Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 6

alleged benefits of patriarchy
Is there a source for the last sentence--about arguments for the social utility of patriarchy found in Akkadian and Babylonian records?--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is it?--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the feminist critique of patriarchy and its origins excluded
Where is the section dealing with patriarchy according to the theories of Martitja Gambutas, Riane Eisler and others? Why is this not covered?John D. Croft (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Because we need you to contribute from the sources you are familiar with. Please write in Gambutas. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

John, could you put some ideas here for discussion? Please include where you think the material would fit. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

History section
I've deleted some rather trite and loaded material regarding some Greek philosophers. The section needs a more apt title, because it doesn't describe the history of patriarchy, but something even better: a literature review of reflection on the topic of patriarchy. Also, to its credit, it starts reasonably early, though older sources are certainly available.

It is, of course, a synthesis of published material, but that is precisely what Wiki always is and must be. There are elements of it, like the early parts I read and deleted, which imply conclusions for which no source is provided. A source must be provided, to demonstrate that the synthesis is not original. That's no longer any problem with the deleted material, because it was simply off topic anyway.

Enough work has been done on this article that it's worth reviewing, rather than simply restoring the rated article from the edit history. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Trite and loaded? Judgment and sentence, all in one fell swoop.  How typical.  You have made it clear in the past what your stance is, so this deletion can hardly be seen as unbiased.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Without those sections, Aristotle's focus and agenda remains submerged. If anything this can be re-written.  It is already sourced, so your comments about sources are troubling.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll work on some suggestions for reorganization of the sections you mentioned. It could also have another title.  I'll think about that as well. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop it Alistair. And do not threaten me about my actions being used against me. Threats are, apparently, all you have going for you. I told you to discuss things and you have been told that by the administrators who banned you. Get in line.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be a coincidence, but at the same time Alistair started his most recent attacks here, an editor named 'Ari' began the same sort of thing on the 'Virgin birth (mythology) article.' Since then he has moved and rewritten the article without consensus. His most recent discussion is on the 'Miraculous birth' article. I don't know if it is Alistair, but Alistair has threatened me and the general tone is the same. Also, Ari keeps sending me private messages threatening to block me from editing. I think it is because he has no right to block me.--Hammy64000 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All I have to say is you are a paranoid individual. Maybe you could write a Wikipedia page about the elaborate conspiracy theory you have about myself. That said, could you refrain from attempting to attack me on various talk pages as that is not their purpose. Thankyou. --Ari (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because two editors revert your edits on two different articles, that doesn't mean you should assume they are sockpuppets. Pushing heavily religious views here, you will see many reverts. Spigot  Map  17:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ari and SpigotMap, I am requesting that you stop leaving private warnings and threats of your blocking me. If you have somehting of importance to say, say it in the appropriate discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not pretend that this about two editors reverting edits. You know very well that is not what this is about.  It is about two editors who will not answer specific criticisms about the article organization and content.  It is about two editors who use unfair tactics.  It is about two editors who won't work with others.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also about two editors who don't even realize they have revealed themselves by carrying their discussion here, of all places.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You will continue to be warned if you continue your incivility. Your talk page is not private. No one is using unfair tactics, and I haven't even looked at the content dispute. I just know that judging by the edit histories, you are carrying on an edit war and have a problem with assuming good faith against other editors. There is no conspiracy here, there is no one "private messaging" you. There is no one threatening you. The warnings on your page are not threats, it is a fact. If you continue to attack other editors, you will be blocked. Spigot  Map  19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making up things about incivility. Do you think people can't read?  They should read the discussion and make up their own minds.  This is the last exchange I have with either of you on personal charges.  This is the point:  Ari moved the Virgin Birth (mythology) article without consensus.  He rewrote and Christianity and Judaism sections and put them at the top, making it a Christian-centered article.  It is not in a Christianity project.  It is in a religions project.  He threatened to rewrite the Egypt section by asking for page numbers for sources.  They were provided, by the way.  He is unfailingly rude.  He has never answered any of these charges although they have been repeated many times.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So go fix it. Ari doesn't have to ask your permission to edit the article, as you don't have to ask theirs. Ari can also remove disputed information if it's no sourced properly, in which case if you want it there, then source it. You don't own any article here, and Ari doesn't have to answer to any charges, even though it looks like they have. If they are disruptive, bring up their actions at WP:ANI but do not continue to be uncivil or attack other editors. Spigot  Map  19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way with him. He changes it back.  When there is a dispute of the magnitude, there needs to be a calm discussion before changes are made.  So far that has not taken place and I have no confidence he will be reasonable.  Did you read the part where he moved and rewrote the article over my objections?--Hammy64000 (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Spigot, please leave Hammy alone. What you say about him is quite true, but he is a victim, not a perpetrator. In my opinion he has simply swallowed whole, personal attacks made against me by others. Those personal attacks were mishandled by the best authorities, so it's all a bit tricky. Please leave Hammy alone, but please keep this article on your watchlist. Your grasp of Wiki principles is heartwarming. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Content discussion
The bickering is silly and is going nowhere.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Hammy, for being so slow to get back to you. I work on many articles and with many people and this article is fairly low priority. You are not low priority, to me, I'm just busy, sorry again.
 * In reply to your heading, Hammy, if you are suggesting I can't use sources other than Goldberg, that's quite incorrect. Susan Pinker is the most current publisher of the "hormones drive competitive gendered behaviour" theory. Catherine Hakim is the source that says Goldberg's theory is "proved". But, Goldberg is just one POV. He is still contested. The important thing is, it is an academic convention, as no doubt you know, to acknowledge the first person who proposed a theory. So I have no problems at all about using sources other than Goldberg, both to criticise his (and others') POV and to present alternative POVs.
 * It would, of course, be a problem if someone could not bring themself to use Goldberg, since Wikipedia is neutral and provides reliable sources of all points of view. Since Goldberg's theory is essentially the original source of the current consensus theory across many related academic disciplines, we'd look either ignorant or biased not to acknowledge his Guiness Book of Records winning PhD thesis and metastudy, which is referenced in government policy advisor's academic works.
 * Hammy, you are one of the most dedicated Wikipedians I have met. I have not yet met anyone who was willing to BUY a copy of a book to verify material in an article. And a book buy the "opposition" at that. I cannot say strongly enough how very much I admire that, and how very much that is an example to every editor at this project. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have an addition to the article, please put it here for discussion. I propose things for discussion myself. I don't know of a problem with the sources you mentioned, except the part where Goldberg's theory is "proved."  How is this relevant?  The proof of a theory is not a qualification for use here.  Proof of any particular viewpoint has not been an issue with any of the current material in the article.  As your last comment is written, it is an argument in favor of patriarchy itself, not about the source to be used.  This is the problem.  The article already contains patriarchal viewpoints.  This would be one more addition and should be presented without bias, and not as a final coup de grace, or would it be coup d'e-tat, in favor of any one view.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alistair, I appreciate your recent comments and encouragment. You can write and you have a lot of ideas--I just hope you will use your talent in a way that helps you and helps others. --Hammy64000 (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like you Hammy, that's precisely what I've been doing since joining Wikipedia. It's not all politics around here, but that does happen. Normally pretty well, but nothing's ever perfect. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Attention
Please read discussion from Third opinion section above, and also the following section. I'm afraid people won't notice what is happening because it is taking place in the body of the discussion. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Content discussion continued

 * Many pages at Wikipedia get little traffic to the talk page, Hammy. Patriarchy doesn't get all that much, which is kind of surprising, but that's the way it is. If you want to get the attention of a particular editor, talk pages help, even if you're both working at the same article. Article talk pages normally work OK, but sometimes need refactoring, as I've noticed you're particularly good at.
 * There are two things I want to do at this page, not in the next week, but probably about a week away. Firstly, I want to try to find a reliable secondary source regarding the history of advocacy for patriarchy. You've made a good start on that, looking back to Athens no less. However, I'm pretty sure the Stoics will say a lot more about it. I think we need a secondary source, because although you seem to know more about the history than I do, there are people out there that know more than both of us.
 * The other thing I want to do is restore some material that was stable for two years, but has disappeared without ever being discussed to consensus. I'll start with the table of ethnographies that a lot of editors have wanted to see documented somewhere at Wiki, and was recently decided to be merged back into this article.
 * That list of societies is good hard evidence on the topic. Many people disapprove of those societies and patriarchy, we must write that into the article, however, anything neutral like a list of just which societies are held to be patriarchal (and therefore "unjust" if you like) is important for setting the scope of the article, and for documenting reliable sources.
 * Anyway, the main thing is building on the work you've already done: adding and refining. The more sources we have backing your work, the more stable it is and sure to endure. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as you are going back to the Stoics, why not go back further? Hesiod's Works and Days and also his Ages of Man can be shown to represent Indo-European myths. I have a good source for this. The outlook is typical. It is known that this culture was super-imposed on non-Indo European people with different customs. As long as your history is prefaced by "according to" and not presented like the opinion of Wikipedia, or as the established view, it can all fit with the form of the existing article.

The table of Ethnographies, as everything else, must be prefaced, explaining its relevance to the rest of the material. The section on Anthropology as well as the biology section already state that the practice of deriving social theory from the natural sciences has been discredited, so if you are suggesting that it represents a "proof" that patriarchy is good it is: 1. A dead end; 2. An attempt to support a particular theory and not the function of an encyclopedia; 3. going to put us right back where we started. These existing arguments are sourced to studies that can be included in more detail. I only referenced them for the sake of space.

Any changes must be discussed. Really discussed. It seems like your suggestions fit in the Alleged benefits of Patriarchy section. If you want to work on a suggestion for that section it needs to be handled in a way that makes the theory clear to the reader without trying to argue for its rightness. And you need to say this is the argument of a certain scholar or a certain school of thought. Also be prepared for additional material to illustrate the opposing views. This is only the structure of the whole article. Please do not include the entire table without comment, like you did before. Summarize it, and conclusions must be sourced to someone besides you.

On Goldberg, I have two reviews from American Anthropologist that make me question him and anyone who "prooved" his theory. I'm still concerned about the way this will go, although the discussion part is a positive change.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a nice positive interaction, thanks Hammy.
 * Actually, one of the things I think your history could do with, is a few more "according to"s.
 * For example, you have:
 * "In this matter, [Aristotle] followed in the tradition of Socrates who thought being born a woman was divine punishment, since a woman is halfway between a man and an animal." Referenced to http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis
 * Now, I was a little confused, because "Mysterious Topics Atlantis" doesn't sound like a reliable source, but when I went there, I found a page from Benjamin Jowett's translation of Plato's Timaeus. I presume, then you mean to cite Jowett's translation of Plato:
 * "For our creators well knew that women and other animals would some day be framed out of men".
 * I would cite this differently.
 * "ὡς γάρ ποτε ἐξ ἀνδρῶν γυναῖκες καὶ τἆλλα θηρία γενήσοιντο͵ ἠπίσταντο οἱ συνιστάντες ἡμᾶς" Plato, Timaeus 76e. "For our creators well knew that women and other animals would some day be framed out of men". Translated by Benjamin Jowett 1871.
 * Now, although I personally don't object to original research from primary sources, because that's my day job, it's not the normal thing for us to do here at Wikipedia. It's so very hard to be original, though, that it's usually not too much of a problem when people try it here, because we can often find secondary sources that do say exactly what we want them to say.
 * In this case, though, I think that will be a little more difficult, since Timaeus is actually the speaker, and he's replying to Socrates in Plato's dialogue. So if we want to work from the source, we need to change your sentence a little, unless you feel that Socrates words at 29d
 * Ἄριστα͵ ὦ Τίμαιε͵ παντάπασί τε ὡς κελεύεις ἀποδεκτέον· τὸ μὲν οὖν προοίμιον θαυμασίως ἀπεδεξάμεθά σου͵ τὸν δὲ δὴ νόμον ἡμῖν ἐφεξῆς πέραινε.
 * entitle us to believe Socrates acquiesced in advance to Timaeus' assertions. That's an interesting reading, and not without merit, but the question must be, do other people think this?
 * Perhaps you wouldn't mind changing "Socrates" to "Timaeus" or, perhaps better, "Plato". However, I'm still not sure that's enough. As I understand Plato here in Timaeus, he is suggesting that men were formed first, then both women and animals out of men. He is not saying here that there is any punishment, and he is certainly not saying women are half-man, half-beast. In my opinion he is saying something much worse: he is saying ἐξ ἀνδρῶν γυναῖκες καὶ τἆλλα θηρία γενήσοιντο. Would you agree? γυναῖκες καὶ τἆλλα θηρία! Women and the other animals! Not half-man but fully beast!
 * As many moderns have it, misogyny in philosophy has deep roots. But that brings up another point: we are discussing misogyny here, not patriarchy. Is your argument that Aristotle based his theory of politics on a misogynistic Greek creation myth? That's a very plausible thesis, though I can also imagine other points of view. Aristotle saw the state arising from the family, but did he explain where he thought the family came from?
 * This is where I think we need some secondary sources. If they all agree, then we can say "Aristotle believed ...", if they disagree, then we can say, "Classicist Professor Jane Doe and many others think Aristotle believed ...", but "Professor Janet Citzen thinks ...".
 * I'd love to know more about which secondary sources you're using as you deal with this top quality primary source material. Whose description of Indo-European influence on pre-classical European culture are you following? Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None of this is source stuff is difficult and this material does not have so little relevance. It was Plato's Timaeus for the consort star bit.(Timaeus 41E-42D)  The Internet cite was just a convenient way to let readers see it for themselves.  I have a better source and will change it. The Indo-European influence is in a book called, "God and the Land: the metaphysics of farming in Hesiod and Vergil." (author's spelling) by Nelson.  It has been a while since these sources were used, so I will look at them again.  But most of them were in several sources.  --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm printing your message. I get into trouble firing off answers.  I see you are being thoughtful about this.  I'll get back to you.  I changed the sources.  Think I got them all.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't read Greek. Thanks for assuming I do though.  I see your point about the half animal idea that is attributed to Socrates.  The secondary source was "What Paul really said about women," by John Temple Bristow.  He said it exactly as I wrote it, but I would have to be looking at a copy of the Timaeus to talk about this at all. I will try to get one. I have put my original source on the article and left the Internet reference too, but that can still be changed to the Benjamin Jowett translation, if it seems important.
 * Your question about whether we are talking about patriarchy or misogyny is important. It might be related to the question of whether we are talking about political institutions or the marriage relationship. I think I see where you are going--that patriarchy doesn't imply mysogyny. This kind of argument is missing in the article so far.  It might fit in the Benefits section, but that heading could be worded better.  The Benefits of patriarchy is an argument in itself. --Hammy64000 (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't use Bristow, I used his source from his notes.--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry--I realize the misogyny or patriarchy comment needs a lot more thought than I've given it, and that it wasn't a question. The history section traces an ethos that has influenced society at all levels.  It also indicates that misogyny has been recognized and fought for hundreds of years.  This defining of roles and assigning corresponding limits and values seems to have been an important tool in the rationale for hierarchical organizations and for a society consisting of the rulers and the ruled.  The article wasn't meant to defame or to assume the worst of men or deny the good intentions of husbands and I don't think it gives that impression. On a political and economic level, patriarchy affects everyone.  I've never had to say what I think the article is saying before.  I hope this explains the mysogyny/patriarchy connection.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One final word on the sources. I think I've read somewhere that Socrates did not write.  Plato wrote his teachings, as well as the final words he spoke while awaiting execution. (This was in the Phaedo.)  De Santillana and von Dechend, when speaking of Socrate's ideas often say something like, "What Socrates (or Plato) meant..."  I will still get the actual copy myself and see what I can find out.
 * On the choice of translation, the Bristow source was listed, but the Socrates quote on the creation of souls (in de Santillana and von Dechend) gives only the numbers as they appear in the Timaeus. So I wonder if more information is really needed? --Hammy64000 (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to cite them as the source. The translation is obviously theirs.  I'll give a page number.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quality responses, thanks, Hammy. I'll have a closer look at your modifications and probably sign off that I agree with you. Quality comments about bigger picture issues re misogyny v. patriarchy also. We've got plenty of work to do, but I think we've got the same basic ideas about the sort of coverage this article needs to end up with. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Backtracking
I re-read your proposal about a history of advocacy for patriarchy, and also read my answer. I see that I did sound defensive about your first proposal. It had mostly to do with that table, but I was not encouraging and I apologize.

I think a section of the article does need to spell out the main points of advocacy for patriarchy. It won't convince everyone any more than the other sections convince everyone, but it shouldn't have to. It is better if you don't try. It would only need to be a clear explanation from an accepted source. The article would be more rounded if you would be willing to add this other voice. In your last message I picked up on a possible argument concerning whether patriarchy implies misogyny, and a few related questions, but you would know the main points better, yourself. Can't it be approached in a different way? You don't need proof of a view even if the table were capable of proof. Just a reasoned argument from a good source. --Hammy64000 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Women and children first (saying) is the classic statement of advocacy for patriarchy as non-misogynistic. Versions of that concept are available from primary sources going back to the start of history. Secondary sources dealing with the primary sources are also available. I think that's all we really need regarding a case "for" patriarchy. Perhaps someone will come along and want more, but that person will not be me. I do think it is relevant that Christian theology has God the Father as patriarch over God the Son, both before creation and after the end of the world, so in Christian theology (and several other religions) patriarchy is seen as eternal (rather than merely inevitable, as Goldberg put it). Those religious views are, imo, less significant than the "women and children first" ethic, which is far more widespread. But the value of documenting religious views is that feminist criticism rightly identifies that patriarchy is deeply ingrained in human societies, often via religious world-views.
 * Please let me stress that this article can neither be a coatrack for polemic against patriarchy, nor for advocacy. There is so much material simply from anthropology and biology alone (which don't take sides), that a substantial neutral article can be produced without even looking at ideologies. What we will face, however, is a large number of readers who are interested in the article taking sides. We've got to point them to WP:NPOV: "sorry, Wiki is neither for nor against patriarchy; are there sources for either POV you think we've not accounted for?"
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will print this and think it over more carefully, but I am encouraged by this response. It may not be necessary, but I wanted to mention the "case for patriarchy" comment.  You did say you are aware we should not take sides, but it is easy to forget that we are not making a "case." We are summarizing the case that key theorists have made.  I want to point out that the other sections could be much longer and be made to stress points of view more, but they were given as little space as possible because that was not my purpose, and also since the article was so long.
 * On the anthropological and biological material, the article has said that its connection to social theory has been called into question. There is additional material that can be used here.  The idea that physical sciences don't take sides can, in itself, be disputed using sources I am already aware of. I really had in mind concise statements of what I call the ideal of patriarchy, the women and children first part that you mentioned, and maybe some arguments from the religious sources you are talking about, but without trying to be definitive.  It would be nice to see an actual proposal and its sources. --Hammy64000 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UNDUE, this article should probably expand discussion of feminist criticism before elaborating on the "benefits" of patriarchy. There are entire bookstores devoted to criticism of patriarchy, i.e. feminism, so we have a lot of ground to cover there. Kaldari (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right and I have no problem with that. Thank you for pointing out that the feminist material has not even been tapped.  I am very happy not to be left alone here in staying true to all viewpoints.  Under pressure, I begin to think that the article "needs" the case for patriarchy, when the opposite case has not even been made. --Hammy64000 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I would object to the "Benefits of patriarchy" heading. As I said before it is an argument all by itself.  I agree that the feminist part is missing and would have to be included to include the patriarchal argument.  In fact, a contributor enquired about the absence of a feminist argument not long ago, but I haven't heard from him again.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I tried to match patriarchal arguments and episodes with the corresponding push-back from feminism and from other viewpoints. But adding arguments of either feminism or patriarchy POV would definitely upset any balance that may be there now and would lead to inclusion of the opposing view. --Hammy64000 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Kaldari. It's standard practice to place arguments for the affirmative before criticisms. Additionally, since 5,000 years of recorded history provide literature to review, I think Hammy's approach is more usual and provides more WP:DUE weighting. Finally, as Carol pointed out long ago, the science comes first. Non-ideological material is more stable and less controversial. Of course, when I started work here, I ignored all those things and wrote up feminist criticisms first, because they're the easiest to source. It's probably worth pulling up Carol's proposed structure again. No need to re-invent the wheel, wouldn't you say? Or have you changed your mind? Alastair Haines (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Until someone proposes some new material, I'm not going to worry about this at all.--Hammy64000 (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Originally, I thought that if the tone and content of the addition was a good balance for the rest of the article, maybe no one would want to add anything, but I can't speak for everyone. I am going to try to stay out of this part as much as possible.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Washing my hands
Alistair, I want you to know that you no longer have the benefit of the doubt with me. As of this addition, with which you have shown some kind of personality trait that I don't even recognize--that I've never seen before--and with which you have shown complete disregard of my efforts to reach out to you, I no longer recognize you as a friend or as a worthwhile focus of my attention.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not really an addition, Hammy. All I'm doing is restoring information others had requested live somewhere in article space, and a different group of others wanted merged into the current article.
 * You're welcome to whatever opinion of me you want to have, however, I never give up on anyone. I will always assume good faith and try to settle any differences of opinion we may have.
 * By the way, this page is supposed to address article content, not editor relationships. Please feel free to use my user talk page. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You say in your sources--
 * (Brown (1991). 42.^ Goldberg (1973). 43.^ Pinker (2002). 44.^ bell hooks and others (1993): 34. 45.^ "A lot of women who go for the notion of equal rights cannot go for the notion of opposing patriarchy, because that means a fundamental opposition to the culture as a whole. That's more scary to people." bell hooks and others (1993): 34.)

These references are not complete. Book title, publisher and absence of propaganda would be appreciated, even expected. Bell hooks and others? --Hammy64000 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Manus, you are already aware of the problems with these sources. Provide complete sources and a way to check the obscure ones before you replace this POV material.--Hammy64000 (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Content and balance discussion

 * I am sorry Hammy I am not going to let you use Alastairs exit as an exuse to completely remove his material. This is not the way articles are written in wikipedia. You will have to establish a consensus to remove sourced material like this. I also don't appreciate your telling me to "stay out of this" - you were complaining that Alastair owned the article and now you seem to believe you have exclusive rights to do the spring cleaning. That is not going to happen. We are going to make this article neutral and prsent both the universalist and relativist viewponts in an unbiased way. That is not best done byt removeing 35k of text without consensus.·Maunus· ƛ · 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Manus, I forgot you were an impartial participant. I thought you favored this POV, and that was the reason you replaced it.  I won't delete it again, but I didn't use his exit as an excuse.  This material is not new to me.  I researched it before and was aware of the problems with it--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as consensus goes, I have been on my own here, except for the times Alastair has appeared to delete or add material. I'm willing and able to challenge each part of the new addition, but I may not get any discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm willing to leave the article to others. I did think the arbcom was decided already, or I would not have deleted it at all.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds good. I don't think you should leave the article, but I would appreciate if we could work together towards making it include all POVs in a balanced fashion. I am aware of the problems with using Goldberg uncritically - and those problems will have to be included. There are some bold statements about the universality of Patriarchy that I would very much like to see sourced or which will otherwise have to go. I will try to dig up sources and then see how best to proceed from there. Please go ahead and put in citation needed tags wherever there are dubious statements. We can also put up a POV warning tag to alert readers that the article may currently not be neutral.·Maunus· ƛ · 10:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This book seems like an excellent resource for a nuanced view of the Universals debate.·Maunus· ƛ · 10:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I never had a problem with other POV's--I hoped I could head this particular addition off and was willing to add something from Alistair--but the table is long and highly questionable. I will list the problems in detail. Even the paragraphs don't have complete sources. I also have no problem in working with you on this. I don't know if you were aware of the article before. Other POV's had been held off for quite some time. I consider my contributions to begin around Aug. 13, 2009 with the History section. I discussed everything I added. I wasn't the only one aware of the article's difficult history. Also, any patriarchy additions are going to invite feminism additions--not from me, but from other interested parties. It is inevitable. Here is a comment I received on my talk page.

"Wow. Thanks for cleaning up the patriarchy article. I had tried to implement revisions back when Alastair was dominating it, but I gave up. Nice to see it so... balaced. Maybe my faith in Wikipedia has been restored. Neuromusic (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)"--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The "balanced fashion" comment worries me a little. I'm not afraid of ideas, even POV in an informational format.  I won't stick around for a fight though. --Hammy64000 (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked your book link. I'll get a copy and look it over. I might be wrong, but in looking at the table of contents, it seems the "Universals" argument is based on biological evolution. The derivation of social theory from biology has been dealt with, briefly, in the article. I'm not saying it can't be included, but it shouldn't be presented as a definitive approach. If you want more of this in the article, it would probably go in the "Biology vs. social construct" section.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

 * If there is anything I can do to reassure you about my approach, sources, etc., please tell me--of course you can do your own fact checking, etc. If you want to work on this article, this would be a first step, and from there, any objections would move the article forward from where it is now.


 * There is more than one problem with the way this new ethnology stuff is presented. First, my impression is that evidence is given to validate patriarchy using the argument that a number of societies were patriarchal. If they are, therefore, that is the way we should be.


 * On the Bamenda study, I read it over briefly. This study was requested by "Cameroons Development Corporation, and shortly after a despatch was addressed by the Governor of Nigeria to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he drew attention to conditions in the Bamenda division of the Cameroons under British mandate, where, despite considerable natural resources, there was underpopulation, and social obstacles to opportunities for economic development and educational advance were apparent. Among factors thought to be in part responsible for the situation were a very high infant mortality rate to which social factors might be contributing, and a low status of women."  First of all, this was a theory, which required a study.  But the underpopulation and social obstacles--the facts needing explanation--do not indicate a successful system that inspires emulation.  The study does call this society patrilineal, however.


 * But more relevant to its use in this article are the anthropologist's comments: "In the first place, this handling of data yields a series of statements on the role of women in particular segments of tribal life. Generalizations at this level are valid, significant, and of value to those concerned with the problem of raising the status of women and promoting their welfare. An attempt to go beyond this and, by a species of anthropological or moral arithmetic, to decide whether the position of women in general is high or low, or good or bad is, in my opinion, likely to prove profitless. I have made this point with almost monotonous regularity in all my reports."  I haven't read the entire thing, which I should do to make a good argument, but the link is here.  --Hammy64000 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that in order to get an objective perspective I think we should start by looking at some anthropology textbooks and see how they describe the debate. I think it is significant to mention that Male dominance is one of Browns Universals and that Goldberg has attempted to refute most of the supposed exceptions. But I think we should emulate a textbook (or maybe a couple) when we try to decide how much weight the universality pov should be given. In all cases the large "data" section was clearly inadmissible synthesis trying to prove a point by synthesising a wide variety of primary sources - basically it looked like the ground research for a scholarly article synthesising the status of the hypothesis of the universality of patriarchy.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind looking at textbooks, etc. My objections to this particular information are not based on universality arguments though, but I'm fine with leaving it for now.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you go a ahead and boldly change what you would like to see differently then we can see if I have any suggestions for improvements. Heres a textbook example. I am going to look at it and some other textbooks when I get time to swing by the library.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would just like to mention that I know from my own university experience that there is plenty of POV there. Any text book is written and used by choice.  I became quite familiar with the tendency in Cultural anthropology, to echo sociobiology.  The prof. did not explain objections to his approach or provide perspective.  I only learned years later that his texts, etc. fit sociobiology and that sociobiology attempted to analyze human behavior using biology.  Thanks for your offer that I change things.  I'm in no hurry.  We can address things one at a time.  I have some other things to do right now, but I'm glad you are interested in improving this article.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to suggest we can't use textbooks. I'm just saying I don't know of anything that should be treated as a final authority.  I'll try to stay open on this anyway.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, final authority never - a guideline. And not one textbook we'd need several.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that should work. I agree with that completely.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources for table
The extremely lengthy "Sources for table" section should be removed. Besides the fact that it has already been removed from this article previously by consensus, it violates WP:UNDUE, WP:IINFO, and even MOS:FLAG. Some of the lengthier quotations may also be copyright violations. The correct way to cite sources is to use reference tags, not to quote every source within the article itself. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd removed it already. This is clearly Synthesis - if it weren't then it would be possible and preferable to quote a summary of the findings instad of all the individual pieces of data.·Maunus· ƛ · 06:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

POV and OR issues
As discussed above (and at the original AfD) there are several POV and Original Research issues with the Universality of patriarchy content. Hopefully some of it can be edited to conform with those policies, although some of it may need to be deleted. To start with, I have deleted two unreferenced sentences from the "Public responsibilities" section that seem to have been included for no other reason than to imply that men are inherently superior to women. I also think that the repeated use of the term "responsibilities" rather than "roles" (or in some cases "authority") is POV, as it seems to be suggesting that men are expected to wield power over women as the natural order of things. Of course this POV is heavily challenged by feminism and even mainsteam Western society. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I think the heading, "Universality of patriarchy" is POV, and is based on the questionable anthropological material that was deleted. It has no support in the article and shouldn't be used in this way, since it implies a consensus that doesn't exist. Next, I think you could include these paragraphs as an illustration of this type of argument, but you would need to check the sources to make sure the arguments can really be attributed to these people.  However, the sources are incomplete.  There is only one Goldberg book, but does anyone know the other books in the references?  If these problems can be solved, I can use at least 3 sources that challenge the universality claim and challenge the way the evidence is used to support it.  Both views should be stated as information about the debate and not as the final conclusion.  In that event, it would only be necessary for the arguments to be put in context, with complete sources.  In the process, you could use the wording found in the sources and the questionable wording you mentioned could either be attributed to a source or deleted.--Hammy64000 (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the Brown book and that seems to be a more credible resource than Goldberg. I think maybe a better title would be "Patriarchy as a human universal" because Browns universals are fairly widely accepted. I think we would do good to show however that 1. male dominance of the political and public sphere is by the most widespread pattern in the worlds cultures. 2. that there are possible exceptions to this pattern e.g. in egalitarian cultures. 3. that the differences in the degree and types of male dominance found in the worlds societies is very large. 4. that there are different theories about why male dominance is the most common system some biological (mention Goldberg) and some cultural - and that generally simplistic reductionist causality to a single factor (e.g. testosterone) is not a favoured explanation of this phenomenon. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I ordered Pinker's book from my library. I guess Brown's Human univesrsals is published there.  I have a few questions about your proposals, but maybe it would be better to see a few possible paragraphs for the article so we can talk more specifically.  I need to look at the book to really talk about this, but at this point I would be more comfortable with "The human universals debate" for a heading, or something like it.  Maybe this is where you were going anyway, but "Patriarchy as a human universal" could be understood in various ways. The article has mentioned your first two points but these could be expanded.  The last paragraph of the biology vs. social construct section says something about number 1, and the history section mentions that Aristotle's patriarchal views were not shared by all the surrounding cultures.  This could be expanded, or you could handle it as you have suggested.  Numbers 3 and 4 haven't been dealt with yet, and this could be a useful addition to the article.  Number 3 brings up the shortcomings with the modern definition of patriarchy, which I haven't found a way to address.  On number 4, a summary of the types of analysis and the schools of thought would be good.  Any other comments?--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Deja vu. I feel like this entire discussion has happened about 3 times now. Anyway, I added a paragraph to the Universality section to begin to balance it out. The section also needs a paragraph about egalitarianism in modern Western culture and the influence of feminist ideas. Right now it makes it sound like every woman in the world is barefoot and pregnant. I also agree that the main header needs to be changed. I wouldn't mind going with Maunus's suggestion, so long as it is explained at the beginning that it is a debatable theory (although generally accepted I presume). Kaldari (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get the deja vu comment, what is it that you feel you've been over so many times? Where would you prefer to start the discussion?·Maunus· ƛ · 18:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A few years ago Alastair filled this article with pages of content devoted to the Universality of patriarchy (which seems to be his pet topic). Since people kept deleting and/or editing it down, he moved most of it to separate subarticles: Universality of patriarchy, Patriarchy (anthropolgy), List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal. Eventually these were all nominated for deletion, and the outcome of the AfD for Universality of patriarchy was to merge it back into patriarchy. It was merged in June 2009 and the same arguments about OR and POV that had happened originally were rehashed. Some of it was rewritten and refactored, but eventually most of it was just deleted since no one wanted to rewrite it all from scratch. Now Alastair has re-merged the original version of all of that content back into the article and we're having the same debates again. I'm sure that a year from now, Alastair will simply remerge his version of the content again and whoever's here will go through the same process again. Oh well. Kaldari (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point about deja vu, but Maunus hasn't been here and some of this probably can't be avoided. Thanks for the paragraph--I'm still hoping some of the unsourced material can be rounded out so we know what we are trying to address.  It is impossible to present a balanced picture when you don't know if the current material will stay in the article.  I am willing to put proposals on the discussion page first, but if I'm outvoted, then I'll go with the majority. It does seem safer to discuss it first since we obviously have 3 separate approaches here--or even give a preview and see if anyone objects--but maybe that's not how its done?  I'll go along with the section heading at this point too, since I haven't seen how the argument will be presented and since everyone seems okay with it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you already know the unsourced stuff is in a certain book, tell me and I'll complete the references. I also ordered Bell Hooks' books, but of course I don't know for sure which ones were meant.  I'm interested in her view because she is a "feminist thinker" and yet was used here to justify male rule. --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I should say that anything that is presented as one argument or view, and sourced shouldn't be a problem. I'm probably more worried than I need to be because of past history.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I added information from an anthropology text--these sections still need work.--Hammy64000 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the title is POV. Also, I do not think it is true that sociobiology or evolutionary psychology stem from Darwin.  They really stem from genetics (which developed after Darwin) and the idea, popularized by Dawkins, of the selfish gene.  Wilson's sociobiology applies so social animals but not human beings.  Evolutionary psychologists' claims about human gender relations are controversial at best.  Now, perhaps there is a place for theme here, but I think they can fit easily in the section on nature versus nurture, I do not think they merit their own discussion.  Finally, the section really needs tightening up.  I am tempted to do it myself but since the last time I worked on this article this section did not even exist, I will defer to others who have been working on it.  But here is my suggestion: delete any general explanation of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology.  It just doesn't belong in this article.  All that is important is that evolutionary psychologists have made some claims, and other social scientists and historians have made contesting claims.


 * Most anthropologists to my knowledge would say that patriarchy is not universal; that the concept itself (which comes from myth, not science) may or may not apply to some societies (i.e. gender politics is too complicated to be reduced to what you may think are the only three categories, male dominance, female dominance or equality. Logic, alas, seldom works in empirical studies and most ethnographers would say gender politics is more complicated, with individual men and individual women sometimes exercising more power, sometimes less powerm, and often different kinds of power that are not easily measured or compared.  I think most anthropologists would say that what we call patriarchy first clearly appears in agricultural societies or pastoral societies where men own the principal means of production.  But there is Diaz's ethnography of Mexican society, published I think in 1966 or something, arguing that in an explicitly macho society women exercised considerable "behind the scenes" power and really, Mexico could not be called patriarchal.  Michele Barrett, in Women's Oppression Today - like Yolanda and Robert F. Murphy in Women of the Forest - argue that one must distinguish between gender ideologies and actual geneder relations (i.e. that men and women may agree that men rule, but empirical observation of society reveal that women exercise great, sometimes decisive, power). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this comment. I agree with you, although I've been trying to work with this new stuff only because the argument keeps coming up.  I've added things previously that I thought would take care of this kind of thing and yet here it is again, so I don't have much faith in just adding on more arguments.  I agree that much of the new section should go.  It isn't sourced and therefore impossible to put in perspective.Hammy64000 (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The research I've done on this new material leads to the idea that the exceptions to partriarchal societies are ignored by sociobiology, although some exceptions would be an interesting addition. Sociobiology's aims have more to do with social and political policy, which explains why this just won't go away. Also, these things may not be from Darwin directly, but the sources I have argue for a relationship.  You could add another view.Hammy64000 (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph linking sociobiology to Darwin is from a recent anthropology text book.Hammy64000 (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The political agenda
Here is where this is taking me so far...I would like comments, although your idea of just adding to the biology section is fine with me. Don't think of this as an addition to the article--just as an explanation of what we seem to be dealing with here.

Since 1974, critics have questioned Goldberg’s methods and suggested exceptions to his universal patriarchal scenario, although under his “ground rules” exceptions are irrelevant. Goldberg’s peers noted that he included few “comparable models of genetic and social change”…making theoretical argument difficult. On the publication of E. O. Wilson’s book, scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould objected that many of Wilson’s claims had been made repeatedly, and thoroughly refuted, referring to the works of Herbert Spencer, Konrad Lorenz, and Robert Ardry. Because these refutations had so little effect on the subsequent claims of sociobiologists, Gould and others began to accuse them of serving a social and political agenda. In fact, after the publication of Wilson’s book, Business Week published an article entitled "A Genetic defense of the free market," (April 10, 1978), while Newsweek and Time both ran articles on sociobiology, commenting on the inevitability of male dominance.

The debate was even older than Gould implied. According to archaeologist V. Gordon Childe, it began in the eighteenth century, when ethnographers proposed a hierarchic order for societies modeled on the order established by Linnaeus and Bouffon for Natural History. Subsequently, Lamarck theorized that such hierarchies were the result of evolution. Childe said "(Lamarck’s) theory was in effect from the first a rationalist protest against theological dogmas of supernatural intervention." Of course the protest only became influential after Darwin and Wallace "propounded" a mechanism for natural selection.

Anton Pannekock provides a more disturbing insight from the Marxist point of view. He said that Darwinism was a tool of the bourgeoisie in their struggle against the feudal class, the nobility, clergy and feudal lords. Of course the bourgeoisie were not the exploited class. The bourgeoisie, or the leaders of industry, wanted to rule. While it is true that John Locke, for example, argued against Filmer’s divine kingship, his argument was not really a defense of the rights of women. Instead, Locke claimed that women knowingly and voluntarily gave up their rights through the marriage contract. In Locke’s scheme, married women were to have no property rights. This would ensure their cooperation and also provide surety for inheritance of property, through the father. (Cite Sydie or Locke) Childe’s archaeological description of the family is relevant here. There is a difference between the natural family consisting of parents and children, a biological necessity, and the family as an institution. The institutional family is a unit of co-operation, and a vehicle for the transmission of male property and status. When the state becomes the more dominant influence, the natural family, or the clan, degenerates.

Marx published his Materialist Conception of History in 1859; the year Darwin published the Origin of Species. He formed his theory, in part, from his knowledge of the history of civilized societies, but for his ethnographies of primitive people he relied on Lewis Henry Morgan. Morgan’s, method was flawed, although he had made some improvements on the methods of the English ethnographers. His conclusions, however, illustrated Marx’s Materialist interpretation of history.

For the ultimate aims of Marxism we have the report of Peter Kropotkin. Eventually, two factions developed in the International Workingmen’s Association. The Latin countries remained federalist, but after the War of 1870 parliamentary rule had been introduced in "united Germany" and the Germans made an effort to modify the aims and methods of the whole socialist movement, resulting in the party of the Social Democrats. The governing body was a general council residing at London, with Engels and Marx as its leading spirits. The party’s new focus was the conquest of power within the existing states. The Social Democrats worked within the political process for "centralization as against federalism," and in economics for the state management of railways and the state monopoly of banking and of the sale of spirits. The next step would be the state management of the land and of the leading industries and "even of the consumption of riches." For Kropotkin the determination to control industry represented state socialism, or rather, state capitalism. "It was the necessary conflict between the principles of federalism and those of centralization, the free commune and the state’s paternal rule, the free action of the masses of the people and the betterment of existing capitalist conditions through legislation--a conflict between the Latin spirit and the German Geist, which…claimed supremacy in science, politics, philosophy, and in socialism too, representing its own conception of socialism as 'scientific,' while all other interpretations it described as 'utopian.'"

Sociobiologist Steven Pinker’s book, The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature,” published in 2002, continued the debate between sociobiology and its critics. Hammy64000 (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This suddenly seems heavy on Marxism, but it obviously applies to both political extremes. Anyway, I'm sure the sociobiology will show up again and I think this might explain it.Hammy64000 (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, I propose deleting the 4th paragraph under "Patriarchy as a human universal." I have two books from Bell Hooks and it is clear from the first page that she endeavored to reconcile men and women. The way Hooks and Watkins are used in the article is dishonest because they did not say that the world should be, or that it was currently universally patriarchal. Hooks said patriarchal systems make it impossible for men to love and be loved and she argues men's patriarchal roles are on the decline. You could discuss this in the article, but it is not even stated in an honest way here and further treatment would be a digression.Hammy64000 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose deletion of the "Features of patriarchy" section. They have no sources.  Also, they are old arguments that have been dealt with by the scientific community.  Goldberg claimed feelings were in favor of patriarchy and this was refuted by Leacock, who said that the ethnographic material did not sufficiently cover feelings of either men or women.  The 2nd paragraph says that exceptions prove the rule (supposedly of universal patriarchy).  This has been termed by Gould and others, the preference of the sociobiologist making the claim.  As I said they set up the argument so that they can ignore evidence that does not support their claims.  The sentence that the phenomenon of patriarchy is not evolutionary but preferential is the often remarked tendency of the sociobiologist to deny biological determinism--a major criticism of this field of study.  But the next sentence says there is an underlying biological and evolutionary explanation regarding preference.  Previous criticism (for 40 years) has pointed out that preference is not supported by ethnographies.  This is the kind of thing that needs to be said if these statements remain in the article, but since they are not even sourced do we really want to go over this again?  Please discuss this, as well as the suggestion that this new material should be summarized and put in the biology vs. social construct section.  If there are objections to this last part, discuss the change of heading to something like "Patiarchy as a human universal, the continuing debate," or suggest something else.Hammy64000 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think all of this stuff is irrelevant to the article. Frankly this sounds like six degrees of Kevin Bacon. I can start with patriary and take it almost anywhere. Pannekock's critique of Darwin is just irrelevant here. Gould and Childe all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. This article needs focus and the focus should be on patriarchy. There have been arguments about patriarghy in the evolution of human society, and key participants in this discussion are lewis Henry Morgan, Frederich Engels, Eleanor Leacock, and evolutionary biologists. The article should give basic coverage to each plus their critics, but we must avoid SYNTH; the material above is just one big NOR violation. What is at issue here is not ANY criticism of Darwin or even sociobiology but of specific theories about patriarchy period. Any critique that is not explicitly of a theory of patriarchy does not belong in the article. And we ought to be working on a second strand, which is simply empirical - accounts of the forms patriarchy takes and how widley distributed, I would start with HRAF and Ember's stuff. Douglas White, a Wikipedian, has some knowledge of these. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You think it is irrelevant. I think it is not.  I plan to rewrite and probably will expand the anthropological material, since that seems to be your interest here, but it seems you may not be aware of the POV etc. material that was recently removed from the sociobiolical arguments in this new section--or of the history of comments of the same sort.  My explanation for this reality is the most relevant thing I can think of in explaining the history of this article, although I've already said I don't plan to put this particular comment in the article.  You innocently mention the anthropological material, as though you think this years-long discussion was all about a sane representation of the evidence.  It was not.  I liked your anthropological exceptions to patriarchy mostly because you seem so relatively reasonable, all things considered.  On your comments about the irrelevance of Darwin, you are just wrong--sorry.Hammy64000 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Six degrees of Kevin Bacon? Cute!  I would just like to be clear on this though--I don't equate cute with eloquent and I intend to point out the difference whenever necessary.Hammy64000 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If Darwin published his views on patriary in a reliable source, and these views turn out to be significantin discussions of patriarchyl, I am all for including him. You seem to miss my point entirely. My point has nothing to do with whether or not Darwin is "important," it has to do with complying with our NPOV and NOR policies. Slrubenstein  |  Talk

Globalize
Article is centered around Western culture despite the topic being presented as a global issue, and there being many examples of Eastern/African cultures being oppressive towards women. I will be adding a template to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleDiana (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would benefit this article if we were to add some more examples outside of Western culture. If anyone happens to be knowledgeable on Patriarchy around the world and has a good source, I agree that it would make a wonderful addition to this article. Flameoguy (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition
I added what I thought was a relatively uncontroversial sentence in the lead:


 * Beginning in the 19th century, however, various movements, including communism, women's suffrage, and women's liberation, gradually eroded some of the dominance of patriarchy in some societies, though it still persists.

Sangdeboeuf seems to feel this is "Not supported by sources". Curious for the rationale there.

-- MC 2600:100C:B006:240:39EE:917F:46C9:F7DE (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to justify the addition. Please show how you think the sources support the proposed text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a convoluted argument. You made the deletion. The burden is on you to explain what it is you feel is insufficient or incorrect. In other words, if you feel there is something specific in the article text that is missing from the references, you need to say what that is. Otherwise you need to reverse your actions.
 * -- MC141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please point to the Wikpedia policy that says I "need to" reverse my actions, because I've never seen it. But since you insist, the first source (page 11) is about feminist perspectives in sociology as an academic discipline, not women's status in society generally; a passing remark that "women's perspectives are seen as more important now than in the past" in many countries is not elaborated upon. The second source (page 98) directly states that "women were rarely admitted" to the centers of power in communist societies. Neither mentions patriarchy or women's liberation directly. Women's suffrage is discussed only in relation to the "glossy image" of equality featured in communist propaganda. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sociology
I edited this sentence: "Most[vague] sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that social and cultural conditioning are primarily responsible for establishing male and female gender roles.[45][46]" to this: "Sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy[45] and contend that socialization processes are primarily responsible for establishing gender roles.[46]" --Deleted "most" that was noted as vague; --inserted sociological source to support claim about sociologists rejecting bio explanations; --deleted cultural conditioning and substituted socialization processes because sociologists write in terms of socialization; psychologists use the term conditioning, but sociologists rarely do; --deleted male and female because these terms conflate sex with gender and reproduce a false binary; sociologists do not understand gender as binary; --deleted Evolution of Human Sociality as a source because this is not a sociology text. It is an attempt at theoretical synthesis of anthropology and one sociological perspective, and therefore it is not an accurate reflection of what sociologists think about patriarchy and should not be used to make a sociological claim.AnaSoc (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I question your "sociologists do not understand gender as binary" claim, for various reasons. And many people (including scholars) do not follow the sex and gender distinction.


 * As stated here, I re-added the Encyclopædia Britannica piece, which is a WP:Tertiary source that assessed the literature. It need not fall into your definition of a sociology source or be a sociology source at all. And it's best not to give undue weight to a tiny society. I updated the statement since the quote has changed, and I provided URL link to the statement. Furthermore, like I noted here, there is clearly debate about whether the Mosuo are truly matriarchal; this is also currently noted in this section of that article. National Geographic calls the society "semi-matriarchal." And if you don't like me stating "debate," then just think of it as me stating "disagreement" or "some disagreement." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, the fact that the Mosuo are also described as a matrilineal society should probably be mentioned. It's mentioned in the Mosuo article. The current text in the Patriarchy article gives the impression that they are separate from a matrilineal society. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the discussion. The Ency Brit quote that you dropped in is without context and therefore is being used here in a way that misleads readers. The statement refers to the anthropological and ethnographic discussions from the 19th through 20th centuries about whether matriarchies were part of cultural evolution processes, and not whether or not there are contemporary (or historical) matriarchies. Also, if you examine the source, you will see that the Mosuo are mentioned. I do not see the need to mention anything further about the Mosuo, since this article is about patriarchy, and not matriarchy. The article is too scattered with too much tangential information as it is.AnaSoc (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Ency Brit quote that you dropped in is different from the one that was previously cited. This is the previous version of the Ency Brit: "Although there are no known examples of strictly matriarchal cultures, " Note, in particular, that last part of the statement which is the statement that I was questioning and for which I provided a reliable sociological source to dispute.AnaSoc (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what the previous quote stated. It's why I stated that I "updated the statement since the quote has changed." As for the existence of matriarchal societies, what evidence is there? Your wording stated "limited evidence" and gave the Mosuo as an example. The original Encyclopædia Britannica version states what it states because the existence of true matriarchal societies, as distinct from matrilineal societies, having ever been a reality is very much disputed. This 2008 "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" source, page 1212, states, "Like other elements of the evolutionist view of culture, the notion of matriarchy as a universal state of development is now generally discredited, and the modern consensus is that a strictly matriarchal society has never existed. Nevertheless, in those societies in which matrilineal DESCENT occurs, access to socially powerful positions is mediated through the maternal line of kin." I noted that calling the Mosuo a matriarchal society is not entirely agreed upon. The Mosuo are often called a matrilineal society. Like this 2004 "Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge" source, page 1551, states, "It is important to note that matriliny is not synonymous with matriarchy, in the sense that females in a matrilineal society never assume the same degree of control over males as their male counterparts in a patrilineal society have often done to their female kin." Above, we even see the National Geographic referring to the Mosuo as semi-matriarchal, which calls into question their power vs. men's power. The current text in the article could lead one to believe that the Mosuo are a matriarchal society but not a matrilineal society. It is not uncommon for sources to disagree with each other; this is where WP:Due weight comes in. Like WP:Verifiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." In this case, we have sources stating that true matriarchal societies, as distinct from matrilineal societies, never existed, and the Wikipedia Patriarchy article seemingly presenting Mosuo as matriarchal. The Matriarchy article itself currently states, "A few people consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, thus including genderally equalitarian systems (Peggy Reeves Sanday favors redefining and reintroducing the word matriarchy, especially in reference to contemporary matrilineal societies such as the Minangkabau), but most academics exclude them from matriarchies strictly defined." As is clear, there is even disagreement about how to define matriarchy. And Peggy Reeves Sanday's personal view is also noted in the Mosuo article. So, yes, I question the inclusion of the Mosuo without context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

____

Splitting up and expanding the History and origin of modern patriarchy section
I want to expand upon this section, but it seems that this section may benefit from being split into smaller subsections according to the eras of history which are being referred to. I'm thinking Pre-History, Ancient History, Post-Classical History, and Modern History. The section, as it exists, can be easily split into those sub-sections with minimal editing. The (currently) last two paragraphs, which at the moment lack citations, would need to be edited or moved for the section to sensibly be formatted this way, however. Hell ghost69 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do that now! I hope this isn't too disruptive, it seems necessary to me however to further expand this section. Hell ghost69 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Done! I also added a lot of information about this sub-topic WRT Chinese history. I'm not sure what to do with the last two paragraphs, which seem out of place and are unsourced, I'm not 100% on the protocol there. Hell ghost69 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Biological versus social theories paragraph and "maschilist" paragraph
After reading the article, I believe that the Biological versus social theories paragraph is the one that creates the most confusion. When one comes to it one thinks that it will counterbalance the previous one "the feminist" paragraph, however it doesn't. Instead it is again a bunch of feminist ideas (badly stated) as to how the social theories are still valid in relation to the biological (i.e. scientific). That paragraph will require some work. Also, to have a balanced NPOV article, since there is a "feminist" paragraph, shouldn't there be a maschilist one? --1l2l3k (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how NPOV works. We give greater weight to the views of published, reliable sources, with special emphasis on peer-reviewed or other scholarly works. If you want a "maschilist" perspective in the article, then it's on you to find relevant, published sources of comparable quality to the ones we already have. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a maschilist side will need to be added (of course with reliable sources), to balance the feminist reliable sources. This is paramount for the improvement of the article, otherwise the article is one sided.  --1l2l3k (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole nature vs. nurture dichotomy is seriously outdated. Neither sociologists nor biologists currently believe that only society or only biology are responsible for social structures like patriarchy (although they may focus on the influence of different aspects). The general scientific consensus is that both society and biology are part of a continually evolving feedback loop. Social structures influence gene expression and evolution (often on surprisingly short time scales) and our genes affect how we behave and interact socially. As this paper puts it: "Nature and nurture, of course, are not alternatives... By now most scientists reject both the nineteenth-century doctrine that biology is destiny and the twentieth-century doctrine that the mind is a blank slate." But regardless, this is all original research unless we have sources specifically discussing about how these ideas relate to patriarchy. Kaldari (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Prevalence
Per WP:BRD here is where you should attempt to form consensus for your changes once they have been contested. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 14:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah nah gonna have to hard disagree with you there. Talk is a valuable tool, especially in developing complex topics, but the classic going back and forward with different ideas and different people still makes for the best results. That is the nature of Wikipedia consensus. Edit boldly. Sparta11117 (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My goal was to prevent warring (when I noticed the second try), if you manage to avoid that alone, it's all for the best. If you no longer want to discuss it then that's fine too, of course.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI There are no edit wars going on here, just friendly consensus. No rules requiring anyone to use the talk page. I would refrain from being overzealous. Sparta11117 (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Biological versus social theories
So under the biology section, i found a mention of testosterone as the “male-hormone” and estrogen as the “female-hormone”. These were placed in quotations, and their effects on behavior and sex identity were emphasized, but no mention of physiological effects. I was going to mention how they also forge secondary sex characteristics, but I wasn’t sure if it was relevant. Thoughts? CPGACoast (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
This article presents an unbalanced view of the topic. Patriarchy is a concept used in feminist theory and, to a less extent, in sociology, its real existence is controversial even amongst the latter. Despite this, no information is given on this subjects nor on applications, limitations and historical manifestations of patriarchy across different cultures and society. Its existence is simply taken for granted. Although patriarchy is certainly a controversial topic, a presentation as such needs to be carefully balanced. What's more, there is not even one word about the use of the concept (political, social, revolutionary, etc.). A section on criticisms is also absent. The few criticism purported are feminisists' suggestions on how patriarchy should be understood rather than integration from different perspectives. In the end, the way the page is structured reflects more an indoctrinating purpose than the need to share reliable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you tag the article? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see it has been tagged, I'm happy to support the NPOV tag. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just saying, "This article is unbalanced" doesn't make it so – ipse dixit. Please provide published, reliable sources that support a different assessment than the one currently in the article. Or make a different, concrete suggestion for improvement. Otherwise this is just NOTFORUM stuff. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The POV template has been placed on the article twice now with no specific suggestion for improvement. The template page specifically states, "The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" (emphasis added). Vague complaints with no published sources offered as a counterpoint do not present any issues that are "actionable within the content policies". For those who don't know, those policies are Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research. All depend on published, reliable sources. Since none have been put forward, I'm removing the tag now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion I made are to better structure the page and its content, not to distrupt it. Besides, they are very concrete critisms not vague. The fact that I made them several times and have never been taken seriously only proves that, despite all my attempts to change it, the pages keep being adjusted according to ideological goals. If you don' t agree, then be it, but my comments were perfectly in line with the NPOV requirements. Aristotele1982 (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * please point where sources are being improperly summarized or which sources could be used for balance. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "better structure the page and its content" does not address POV issues. -- 2603:3024:200:300:B823:DF0F:39C1:BA79 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a serious academic source that says patriarchy doesn't exist. I've seen sources debating whether it is universal or not, but never a source arguing that patriarchy just doesn't exist and women have just as much power as men. Although such claims would appear at face value to be absurd, I would be interested in considering them, and possibly incorporating them, if they were presented (and were in fact reliable, non-fringe sources). Without any sources to back up such an argument, however, I would consider it dubious at best and POV-pushing at worst. Kaldari (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

In addressing the problem of additional sources to be quoted, it is important to note that the article lacks references to the critics of patriarchy as a trans-historical phenomenon, as pointed out by Joan Acker, "The Problem with Patriarchy", Sociology 23/2, 1989: 235-240 and others. In general, the article does not address any other perpsective but the feminist one, which proves my point about the NPOV and its being ideological. As a result, I'll keep tagging it under NPOV up to the standard of scientificity and rigour shared by wiki-users will be met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And others will continue to revert you until you offer concrete, actionable suggestions within Wikipedia's content policies. The absence of your preferred sources does not imply "ideological" motives, so kindly stop casting such aspersions. There is such a thing as due weight in sourcing. Please indicate what specific changes you wish to be made to the article, using references to reliable, published sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The presentation of a controversial topic from one side only of the cultural spectrum, is in iteslf ideological, Ideology being "a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons". In my last remarks I pointed to at least one article that offers critical perspectives on patriarchy. It is not my task to write on this page, I can just limit myself to point out its weak points. Who said I have to add to the page if I add the label NPOV? It is not my intention to disrupt, but to improve the article by making it balanced (I cannot use the word "more" balanced, as it is too one-sided now, and there is no balance whatsoever). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sangdeboeuf, due weight doesn't mean supporting the feminist viewpoint, and indeed is why the article is tagged. Kaldari, your expressed opinions here are not themselves neutral or interesting or relevant, not everyone shares your ideas on what is absurd let alone your controversials and feminist-inspired claim that men have more power than women. If we can't express balanced views we should be cautious of saying anything at all. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide published, reliable sources that support your claims, and indicate how you're like to see them worked into the article. Otherwise this discussion is pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting Kaldari's statements as "opinion" is a deliberate attempt to undermine them. There are very few people in academia who object to the existence of patriarchy, whether you like it or not, though its scope is another issue. Anti-feminism is a fringe view. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a Few articles or books the criticize or pdebunk patriarchy as a concept and its applications: Sylvia Walby, Theorising Patriarchy, Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 1989), pp. 213-234, Christian Hoff Summers, Who stole Feminism? (1994); Joan Acker, The Problem with patriarchy, Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 1989), pp. 235-240; Anna Pollert, Gender and Class Revisited or the Poverty of Patriarchy, Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 4 (November 1996), pp. 639-659. So to be clear that much can be done to improve this session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring by repeatedly adding the tag back. Per WP:BRD you now need consensus on this page before the tag can be re-added.
 * Have you read any of these sources? Sylvia Walby's Theorising Patriarchy opens with "Why are women disadvantaged compared to men? [...] This book aims to be, firstly, a comprehensive overview of the variety of ways of explaining women's subordination in contemporary society". It's a far cry from "the patriarchy doesn't exist", which is your nonsense argument. In fact it fits into the very category you complained about earlier: "The few criticism purported are feminisists' suggestions on how patriarchy should be understood rather than integration from different perspectives." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, Bilorv, and you need to assume good faith and stop making outlandish accusations. I have not undermined them even slightly. People with strong feminist views are unlikely to achieve a neutral article on this subject. I agree that the article needs working on but this is made hard by people with strong feelings and opinions reverting anything they disagree with. "few" is a vague term, there are academics who don't agree with the feminist, leftist views on patriarchy which dominate this article. Aristotele1982, can you add those sources? This could be just what is needed to break the deadlock. I don't want this article to be a debunking of patriarchy, just one that includes all relevant opinion and not solely feminist and left-wing ones. The thread indicates the tag is vey much needed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bilorv, the tag should not be removed till the discussion is finished and a consensus reached. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't edit war but I disagree. The tag is also not in the right place: it's above the hatnote. Your assertions of mainstream academics that disagree with feminism are, again, unsubstantiated, given that the sources above are not what the editor claimed they were. (I took a look at their next source and Christina Hoff Sommers—not "Christian Hoff Summers"—is a feminist!) Your conflation of feminism with leftism is bizarre. Attacking alleged biases of the editors of the article (or perhaps me—I can't tell who you're addressing) is no help. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of those sources don't really support what you're saying (and Sommers is definitely not mainstream.) Either way, nobody has proposed any concrete changes.  I don't think there's any point in adding the tag until we have mainstream WP:RS sources to support the idea that the current version isn't reflective of the literature, coupled with specific changes cited to them that people want to add.  Without that, there's nothing to debate and no serious dispute.  I suggest that the people currently edit-warring to add the tag instead devote their effort to laying out concrete, well-sourced proposals so we can actually have something meaningful to discuss. --Aquillion (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, and at the risk of being repetitive, the article is unbalanced. To 'Bilorv, you did not read any of the sources I suggested. Christina Hoff Sommers is a critic of the concept of Patriarchy. This article instead, often conflates some feminists point of view with other that are unsupportive of it, and especially the terms "patriarchy" and "gender inequality" which are different. The very fact that patriarchy is a word created in the 1970s by the radical feminists provides enough proof to the fact that is ideological. If any of you would take the pain to read Anna Pollert's article, will see that patriarchy is a reductionist concept. At any rate, I will add an entire section under criticisms, with notes to academic articles (taken from Jstor). If the section will be reverted or removed without any reasons, I will tag the article as ideological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Walby is quoted twice in the article for her comments about what patriarchy is, and I quoted above her comments in the source you gave which demonstrate she is supportive of the concept of patriarchy. Of course it's an ideological concept... as opposed to what? A physical force? Feel free to write a criticism section but you'll need to abide by policy, such as WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and your edits can be "mercilessly edited" as anyone sees fit. Also, please remember to sign your posts by ending them with . — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop using Wikipedia tools like maintenance tags to bludgeon others into doing what you want. Abusing maintenance tags is disruptive. If you place a maintenance tag on the article in retaliation for editors not accepting your edits, then it will be immediately removed. Please try to avoid treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:LISTEN to what others are telling you. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sommers is also a resident with the conservative American Enterprise Institute and has her own political axe to grind. She is a cultural commentator, not a sociologist. If you can find any high-level academic sources that give her critique serious consideration, I'd be very surprised. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

How do we know that prehistoric hunter gatherer societies were relatively egalitarian?
I checked the sources and I could’t find any evidence for the claim. Jounus (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer(s) is readily available. See this Google search, for example. You could find more academic sources in more specialized databases. Caballero / Historiador⎌ 00:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be interested in what kind of archaeological evidence we have from prehistoric hunter gatherer societies that they were relatively egalitarian. It is not in the sources given on the Wikipedia page of this article. Additionaly there is a StackExchange discussion about this: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/47621/how-do-we-know-that-prehistoric-hunter-gatherer-societies-were-egalitarian Jounus (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Introduction
The article takes the term patriarchy as a fact rather than a theory developed through time. As far as I know, this is false in all published literature, as patriarchy refers to a status quo that sociology and anthropology aim at explaining but with a different subset of arguments. In Biology, for instance, patriarchy is a non-thing. Therefore the need to contextualise this a bit more.Aristotele1982 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)