact that many sociologists continue to deny biological causes for patriachy. My criticism is simply that few would deny the universality of patriarchy.
 * Your mistakes are focussing on Goldberg, and missing that he has made two distinct contributions to the literature. Goldberg represents the consensus view that patriarchy is universal, he also represents the consensus biological sciences view that patriarchy reflects male-female brain dimorphism. There is little but WP:UNDUE alternative POVs regarding universality, but sociology (and feminism within it) are indeed the main alternative POV in a nature/nurture debate that feminists (more than broader sociology) have in many cases conceeded may not be as simple as they first supposed.
 * If your intention is to provide criticism of Golderg, that is fine of course, but if it is done it should be done properly and specifically. Personally, I don't think Goldberg warrants that much attention. Whatever challenges are leveled at Goldberg are leveled at biological researchers in general. The debate has moved well beyond Goldberg, he simply published 20 years ahead of everyone else.
 * If you want your work to be worth the time you are putting into it, I recommend you keep a firm hold of common sense and interpret sources impartially. At this point, we have unsourced material denying the universality of patriarchy in the lead, with Britannica and half a dozen sources that vouch for it relegated to the end of the article. If I brought in outsiders at this point they might just conclude that a bias against the universality of patriarchy and Goldberg personally was being injected into the article. Doesn't look good. But then, you've only just started, and you don't know much yet. Assuming good faith, I imagine you're making your best guesses, though burying Britannica does still look very suss. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand your point. Of course I wasn't trying to imply that sociologists have any opinion on the universality of patriarchy one way or the other, just that they object to a strictly biological explanation. I'll edit the section to remove mention of Goldberg so there won't be any confusion. Personally, I don't know much about the universality debate, nor do I have much interest in it. It seems like a rather unimportant point really. Obviously the world is patriarchal, that much seems evident. I'll let you and the other editors hash that one out. Regardless, I don't think we need to devote a large section of the lead to it one way or the other. Kaldari (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence about egalitarian tribal societies from the lead (not sure who added it). Until we have adequate discussion of this issue in the article, putting it in the lead is just creating a POV war. Let's work on building the article and once the content is flushed out we can make the lead more detailed. Kaldari (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to see that point cleared up.
 * But regarding the universality of patriarchy. Yes, it is obvious to many people that our current western societies are ideologically committed to gender egalitarianism, and to many that there is still a patriarchal "glass ceiling".
 * The only thing is, this is not obvious to all readers, and how many readers know anything about the Boyowan, Iban or Minangkabau? If someone claims they are matriarchal, who's to say they are not? Don't you want to know that people have checked all societies in recorded history and that there has been some debate, talked through to academic consensus?
 * Since the article is about patriarchy, just which societies are patriarchal seems a reasonable thing to specify early on. This is especially the case since it is so easily stated—all of them.
 * I'll drop this for a while, because as we go through more literature, it will become apparent that most of the debate assumes the universality of patriarchy, in other words, that issue is presumed to have been understood by those who participate. By all means try to write the article without reference to matters significant and assumed in the literature, but I think it will suffer from lack of clarity and potential for confusion and endless circles of challenges. Keep thinking about it. I've been familiar with this stuff for a long time, I don't expect people to foresee in a week what I have learned over years.
 * I think a lot of room needs to be given to people who are actively researching and writing to "think aloud", just don't forget that there are people around with experience to help save you from wasting your time. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some recent quality sources with various interesting points of view. Scholarly article on "the inevitability of patriarchy" in contemporary culture, viz. Fiona Kidman's The Book of Secrets.
 * Lee Ellis, "Sociology’s future hinges on curing its biophobia", The American Sociologist 27 (1996): 21–41. (Ellis, professor of sociology at Minot State University)
 * Robert M. Blackburn, Jude Browne, Bradley Brooks and Jennifer Jarman, "Explaining gender segregation", British Journal of Sociology 53 (2003): 513–536. London School of Economics publication.
 * M. Apostolou, "Sexual selection under parental choice: the role of parents in the evolution of human mating", Evolution and Human Behavior 28 (2007): 403–409. [cites Goldberg]
 * "As spectral alternatives, however, McLeod's and Isabella's shadowy doubles contest claims about the inevitability of patriarchy."


 * Doreen D'Cruz, "Women, Time and Place in Fiona Kidman's The Book of Secrets", The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 42 (2007): 63–81.
 * V. Grant, "Men's unique contribution to healthcare". The Journal of Men's Health & Gender 1 (2004): 379–382.


 * Some questions people new to the topic area might want answers to:
 * Is science a helpful way to establish a neutral point of view?
 * Does science have anything to say about patriarchy?
 * Are there any well known facts that provide common ground for an differing points of view?
 * Is there any observational evidence or data that is publically verifiable?
 * Are there any particular writers well known for writing about a scientific aproach to patriarchy?
 * What are the competing scientific theories (if any)?
 * What are their specific arguments?
 * Is there an independent source that provides some kind of "head count" or vote on the most popular theory?
 * What current research is being done on the subject?
 * Can we establish a synopsis of the history of debate?
 * What do ethical theorists and practicians like politicians, religious groups, and the feminist movement have to say?


 * Just noting that the article is looking in dreadful shape. If I find a little time I'll do some repair work, otherwise I'll simply revert to a previous stable version until enough people gather for long enough to start forming some consensus at this article at last. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And what previous stable version would you suggest reverting to? Kaldari (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let us take care not to let "the Air of Discussion" evaporate. Let's be sure to fall back to a mutually agreeable condition. --Buster7 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's extremely well phrased, Buster, and Kaldari, by asking a question helps it along too.
 * The thing is, so many changes were made, so quickly, despite there being objections, that there was no time for consensus to form.
 * I like a number of the changes, but there are obviously a lot of problems with the new text, as the tags indicate. We have moved from an article that was quite coherent, to something incomplete.
 * I didn't mind while work was actually progressing and discussion was continuing, but since both seemed to have stopped, and the article has been left with lots of issues, something needs to be done. Something imperfect has been changed into something less perfect. Despite some genuine improvements, overall the text has suffered and reliable information has been removed.
 * What I want to see is Kaldari and Carol contributing sources and discussing changes, that takes generosity with time. It can't be insisted upon. Because I'm a person who starts more projects than he finishes, I'd have no hard feelings were people to promise something but not follow through. However, I've left many current changes uncontested simply to allow time for discussion and sourcing to follow them, but that has not happened.
 * It simply looks like parts of the article that troubled Kaldari for personal reasons have now been dealt with as he'd like, so he's moved on. Well, I hope I'm not correct and it's just that Kaldari has visited a library or something and is currently reading up on the topic. (Though it would seem wise to take that step before making edits if you want changes to stand a chance of being reliable enough to be stable.)
 * I don't know which revision of the article to return to, but a simple choice would be the one before Kaldari's arrival. Once I had time myself, I'd go back and restore some of the changes Kaldari made that I think are valuable (and there are several).
 * As I said, I'm not sure what I'll do yet, or when, it depends on time and priorities, and whether or not a serious effort continues to be made to collaborate towards improvement of the article.
 * I'll be in and out of libraries once the holiday period is over, and will probably get some of the articles above photcopied from microfilm during that time. It would be helpful to hear Kaldari and Carol's time-frame to visit libraries (or otherwise collect reliable sources). The ideal way for us to progress is to work out when we can all be available to discuss our sources here and agree to changes before we make them. That's the ideal, short cuts don't work, they only produce unreliable or unstable text.
 * To make Kaldari and Carol's life easier, I've been working on a detailed write up of the key text they have disputed, but don't have access to. That way, you'll be able to get tons of information without even going to a library. It's full of quotes and page numbers, and includes all sorts of details that I personally disagree with, but are part of fair representation of the source. All the "ammunition" a disputant could want will be available and verifiable.
 * I think that's pretty much all I need to say. Changes have been happened at this page as concessions to a "work in progress", when work stops, those concessions can't be expected to continue to apply. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by all of the changes I have personally made to this article so far. Your attempt to discredit what I have added by implying that I have no real understanding of the topic and no interest in learning about it further troubles me. If you want to revert any of the changes I have personally made (and thoroughly discussed here already), you should point out what is specifically wrong which each of them. If you decide, however, to simply revert back to the version that predated any of our discussion, I will take that as an indication that you do not intend to edit this article in good faith. Kaldari (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Kaldari, I've been editing this article in good faith for two years, so will ignore your personal comment. As for standing by your edits, I should hope you do, but the question is, do sources back you, and the answer, in several cases, is "no". It's not a matter of me "attempting to discredit you". I like some of your edits, and I really like someone being willing to spend time working on an article. That's precisely why I'm giving you time to self-correct. Your good faith, aided by sources, will lead to us coming to agreement. Your insistence that I don't have good faith, and that I don't know the sources, will not lead anywhere helpful, and is shown to be a "rush of blood to the head" by two years of my involvement in the article history. Please stop saying "I, Kaldari, am right" and "Alastair can't be trusted". Stick to admitting that the obvious, that the topic is a notoriously hot potatoe and reliable neutral treatment needs more diligent research than many. That's the way forward. Or are you telling me, you think your work is finished here, except to use edits to insist on it. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My sources for the sociology section, especially the two new ones that I added, are about as respected as you can find. And they support the text that I have added almost word for word. Are you contending:
 * My sources are not reliable, credible, and well-respected in the field for which I am discussing.
 * My sources do not represent the predominant viewpoint in the field for which I am discussing.
 * My text does not reflect the contents of those sources.
 * Sociological viewpoints are not relevant to this article.
 * Unless you have one of the above specific criticisms, let's not waste time with this childish debate about who is editing in better faith and why. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point Kaldari. You removed Britannica, Mead and Eller from the lead. Which of the 4 points above to you apply to that decision? I'm sure you don't think discussion is childish, or me a child. Neither is the wiki thing to suggest is it? But time is a real issue. I did mention that I wanted to save your time: research and seek consensus before making changes. Anyway, I suggest you keep thinking and reading, and psyching yourself up to be friendly to a guy that seems to be in your way. There have been plenty of indications that's your normal style. Let's not protract things now. It doesn't appear to be a good time for you.
 * Anyway, some time soonish, like you, I'll make what changes I think are good for the article; and I trust, like me, you'll refrain from reverting them at that time and discuss any objections instead. Looking forward to that discussion, or better still, some quality, sourced improvements to the article. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus of everyone editing this article except for yourself seems to be that those pieces do not belong in the lead. There are several obvious reasons:
 * They are discussing matriarchies, not patriarchies
 * Quotes don't belong in leads
 * Wikipedia only quotes other general purpose encyclopedias in rare circumstances. The practice is generally frowned upon, especially in leads. Read WP:RS for more info on secondary vs. tertiary sources.
 * They seem to be exclusively promoting one POV (as impeccable as it may be).
 * Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Kaldari, when you have been at this page longer than five minutes you can make assertions about consensus. All four points you raise are demonstrably inapplicable or false statements, so unlikely to win consensus over any period of time, which is, in fact the case. The "consensus" you speak of consists of assertions made by you and one other editor, both of whom arrived but about 10 days ago, and have admitted to not having read much in the area (and good for you in admitting it). Nonetheless, the two of you chose to insist on changes by editing rather than by discussing sources, and when I called you out on it, you should both showed good faith and backed down, promising to research sources to back your opinions. I let your edits stand pending further work you both promised to do. I did so, because you were offering to read the sources that would lead you to self-correct. If, instead, you simply intend to walk away, only returning to insist your edits stand, or to attempt to exclude me from continuing to maintain the article, you are breaking your good faith committment.
 * You did made some good changes, but also others that you have not attempted to win support for before making them. Those will be reversed unless I see evidence to support them, or evidence that you're interacting with literature on the subject and adjusting your thinking in line with it. I was excited at the thought of up to four editors working on this page, but in reality, all I've seen is one editor adjust things to his own POV despite differences of opinion from two editors who are widely read in the area.
 * I've said all I need to say here, right now. I hope I'll see you self-correcting, or bringing forward sources I'm unaware of. Otherwise, the time for talk will be you seeking consensus before changing stable, maintained text this time, based on sources, including an attempt to meet the objections and opinion of those who've watched the article for a long time. Think about it, and let's get it right next time. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you feel so strongly that that information needs to be included in the lead, I have added it back minus the quotations. If you want to create a section of the article discussing the existence of matriarchies, that's fine so long as it is focused, and conforms to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Quotations, especially argumentative ones like the Mead quote, belong in the article body, not in the lead. The lead is for summarizing the article, not for presenting arguments. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I still haven't had time to research or add material and therefore make a strong case for the organization I've made above, I just want to remind you that there are a lot of us who prefer a short lead, with least controversial material, and that all controversial and less well sourced material belongs below and in an issues section. And I sure would like to have a quote from whoever thinks we already have "gravitated towards a more egalitarian form under the influence of the Women's rights movement."  Looks like WP:Original research to me otherwise.  Just to find out how far we've gravitated 20% like I think? 50% like someone else might think?  CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @Carol...Let's all remain clear as to which editor we are communicating with...."I just want to remind you that there are" ....doesn't work unless we all know which "you" is meant. Thanks.--Buster7 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @Kaldari, concessions appreciated, though obviously we need to keep talking. Regarding Mead, she makes statements, not arguments, and she is an extremely well known authority on the subject. We cannot dismiss reliable sources like Mead, who only articulate a century old consensus position.
 * @Carol, good for you admitting that you need to read before you can express an informed opinion. Just a tip though, please don't use rhetorical appeals to non existent "majorities"—"there are a lot of us". Actually, the reverse is true, text that has been edited by people over the course of two years has been unilaterally edited by Kaldari, while admitting he has limited expertise. The burden of proof is on those making changes, that shows respect for the "lot of us" who have worked on the article over two years. Currently I, by virutue of being active here for two years, am a more likely source of information regarding editorial opinion at the article, though everything I know is available to anyone's scrutiny since it's documented in the article history.
 * The main point here is that reliably sourced and stable text has been degraded by well intentioned edits. I will restore a stable version at some point, and look forward to either new discussions regarding modifications, one modification at a time, and discussion and consensus preceding edits, or us agreeing to a date range where we can all have sources open in front of us, and discuss how to represent those fairly in the article.
 * It is, however, not progress by consensus to make unilateral changes against objections of long standing contributors who know the sources, whether or not someone else happens to share a "gut feel" that "something" about the article should change. You bet! The article has never come close to any final form. It has always stunk. But it stinks more now, because genuine, on topic, reliable material has been removed from display. That's just plain wrong. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

ROFL
This is currently the funniest article I've ever seen.


 * Contents
 * 1) Etymology and related terms
 * 2) Biology of gender
 * 3) Sociology
 * 4) Benefits of patriarchy
 * 5) Feminist criticism
 * 6) Egalitarian societies


 * The topic is patriarchy, but we have a huge etymology section (Wiki is not a dictionary)
 * There is a very scratchy and incomplete attempt at providing a biological synthesis, with no secondary source applying biology to the topic of patriarchy.
 * There's a throw-away lopsided exaggeration related to sociology (POV).
 * A token gesture is made towards 5,000 years of literature, that even its worst enemies admit exists far too abundantly, promoting patriarchy.
 * Then we have unsourced statements regarding anthropology buried in a feminist section.
 * Finally matriarchy is not considered, but egalitarian societies are! though there existence is in just as much or more doubt.

A reader looks up patriarchy and finds discussion of language, tid-bits of biology, and sustained treatment of sociology, feminism and egalitarianism. It looks like the article is being used as a coat-rack for egalitarian and feminist views, with a smokescreen of etymology to appear to have addressed the topic.

Where is sociological analysis of relevant biology? Where are ethnographic reports provided for the reader to see the evidence the experts consider. The article used to have this sourced, neutral and academic consensus material. But, it would appear, Wiki processes know better, what is really needed at this page is sociology, feminism and egalitarianism. Who cares what Britannica, anthropologists and sociobiologists have to say? Wiki is about letting the people say what they want. Though, in fact, the reality has been censoring what they want. Reliably sourced material has simply been removed without consensus. Both are violations of Wiki foundational principles.

Does this page show the triumph of the Wiki way: people being willing to talk everything through, based on verifying from reliable sources? Or does it show that there is some kind of censorship going on, views that people think they won't like are being silenced by unilateral edits? As mentioned, unless people start correcting erosive edits for themselves. We will need to go back to a stable version and go through the processes slowly and steadily. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It would help if you'd provide a diff or two of what were the best versions you've seen. I agree with some of your analysis of problems; would have to research others. But more varied better sourced info in the various categories is the solution and that's what I just haven't spent more than 20 minutes looking for because of silly spats with whitewashing political partisans on other pages. At least no one is trying to white wash patriarchy here (double entendre cause what some partisans might see as praise, others see as "proof" :-)). CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of your criticisms, except the one about sociology. I don't claim to know that much biology, but I am very well acquainted with sociology and gender studies. You can cherry-pick whatever papers you want, but I know for a fact that what I have written in the sociology section reflects the majority point of view in that field. As soon as you "acquaint yourself with the literature", as you like to say, I'm sure you'll understand this. Kaldari (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool answers from both of you. I think we're becoming a team. Sympathy for you Carol in your struggles with "whitewashers" (love that term). I appreciate you being willing to reassure me of what I trusted of you already, that you're no whitewasher yourself.
 * Likewise, Kaldari, I am confident you know the weight of sociological literature on the topic far better than I, but I know enough of it to know that you describe it accurately. I don't have time now, but there are reasons I think a decent treatment of the "mainstream" sociological perspective (independent of sociobiology, which is biology not sociology?) may prove to be the most difficult part of the article to write. The article needs to present the arguments, evidence and theories advanced by disciplines, not their "votes". Clearly, arguments, evidence and theories work as votes anyway. Michel Foucault and Jacques Lacan should be mentioned by name and some relevant specifics of their views articulated, and as with other views, some representative criticsm should be cited (there is almost enough of this within sociology itself).
 * Anyway, thanks for replying. I'm glad you're both still at this page. It doesn't matter where the article is now, nor where it has been in the past, all that matters is the future. I'm not going anywhere, but I'm not inclined to let you two escape until we've done great things to this article. If it is an emotional topic for some, that is only because it is an important one. I trust we'll honour readers, other editors and one another by investing time building the article above and beyond the present and any better past revisions. It's not worth discussing what we might go back to. I'm just nagging away at you that I'm expecting sourced development of the article in a manner we could all veto, but never do, because what we propose is so evidently fair articulation of notable sources on the topic (which, I'm sure you're beginning to realise, would look odd if it didn't include Goldberg).
 * Haste is the enemy of co-operation. Since we all agree on ROFL, that's a great piece of common ground from which to move forward ... at a dignified (read procrastinating) pace. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but I'd still like to get an idea of what time period at least the article was better (August-Sept 2007? - July 2008??) since I have no problem reinserting good properly sourced relevant NPOV material :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since about March 2007 the article has had a distinctive shape—imperfect and incomplete—but sourced and neutral. Since then, a number of improvements have been made, but far more deletions and unsourced additions tend to accumulate over a period of months. At one point someone called GreenRed or something like that maintained the page for several months, although never having contributed anything. I got the feeling GreenRed thought the article contained information not easily found elsewhere and so considered it worthwhile to guard it against editors, often anonymous, who seemed to lean against or for feminism.
 * This article was still close to the March 2007 version in October 2008. Some erosion was evident and it needed attention, but Dieter's, Kaldari's and MidnightChild's edits have removed a great deal of information, including concise statements of a long standing scientific consensus (since anthropology of the early 20th century through to the current time). As such, the article not only lacks info it once had, it also lacks the simple, clear, multiply sourced, interdisciplinary summary that gave an overall logic.
 * If you want a quick feel for things, try looking at the 1 April 2007 and 1 October 2008, they should be similar.
 * Compare either of them with the current version and you will see what happens to this article more slowly under usual conditions.
 * It's one thing to want patriarchy to roll over and die, it's quite another to declare it dead already. It seems counter-productive to me to declare a living enemy dead, somewhat dangerous in fact.
 * I must say, though, I'm impressed by your desire to be diligent here Carol, and it's a pleasure to offer whatever assistance I can. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting
An anon editor recently made this change. I agree, as did the sourced text that has been removed from the article. If we deny the present patriarchal nature of western society, we are suggesting that current feminist protests are silly. But they are not. Imo many feminisms are perfectly correct to say the situation is worse now than before, because people think things have changed when in many key areas they have not. At the very least we owe it to contemporary feminism to admit that the best secientific and neutral opinions believe the west is still patriarchal despite all manner of good intentions and formal legislation. Just why it remains patriarchal is obviously a deep question, and there are other serious ideological disagreements that are likewise needing of careful treatment. However, the brute facts of the "glass ceiling" and other issues are conceeded by nearly all parties, except perhaps those that some would suggest have a vested interest in trying to deflect attention from the issues. People don't like the idea that even the modern west is male dominated in important ways after we've tried so hard to correct that, but it's not just protestors who claim this, even scientists think they can offer some reasons for it.

The anonymous edit is typical of dozens I've seen at this article over two years. Not only that, the less information the article contains, the more these edits are made. But the contrary is also true, while the article retains lots of sourced information, as uncomfortable as much of it is, "corrections" slow down. I do hope it is not going to take another two years for us to make progress, until we have multiple editors seeing precisely the same as I've observed, and it shouldn't be necessary, because we have two years of edit history that already demonstrates these things.

Thanks to the recent anon editor, and thanks to those currently offering to assist with the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While I think the new edit is more accurate, it still needs a source since that opinion or analysis doesn't seem to be

sourced below in the article. So I it and made a note. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks ... but ... it used to be sourced by several major works in the lead. You might like to go back into the article history and recover those sources, since you deleted them yourself. ;) I'm not being unfriendly, I just giggle about it, it's ironic. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for idea of links above. If don't have time to review history, but I do have a prejudice against long leads in general since they tend to start getting POV. Usually I move stuff else where unless it's poorly WP:RS, redundant, undue etc. But I do remember when I first saw it it seemed very lopsided in favor of one view; now it's less lopsided though still needs massive work but until I am ready to edit don't feel like defending structure I think it needs (ie science and issues as two main sections). Also if the article is getting messed up by others you obviously are paying for past mistakes and learning to be on your best behavior :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Carol...I think Alastair has improved his charm and all articles will be well served for his increasing cheerfulness. I would suggest, however, that you refrain from poking him with the stick of past indiscretions. Alastair has constantly defended his actions before, during and after any recent administrative mistreatment...and not without cause. His passion for good quality articles and his ability to work with fellow editors is easily found in many article histories. There are many aspects to administrative decisions. Alastair should not be besmirched (nor castigated)(nor derided)(nor heckled) for having a vexing "run-in" with the law! It could be any one of us.--Buster7 (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice you got to this before me Buster. I disagree with you that I've "improved my charm". In fact, the reality is that my experience of Wikipedia tolerating publication of defamation over a period of many months means that I am actually now completely uncompromising. In fact, it is just my instinctive "warm-fuzzy" nature, that has not been altered, that gives the impression of charm.
 * Carol can allow her personal attack (well poisoning, defamation, or whatever we want to call it) to stand. It says more about her willingness to speculate than about anything real. The right thing to do when we do not know someone, just like details of an encyclopedic topic, is to refrain from expressing speculative opinions, or to rephrase these as questions. But in any case, making gratuitous negative speculations about other editors is simply not "best behaviour" at Wiki. :-) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Carol reminding you of your editing restrictions seems like a generous favor to me. She could have just reported your reverts to AN/I and had you completely banned from this page. I count 4 reverts to this article by you between December 2 and December 6. That's 3 more than you are permitted under the terms of the decision. It seems you should be thanking her rather than accusing her of defamation. Kaldari (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ho hum, more well poisoning.
 * Not at all. ArbCom have me to thank for co-operating with a poorly handled so far, but unfinished case. And I have you two to thank for proving how poor the outcome was. Technically, you provide documentary proof of defamation. Ultimately I don't mind, because it means inappropriate edits and posts like yours and Carol's can be refered directly to ArbCom. I get a direct line to the highest court of appeal for a year. I actually kind of like it. he he. ;)
 * I'd recommend you get past trying to defend some poor edit decisions by casting slurs at other editors regarding issues you have obviously not researched, and get back to reading sources on the topic of this article. You've made two decisions I can support: placing biology above commentary, and sourcing a little non-biological sociology. But removing multiple impeccable sources regarding the consensus that patriarchy is universal is inevitably doomed to failure. The procedure is bold-revert-talk-consensus, not bold-revert-revert-personal attack, as is documented above and in the page history.
 * As I've said, I'll be returning to repair the article, and this time, I'll be expecting you two to be on your "best behaviour", to use Carol's phrase.
 * From now on I'll ignore comments addressed at me rather than the text of the article.
 * Returning to content, please find reliable sources for a list of all societies known to be non-patriarchal, or face the fact that the statements of the universality of patriarchy are a pretty basic datum for this article. It was a datum established by anthropology over the early decades of the 20th century; and literature regarding the "glass ceiling" in the 21st century addresses the fact that things have not changed (in an absolute sense) since then.
 * You might also like to try to source something that can establish that Goldberg is unreliable, non-notable or fringe on the subject of patriarchy.
 * Reliable sources expressing consensus opinions cannot be removed over the top of objections, with no argument for this save editorial suspicion or personal dislike of the objector. I've heard rumblings the two of you have admitted this, which impressed me as intellectual honesty and maturity. But proof of your sincerity is your willingness to correct your own errors.
 * Anyone who's got a bit of clue can see the universality of patriarchy is not a popular idea. It's not taught in school. It causes reader surprise. But it is a fact and the way to deal with it is to give the sources, not to bury it.
 * It is also necessary to source responses, not just explanations, however good or bad they are. If a reader hates the idea, he will want to know how like-minded experts have dealt with this kind of abhorance. If we do that well, a reader will feel consoled and recognise neutrality. The feminist evaluation was the first thing I wrote in this article for that very reason. Although I agree science comes first logically, some readers approach this article with their hearts as well as their minds engaged.
 * To be really honest here, I don't hear the two of you being open about your own thoughts and feelings on the topic. I suspect I've seen evidence of some scientific curiosity from you both. That's the ideal. But not all readers will approach the topic as impartially, and you've both left evidence that you were a little surprised by the facts yourselves at first. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on "packaging" the article for a real life reader. But again, until you've read some of the sources that have been deleted, I'm sure you realise opinions on such things can only be provisional. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear Alastair. How are the mighty fallen?! You are now campaigning for the enemy, I see! In supporting the feminists you will undermine all the good work you have done over the years, and still you will be punished for your pains. Just the same as happened to Larry Summers. Look what has happened since the last time I viewed the article:

You have now completely lost Margaret Mead’s words, and Professor Goldberg himself is almost buried. These were the only two speaking the truth on the matter! How can you have allowed them to be silenced? By failing to state the biological basis of patriarchy (despite desperately trying to), your “Biology of Gender” section now yields authority to “Sociology”, which, of course, wastes no time in denying it. Once again the women win. Your other bold attempt, the ‘Benefits of patriarchy’ section, is an utter disaster, for it fails to identify one specific benefit to back up the title! Face it Alastair, you have been routed! And largely through your own doing. The women have persuaded you to castrate yourself, and now Kaldari is whipping you while you are down!

Look how you have hidden the heart of the matter: men have always been in charge, and nearly everyone before agreed it was a good idea. This is the essence of patriarchy, and this is the meaning that should permeate the article -- but it has disappeared! Only today are we foolish enough seriously to question the arrangement, and such questioning should be mentioned as a minor aside. Certainly no more than 10% of the article. Despite 99% of modern literature seeking to undermine rather than reinforce patriarchy, that has little bearing on the meaning of the word itself.

No, I think this is all far, far too much for one man to bear. How much longer can you carry on beating such an ignominious retreat, Alastair? You must be worn to a shred. Hear this: I recommend that you retire from this rat race forthwith, and take a well-earned rest. There you can lick your wounds, recover your spirits, and then start to re-plan and regroup. I’d be delighted to try to help you at this stage. You’ve got to find a way to change the ground rules, otherwise you will wear yourself into an early grave.

The simple truth is this: if just willingness to talk some more wins the day, regardless of relevance or authority, then the women will always win. Trust me, they are simply far better at it than we are, and can talk us into the ground. See how well they are doing at the moment! I know that this is the principle upon which Wikipedia is founded, but for the sake of humanity (and particularly our children) it has to be changed. Duncan Butlin (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are failing to observe Duncan, is that Wikipedia is a medium that offers no guarantees except sources. When editors cannot back their case by sources and resort to personal attacks instead, it gradually draws others into the debate. Gradually others are forced to consider sources to resolve the issue. The more people try to silence Britannica, Margaret Mead, Cynthia Eller, Goldberg and the scientific consensus on patriarchy, the more people will need to review these sources and confirm their reliability, which they will (and have done so several times in the past). Not only that, all this works for me. The more often people refer to a Wikipedia process that made several wrong decisions, the more those decisions are exposed as being as being as inflamatory and defamatory, as they were ill considered and precipitate.
 * Additionally, the longer editors remain inactive on a page, neither adding sourced content, nor restoring content they've deleted, the more one has to wonder what basis they had for shooting first and asking questions later. It is seen more clearly that they had no basis for action but a desire to silence sources cited (but surely not to silence a fellow editor). The contrast between my actions and theirs stands out ever more clearly with every passing day. I know the edits to have been wrong but am allowing them to stand, but they have deleted sources they haven't read and insisted on their deletions by editing.
 * Time, Ducan, is on my side, just like the sources. And you are quite wrong about contemporary literature being predominantly anti-patriarchal, it is quite the opposite, there is now, and has been throughout the last 40 years, a very substantial and growing body of serious literature regarding the importance of male responsibility in securing the welfare, physical and emotional of women and children. How truly you speak when you refer to the latter. The plight of fatherless children has received particular scrutiny over recent years—a body of literature this article will ultimately need to come to interact with.
 * Gloat all you like, young lady, but there are more things on earth and in heaven than are dreamed of in your philosophy. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we all keep the WP:Soapboxing down here? I mean I'm sure we could all rant for paragraphs, but let's spend our time researching sources and commenting on those. Thanks. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After you have contributed your first source, Carol, feel free to make such comments. I'm sure you'll not mind me ignoring you in the meantime. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Good evening, Alastair,

Thank you for your considered reply, and I can see you are bending over backwards in an effort to accommodate my uncomfortable opinions. Yet you end up insulting me: you address me as a young lady when you know full well I am a grown man. I must challenge you in return, to protect my reputation. Please believe me, I have your interests at heart, as well as my own.

I will never talk to you again -- neither here, nor via any other medium -- until you call me on the phone (as indicated on my User Page) and sort this matter out. Whatever the time, day or night, I will be happy to receive your call, and I am sure my sex will become apparent within seconds. But until you have done this, to my satisfaction, no dice. After we have sorted it out in private, we can carry on discussing here as if nothing had happened. All will be forgiven. Duncan Butlin (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have struck out my comment now that I've noted what I've noted on your talk page. A phone call is out of the question—I live in Australia! ;) It's most dramatic, irregular and suspicious anyway. You are most welcome to email me, that is possible via a link at my user page, on the left hand side of the screen. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @Alastair: You are fighting a battle that was won 30 years ago. Pack up your gun and go home. The Emperor has surrendered! "Anyone who's got a bit of clue can see the universality of patriarchy is not a popular idea. It's not taught in school." Obviously, you haven't been to school in a while. Although it's true that second wave (i.e. 1970s) feminists were keen to advance 19th century ideas about a "hidden history of matriarchies", modern scholarship in anthropology and sociology has long put such notions to rest. If you would stop being paranoid for a minute, you might realize that the debate you want this article to focus on was settled thirty years ago, and your side won! Rehashing 19th and 20th century arguments as if they were contemporary debate is a waste of article space and a waste of time. If you would simply summarize the debate and its conclusions in a straightforward manner instead of filling the article with tables and quotations, you would have our support. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kaldari for a spot-on topic and, I'm guessing, genuinely concilliatory post. That draws positive emotion from me. I disagree with some of what you say, though, but that part draws no particular emotion.
 * I'm not fighting any battles, only noting the ones it appears to me others are fighting. It's not my side that won, but our side, i.e. consensus belongs to everyone. But this is editor on editor stuff, so it stops there.
 * As far as the universality of patriarchy goes, the 18-month-standing revision of the article refered to it only briefly in the lead, there isn't much to say is there really? Far more has been said in talk on the subject than merely two paragraphs of the lead warrant.
 * And that's the point, at this article the matter has been contentious, although you and I know that few serious scholars think modern society is egalitarian, nor that there have been any others. Even now, the article serves as a coatrack for those who want to "fight that battle", though thankfully only at the bottom of the page.
 * Additionally, you will admit that biological explanations of gender dimorphic behaviour were ruled out of court by 2nd wave feminism and nearly all sociology over the course of the 70s and right up to the 90s. However, that issue has been complicated by rapid progress in several biological sciences. First Goldberg, then van den Berghe, then many others have plugged away on that and, over the course of the 90s, that matter too has percolated from scientific papers into public awareness, and people grow tired of hearing continued scepticism thrown at the science by those with convictions born of a bygone day.
 * Anyway, what you seem to be saying is that the history of scholarship on the topic is not relevant somehow. The article should only contain recent discussion. What's the cutoff date? Genes, Brain and Behavior only started this decade, though obviously there are other journals that address this material, it's only very recently that a start has been made on piecing some of the genetic findings together. How can we argue the nature/nurture element of this topic was won 30 years ago, when evidence is still coming in? We know that nature does play a part, but we still don't know exactly how much, or for that matter, the full details of the causal chains.
 * But, as I've noted above, I think, there's too much involved in reworking the article from its current point back to something more balanced and reliable for me to do that right now. I'll get back to it in a month when I have time to do it properly, and to follow through. There's no point in me discussing details until then.
 * To finish on a positive note, what you say regarding selective documentation of past scholarship strikes me as very sensible regarding some points. There's no need to write up Bachofen in detail, and possibly not that much point in dwelling on sociological scepticism while scientific results were not so widely published.
 * I trust you have holidays, hope you'll enjoy them (however people manage that in the US and UK this time of year). I'll see you in February. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if we are going to discuss the matriarchy debate at all, it is important that we mention Bachofen, just as it is important that we mention Goldberg in the biology discussion. I agree, however, that we do not need to dwell on the ideas of individual writers for substantial parts of the article. It should be sufficient to summarize their ideas in the relevant sections. I'm still dismayed, however, at your aversion to including discussion of sociological theories of patriarchy in this article. Regardless of how credible you consider the sociology POV, it is a notable POV that needs to be discussed in this article. Your contention that sociologists have warmed up to the biological POV is simply not accurate. It seems there is more cross-pollination between the fields now, but current sociological theory holds that nurture rather than nature is the prime reason for patriarchy in society. Notice that all of the sources cited in the sociology section are from the current decade (which is more than I can say for the biology section). Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't know where you got the idea that I think the nature vs nurture debate was settled 30 years ago. I was talking about the existance of matriarchies. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are going to discuss nature v nurture, we need to work hard to source (for we read you ;) how sociologist explain patriarchy without reference to biology. We know they assert this, but what is their evidence and what is their counter-theory. (I'm intrigued even your own wording weasles the early sociological stance "rather than nature is the prime reason", that does look like thawing to me ;)
 * Discussing matriarchy is obviously more directly associated with patriarchy than even nature v nurture. If the sociologists are right, it would be just as possible in theory for matriarchy to exist as it is for patriarchy.
 * The nature v nurture debate doesn't enter the picture until we ask the question: "Why are all societies patriarchal, rather than something else?" The "something else" needs to be a logical possibility, and historically it was the lack of evidence for either matriarchal or egalitarian societies that led to the question. There is no point in asking is it explained by nature or nurture until the sources summarising the evidence that constitutes the reference it are presented. There's a finite number of societies available to observation (2, 4 or 6 thousand depending on how they are counted), data on all was only gathered by the early 20th century, and ethnographers reported on patriarchy, because it was a "hot topic" at the time.
 * It's a fascinating subject, though I feel Catherine Hakim is on the right track in thinking pregnancy is the key factor in women's choices. If you ask me, Hakim is closer than anyone else—rather than having much to do with men, patriarchy has much more to do with what many women choose (or were constrained by a fertile womb to choose) and consequently refrain from contributing in other domains. The idea is not entirely absent in Goldberg, he speaks frequently of "non-maternal high-status roles", in other words, he proposes a high status role exclusive to women, he just doesn't explore its implications for women's choices.
 * There's got to be good recent stuff out there, Hakim's a respected sociologist. I think she and her critics would be well worth reviewing.
 * Anyway, I'm looking forward to February, I'm confident sources will settle our differences for us. But until then, I'm afraid I'm just not free to participate in discussion here. Happy holidays. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a critical flaw in your logic. That being that all fields of academic study make sense and are interested in resolving differences with other disciplines. I don't have to believe that sociology theory is compatible with biology theory to write about either one. Nor is it our role to resolve those differences or inconsistencies, or pit the two of them against each other in some kind of showdown. Otherwise we should be hanging out at the Jesus article writing about how virgin birth is biologically impossible. Kaldari (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right that there's no absolute need to harmonize reliable sources, but I never proposed it. I'll explain things again in February, 'cause fortunately logic doesn't go sour over time. ;)
 * Of course, the whole point of the virgin birth is that it is biologically impossible. If biology can't explain it, what can? ... err perhaps culture? I tease.
 * That's a super cool way for us to conclude our exchange I think. Feel free to have the last word if you wish. Not that I'm implying you want that of course. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)