User talk:Alastair Haines/Archive 1

Patriarchy
Finally, someone has explained Patriarchy clearly—better than X is patriarchal, Y is patriarchal; get the point? Thank you. I commented on an earlier version of the page on the talk page (I think you have improved the page a lot). If you can, please add references to the information you added. Rintrah 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll give you negative feedback now so you can improve the relevant parts of the article—I'll let copyeditors address the prose:


 * due to millennia of human experience where male physical strength was the ultimate way of settling social conflicts.


 * You need to make this more exact, or provide a reference.


 * that were seen by many to be oppressive and corrupt.


 * Avoid "by many"; it is vague.


 * Both social contexts led naturally to an analogous scrutiny of relationships between women and men.


 * This is unclear—how did they lead naturally to it? It needs a reference, too.


 * The 19th century debate ultimately resulted in women receiving the vote; this is sometimes refered to as first-wave feminism.


 * Which debate? How did it result in women receiving the vote? You need to strengthen the connection to first-wave feminism.


 * 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.


 * Avoid "Some consider" and "others".


 * The opposite of feminism is not masculism but probably something rather like patriarchy.


 * Needs explanation.


 * The use of the word patriarchy in feminist literature has been arguably overused as a rhetorical device (see Cathy Young below, also see misandry), becoming so loaded with emotive associations, that some writers prefer to use an approximate synonym, the more objective and technical "androcentric" (also from Greek: andros meaning man).


 * I agree with the point, but it still express a point of view (with "has been arguably" disguising it). Find another way of expressing this information without injecting a point of view (see weasel words).


 * These criticisms notwithstanding, your contributions have been great. Keep them up! Rintrah 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Rintrah, your suggestions here are much appreciated. I thought very carefully indeed about what I would leave out, link to, or put in the text. You or others are, of course, free to modify anything to improve it. Let me respond to your clear and wise suggestions one by one. A simple summary response is: I think the best way to address the points you make is to provide subsections to the article, those would give more information for readers who want to go into more depth on various points. I especially appreciate your feedback, because I felt more depth was needed, but didn't know which issues to go into. You've given me lots of ideas for what could be added.

1. "male physical strength resolving social conflicts" I will take your advice and quote John Stuart Mill on this point, but it is a bit arbitrary, as everyone agrees it is a fact. The debate concerning this point is about whether armies, police forces and parental physical discipline are inevitable or not, and about whether they are actually good things or bad things, and about whether women should participate in them. It was my judgement that going into detail on those things in the introduction to Patriarchy would be considered by most readers as "too much information" and a bit "tangential to the subject". This article is about Patriarchy, not feminism, but given that feminists talk more about Patriarchy than anyone else, many readers of the article could suspect feminism was being silenced, unless there was some reference to the large volume of feminist interaction with Patriarchy.

The point of the sentence, in the context of the explanation of Patriarchy, is to give a concise, undisputed and fair expression of the strongest argument in favour of feminism, without providing any personal opinion.

The Patriarchy entry as it stands, is little more than a stub. Perhaps the best way to respond to your impression that more information is required, is to have a subsection, that expands on "Patriarchy in historical practice". In that section, we could help readers see the relevance to our current world, by mentioning debates like whether women should serve in the combat units of defence forces. Of course, it is not the place of an Encyclopedia to take a side in the debate, we would only point people to helpful references that argue each position.


 * Although it seems self-evident at first glance, I was concerned it was a little vague. I suggested a reference or expansion to clarify "male physical strength", because I knew you were not suggesting, say, arm-wrestling as the mode of dispute resolution.

2. "seen by many" and other such phrases I am glad you think that is vague, that is the deliberate intention. I could mention the "hippy" movement, but they weren't the only ones who thought it. I could say "seen by 57.8%" of Americans, but that would be questionable, it would narrow things to Americans, and to the Americans who answered a survey at the time. In many cases, language like this is just a cover for people's lack of research, however, in many other cases it is a careful, responsible way of stating a fact, concisely and without overstating the truth or being arbitrarily specific. I hope the examples I have given in this paragraph show the point. If we were to say "most people", we would have to be able to point to evidence that showed more than 50% of people thought it. If we leave out any qualifying phrase, and simply say "oppressive and corrupt". We would be stating an opinion of our own.

On the positive side, I mentioned the civil rights movement explicitly, and gave an internal link. If anyone wanted verification of the claim that "many" people held an opinion of "oppressive and corrupt" structures (but wiki has no opinion), the reader can go to the wiki article on the civil rights movement and find lots of evidence to verify the simple claim made in the Patriarchy article.

So, I used this phrase very carefully, to not only ensure verification, but easy verification. Not only that, it is there to ensure that no opinion is expressed by the Patriarchy article, it simply points to the opinions of others.

I did leave out those who have written in defence of slavery, racism and laws against homosexuality. There are many writers who have supported all these three things, and there still are! Racism is vile, in my opinion, but I didn't leave out reference to racist writers because of my opinion. I left out reference to them because I was writing an overview, and wanted to stay focussed on the feminist challenge to Patriarchy, which I would imagine is of most interest to most readers.

Again, perhaps the best way to deal with this is with a subsection regarding "historical challenges to Patriarchy". Another good reason to have such a section would be that feminism is not the only challenge to Patriarchy, it is just the best known, and most relevant. But, we are in danger of bias if we left the impression that the only challenge to Patriarchy is feminism.
 * Could you not add examples to make the sentence(s) clearer—for instance, "such as the women's rights movement"? Avoid weasel words advises against such language. Rintrah

3. "led naturally" Again I agree with you, when I read essays by students, these words often hide the fact that the student has not found or followed an argument, it is a "short cut", that allows them to state something they have read and get on with explaining what they have understood.

I use the phrase here for two reasons. First, because it is the introduction. It would take a paragraph to refer to the relationship between the "black rights" and "women's rights" movements in 1960s America. That kind of detail belongs in the civil rights movement article and the feminist article. Some of it IS already in those articles in wiki, woohoo!

Secondly, I say "naturally" rather than "logically", because it is a sociological phenomenon, not a strictly intellectual one. The simple point is, while African Americans were fighting for equality, many women thought, "Wow! We face many of the same issues, perhaps we should stand up and be counted too!" In the same way, 150 years earlier, men in the English parliment were condemning slavery, but educated women said, "You are willing to give the vote to slaves, but why not to us!" It makes perfect sense doesn't it?

The point of this sentence in the context of the introduction is that it gives a concise explanation of the relevance of feminism to Patriarchy, and to the relevance of the debate between them for the world the reader lives in. If the reader needs instant verification (or more information), there are internal links. However, as I keep saying, you have helped me see that an intelligent reader will want more information on these things within the article itself.


 * Would it not be more informative and clear to say people inspired by the previous movements demanded greater rights for women?

3. "Which debate?" lol, I know what you mean, but the simple answer is "the 19th century debate". I know that's unsatisfying. The point of the sentences is to say:

there was political reform in Europe in 19th c.

there was social reform of slavery in Europe and America in 19th c.

"first wave" feminists said, "you give people a vote, even slaves a vote, why not us?"

the men (eventually) said, "good point"

there was reform regarding racism in 1960s America

"second wave" feminists said, "you give jobs to blacks, why not us?"

the men (quite quickly) said, "fair enough"
 * I understand various womens rights movements demanded greater rights, which were granted over time. But I still do not understand what constituted the debate: agitation versus status quo, politcal tracts versus defenses of the status quo, debate within political parties, intellectual debates, or something else?

I've got to go out and run some erands now. I'm sure I've given you plenty to think about. Let me know what you think when you have some time. As I said, the main benefit I take on board from your feedback is that you are an intelligent reader who wants more information. I can see what you want and why. I think I can provide it in some subsections. I hope you appreciate my sensitivity to keeping the introduction concise. Perhaps your feedback shows the introduction is good, it raises new and deeper questions in a reader with genuine interest. A good introduction "launches" the issues related to its topic.


 * These are some questions I think the article should answer, among others:


 * 1) Who first used "Patriarchy" in the feminist context, or popularised it therein?
 * 2) What does "Patriarchy" imply in feminist theory? How much of it is based on rhetoric, and how much on feminist theory?
 * 3) If feminism supposes it is an existent abstract entity analogous to, say, democracy, how does it suppose the patriarchy is created and operated?


 * I will address your other points later. Rintrah 11:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the logic of your questions. My mind works the same way and those are the sort of questions I ask myself.


 * I am researching the answer to your first question. It may not be possible to trace it exactly, though, as the terminology probably developed in the context of public and private meetings during the rise of the (second wave) feminist movement in the 1960s. Marylin French is the big name in feminist theory regarding patriarchy, however, if the patriarchy article refers to Marylin in a fair way, I suspect most readers would think we'd at least started at the right place.


 * The answer to your second question is very complicated indeed. I first encountered feminist use of patriarchy in a book by Barbara Sichtermann, called "Weiblichkeit". I don't agree with everything she says, but I admire her a great deal. She is a very honest lady! To some women, "the Patriarchy" stands for almost all that is evil in the world, to others it implies little more than that some other women have difficulties relating to men. What does "solidarinosc" mean to the Polish? What does "peristroika" mean to Russians? They have dictionary definitions of "solidarity" and "restructuring", but after the political movements of the 80s and 90s in Eastern Europe, they also have additional "associations" (linguistic technical terminology). The rhetoric of the political movements has influenced the way many people think about the words. That is what it is like with patriarchy for people familiar with feminism. If you've never read any feminist writers (and most people haven't) patriarchy is a simple word, but not very common. If you live in the world of feminist ideas, though, patriarchy is the name of the enemy! National socialism has a technical meaning in English speaking countries and can be viewed positively. In Germany, it may well stir up the emotions of some older people. The technical description of this kind of phenomenon in terminology of English literature is "loaded language".


 * You're right: "Patriarchy" is loaded. For a long time, I have questioned whether it is merely a loaded word for "society", or whether it posited clear ideas about its organisation and power structure. The principle of charity compels me to assume the latter until the word is clearly explained to me. I don't often question feminists—I haven't known many—but when I usually ask about the "Patriarchy", I usually get a programmed answer full of jargon and popular refrains.


 * I have been curious about the word because it is central to modern feminism, which seems to have insinuated itself into all the humanities. Based on the slender information about the word, I can only assume it is highly charged metaphor, and a spring of feminist sentiment.


 * Your third question is the easiest to answer. Yes, the Patriarchy is just like democracy, it is an abstract entity, and is a system that is run by many people. Feminists think (and almost everyone agrees) that the system of Patriarchy was never created, it has always been there. It comes from before human history (that is, before written history), when men were naturally dominant, because without the physical strength and dominant and agressive attitude of men, tribes would starve or become slaves to other tribes. If tribes had any other system, it could never last, they'd just be dominated by tribes with a patriarchal system anyway. Feminists argue, "Why are we STILL organizing society as if we need cavemen running around knocking people on the head?" So much for where patriarchy comes from, but what about who operates it? Well, the feminist point is clear here too -- EVERYONE operates it! It's not just men in power or men in general, even WOMEN help operate patriarchy, by co-operating with it, or surrendering to it, or putting up with it silently. That's where the rhetoric and emotion come into the picture, and where feminists start disagreeing with one-another. Some women like traditional marriages or social roles, other women see that as "selling out to the enemy", "helping patriarchy continue into the future". In practice, feminism is often about tearing down patriarchal social structures. At the theoretical level, feminist theory is about identifying patriarchal structures and suggesting alternatives. That's why you read so much that just says "this is patriarchal" "that is patriarchal". You are encountering minds that have been trained by feminist theory to "seek out and combat the enemy -- patriarchy." I have met many well-trained and great minds that see patriarchy where I would never think to look.


 * I have to disagree. The most popular forms of feminism are based on gender theory, which posits "gender" roles are artificial and destructive. As far as I know, feminism assumes the roles are ubiquitous and the idea men should rule women, in any era, such as the cave man one, is the doctrine of the "Patriarchy".


 * All I can glean from above is that the status quo, with its practices, is the Patriarchy. But I still don't understand what marks the status quo as "patriarchal". There is inequality, yes, but how is everyone together working against the condition of women? By co-operating with current power structures? I still don't see how someone without sexist attitudes contributes to the Patriarchy—it seems this assumption amounts to "you're either with us or against us", and therefore consitutes a political motive. I would argue that unless someone actively discriminates against women, he is not co-operating with the Patriarchy—whatever that is.


 * I also see that some institutions and practices are labelled "patriarchal", and some are not, but what is the meaning of it?


 * You are encountering minds that have been trained by feminist theory to "seek out and combat the enemy -- patriarchy."


 * This sounds like indoctrination. It is hard to know what they are saying except there is an enemy and it must be fought. Most feminists books I have briefly perused bombard the reader with statistics, and draw dubious conclcusions about them, and overuse jargon as if it stated self-evident truth. The method is only valid if a) the situation is so dire, problems cannot be logically analysed first, or b) it is supported by valid arguments, and not merely rhetoric.


 * I hope this is all giving you a feel for what I'm discovering as I am reading for my postgrad thesis. It's very helpful for me to interact with you actually, because my friends are not very interested in these things, but I find them fascinating, and I love the passionate commitment many feminists have to their ideals.


 * A feel maybe, but the idea of "patriarchy" seems still quite nebulous.


 * Thank you for your extra comments! I understand exactly what you are describing. Yes, I too find many feminist books contain invalid arguments and biased indoctrination. My current work is trying to understand their arguments as charitably as possible.

Regarding "you're either for us or against us", I think they do have a point here. The feminist claim (though there are exceptions) is that society has been dominated by men for so long, that social structures (and our language about them) carry *hidden assumptions* of an expectation of male dominance. The important and, I think, true claim is that we all hold many assumptions *unconsciously*.

For example, a man may NOT assume women cannot work outside the home. He may enjoy having a competant female mentor at work. He may have a wife he loves and respects deeply for her superior insight into human nature. BUT, when he is sitting in a subway train car and there is a preganant woman standing in front of him, he will stand up so she can sit down. Aha! He is a slave to patriarchy after all!

The most determined feminists will argue that women can work while pregnant, and compete on equal terms with men while they are preganant, otherwise there is an obvious advantage in employing men over women. If preganacy does not limit a women's value in the workforce, it cannot be a logical reason for special treatment in other situations either. Feminists have taught women to refuse special, preferential and positive treatment -- like men openning doors for them, carrying things for them, standing up for them, etc. They can see there is a direct connection between giving women special *positive* treatment in some places, and *negative* treatment in other places. Positive discrimation is still discrimination. This form of feminism argues that no social behaviours should be based on the biological sex of the persons involved, however nice the sentiments involved.

Like you, I am a man who considers himself positive towards women and their contribution in society. I freely acknowledge that Margret Thatcher is one of England's great leaders, for example. However, I also freely acknowledge that testosterone affects the way I think and feel, and that my thinking is also influenced at an unconscious level by my experience, including the social patterns I encountered as a child, and continue to encounter. It is part of the nature of being human, that we have beliefs at an unconscious level, that we don't even know we believe, because we've never had to stop and think about them. A sad example of this is the Boxing Day tsunami. People had the unconscious belief that their family members would be alive on Boxing Day. Their unconscious mind did not wake up that morning and remind itself that massive natural disasters are always a possibility. So shock, along with grief, is something the survivors experienced.

So, although men like you and I know in our conscious mind that women share with men every human dignity. We also know women are different to men, so we treat them differently. The way we treat them is influenced most strongly by our respect and reason, but there are also other factors, some of them are unconscious.

What I think matters most of all, though, is not whether we treat women differently to men. What matters most is whether the way we treat them shows genuine respect for equal members of the human race. I treat my boss differently to customers, and treat police differently to neighbours. I treat all equally as humans, but differently according to role. However, I also treat schizophrenic people I meet differently to drunk people and differently again to angry people. When I teach, I teach the very smart students differently to those who struggle. So again, I also treat people differently based on who they are and what they are like, independently of their role in society; and again I am sure that even when I treat people differently as individuals, I am still respecting them as equal members of the human race. In fact, not to be sensitive to people's diversity of culture and personality, is to fail to treat them as human.

The biggest internal debate among feminists is concerned with this very issue. "Feminists of difference" argue that women have special needs that men should respect and special contributions that men should appreciate. "Feminists of equality" insist that men have "feminine" sides and women have "masculine" sides and we are more mature humans if we grow both sides of our nature and bring them into balance.

What do you think? Do you think men are from Mars and women are from Venus, or do you think we are much, much more alike than we are different in any particular way? If you think men and women are different, what is the difference? And where do you think the difference comes from? Are we born that way? Or does society (especially the family) teach us to be different?


 * Aside: I don't like the metaphor, for Mars (the god, not the planet) symbolises the male sex, and Venus females; the metaphor cheesily distorts this mythology.


 * Ah yes! Very cheesily used metaphor indeed! And I agree, there are some who want to force men and women into straight-jackets of expected different behaviours, just as many feminists seem to want to force everything to be identical. I am glad to say, the current trend in gender studies is to speak of "masculinities" and "femininities" -- plural! A clever, and I think true, way of saying men and women are different, but even the differences vary from person to person, and of course, across time and culture.


 * Yes, I do think men and women are different. Men do not have a menstrual cycle, and the hormones which affect men and women are overall quite different. Many of the roles assigned to men and women are artificial, as seen by comparing different cultures and different eras to the modern, western one. I do get annoyed by pop-science, which asserts men are supposed to be X, while women are Y, although I do not see, as some do, that men wearing men's clothes and women wearing women's clothes is both unnatural and undesirable.


 * The concept of gender, as we understand it, is a modern one. The word originally just described grammar; "masculine" and "feminine" being linguistic concepts only very loosely linked to sex. Before "gender", it was assumed men were one way, and women another, without a non-religious theory describing it thoroughly. Now, I believe, gender ideas go way too far in labelling things as male (masculine) and female (feminine), so that, for instance, artisically people can see buildings as "feminine" or "masculine". Gender feminism, I think, also takes this distorted view of imposing gender anthropomorphically, and thus criticising things based on artificial assessments.


 * I am not ashamed of being masculine—in fact, in many ways I positively desire it—, but I am tired of this hypersensitivity to "gender".


 * lol, I know exactly what you mean. I've always been interested in ancient cultures, I'm fascinated by people from different cultural backgrounds. I like to think I have a healthy fascination with the opposite sex. But the hypersensitivity of political correctness (or the over-simplifications of popular "how to date successfully" kind of books) really take the fun out of it!


 * As for inherent difference between men and women, they do exist. Although men and women are so alike, they have different chromosomes, which express themselves indirectly to create differences. As young children, boys and girls are very alike, and most differences come from how they are shaped by others—I am not an expert on child psychology or social psychology so I am just making best guesses here. As toddlers, it is said, they are largely indistinguishable in behaviour. Their differences become most marked during puberty, for at this time genetic differences express themselves most.


 * There are hidden assumptions, perhaps perpetuated by traditional power strucutres, but their meaning is not self-evident. This proposition does not necessarily imply "society is inherently sexist and patriarchal!". It dismays me that most criticism is directed at trivia, like how girls dress or what they play with, and erroneous inferences, like "the patriarchy is responsible for anorexia more than advertising and fashion magazines." It does not address the inequality between men and women as much as differences between them, mostly in how each act and present themselves. By labelling everything as "patriarchal", a word charged by the notion of male dominance, everything is automatically blamed on men, and without thinking, those who accept these attributions blame people who have nothing to do with such injustices or trivia.


 * BUT, when he is sitting in a subway train car and there is a pregnant woman standing in front of him, he will stand up so she can sit down. Aha! He is a slave to patriarchy after all!


 * This doesn't make any sense. The man in question is not standing up because she is a women; he stands up because she is pregnant, and it is unpleasant for a unpregnant woman to stand up in an uncomfortable space. This is a decent gesture miscontrued as a malicious, or unwittingly evil, act. The interpretation reduces the gesture, by ignoring the simple fact she is pregnant, and what pregnancy entails, and looks at the in act through the paradigm of gender theory, cutting away all ideas irrelevant to it as Freudianism cuts away ideas not connected to sex drive. So, it supposes, pregnancy entails a gender construct, which is evil, of course; the man heeds this gender construct; and the man obeys the precepts of this gender construct, and so he is evil! This argument is silly.


 * By contrast, if a man gets up for an old lady, he is a gentleman; he is not enslaved to the Youthriarchy.


 * lol, I completely agree with you. Good point about Feudianism also. Sex-drive is a real phenomenon with more consequences than we would normally imagine, but to see it in everything is going too far. Exactly like reading evil gender constructions into all behaviour.


 * The most determined feminists will argue that women can work while pregnant, and compete on equal terms with men while they are preganant, otherwise there is an obvious advantage in employing men over women. If preganacy does not limit a women's value in the workforce, it cannot be a logical reason for special treatment in other situations either. Feminists have taught women to refuse special, preferential and positive treatment -- like men openning doors for them, carrying things for them, standing up for them, etc. They can see there is a direct connection between giving women special *positive* treatment in some places, and *negative* treatment in other places. Positive discrimation is still discrimination. This form of feminism argues that no social behaviours should be based on the biological sex of the persons involved, however nice the sentiments involved.


 * I agree women can work while they are pregnant, and they should not be excluded from the workforce. However, employing women as if equal to average male is positive discrimination, and benign, too—I hope this is not a tautology. Unless I am mistaken—I admit I lack knowledge on this and should be glad to be corrected—, pregnancy does entail health effects and emotional effects on women which affect their productivity. An employer merely considering productivity alone would find non-pregnant women and men more advantageous to women. So I think the positive discrimination should be desired for social reasons, and for general equality.


 * I agree that there can be social benefits to employing people whose productivity will be lower, as part of taking a genuine interest in our fellow citizens. We do this with sick-leave. Of course, an employer would probably lose money if changing staff every time someone fell sick. But my point is, an enlightened society can work at seeking to employ everyone, rather like a family tends to include children at all ages in various ways. Some businesses can afford to keep staff who have had a tragic accident. The actual work role might be modified somewhat, but employee loyalty would probably mean higher productivity. Human society is not a machine to be tuned to highest efficiency. Ideally, I would think, we are a community that looks after it's own, irrespective of relative contribution. In my heart, I'm a socialist, just I know in practice, we're probably all a little too selfish to really make socialism work.


 * To bring that back to pregnant women. The reason I would keep a pregnant women at work (if she wanted it) is because she belongs, she is already part of the team, and so the team stands by her, if the team wants her to stand up for the team. (Sorry if that sounds a bit muddled.) On the other hand, if paid employment was injuring the care that children require, I would be happy to accept that women had a higher loyalty to their children than to the workplace team they belong to. They should be given the appropriate respect for leaving work to invest in their own "family business".


 * We do need to be careful about the concept of equality, because we are not treating people equally, if all we are doing is ignoring their differences. To expect someone who suffers from asthma to spend the same number of hours in a dusty environment as a non-asthmatic is not fair to the asthmatics. We also need to be especially careful of the language of equity when we are dealing with competitive environments. In competitive environments, the basic assumption is that people are *not* equal in the restricted sense of the competition. Some people run faster, others work harder, still others work smarter. Leaving gender/sex aside, an employer will often have to choose between someone with a record of hard work, and another with a record of smart work. There are pros and cons either way.


 * In the "equal opportunity" literature, I am not satisfied I've read much that really admits the extra complexities I've just mentioned. I am much happier with the old fashioned communist literature that argued that we should honour and reward the labourer equally with the manager. That sounds more like genuine equality to me, but I can see plenty of flaws in the theory as well.


 * As evidenced by their gait, women in late stages of pregnancy do require more care than other women. Excessive special treatment is offensive, but it does not follow any special treatment is wrong—and in fact, the latter idea is the mawkish fear of gender discrimination.


 * Those other gestures are, in some cases, special treatment, and, in others, decent human gestures. People often open doors for me, hold open doors for me, offer to help me with things; yet by gender prejudices, as a young male, I least need this treatment. Those gestures display polite behaviour, and it is annoying how women miscontrue such politeness as gender impositions. Standing up for women and clumsy deference, however, is understandably annoying, because it draws unwanted attention to their sex. It is possible, in some cases, this is based on harmful prejudices, but in most cases, this behaviour usually stems from men's willingness to impress women, and this motive does not generally lead to enforcing the patriarchy or sex inequalities.


 * Most of these acts themselves are innocuous. I think feminism wrongful attributes these acts because of a false idea all-encompassing gender, and a misguided attempt to describe everything, not just inequality.


 * Like you, I am a man who considers himself positive towards women and their contribution in society. I freely acknowledge that Margret Thatcher is one of England's great leaders, for example. However, I also freely acknowledge that testosterone affects the way I think and feel, and that my thinking is also influenced at an unconscious level by my experience, including the social patterns I encountered as a child, and continue to encounter. It is part of the nature of being human, that we have beliefs at an unconscious level, that we don't even know we believe, because we've never had to stop and think about them. A sad example of this is the Boxing Day tsunami. People had the unconscious belief that their family members would be alive on Boxing Day. Their unconscious mind did not wake up that morning and remind itself that massive natural disasters are always a possibility. So shock, along with grief, is something the survivors experienced.


 * I agree the unconcious mind mostly determines our behaviour, but feminism still (generally) infers that men generally unconciously act destructively to women. Most forms of feminism do not (seem to) acknowledge that decent men who do not embrace feminism do not harm the condition of women. I think it is wrong to believe men are enslaved to destructive social patterns against women, or that everything associated with "gender" impels men and women to act destructively to the condition of women. The contrary is a very bold assumption which I haven't seen justified by argument. Feminism seems to generally suppose that men cannot be decent without adopting itself.


 * That's as much as I can answer now. Rintrah 08:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks a lot. You are giving me a clear picture of your general impressions, and much more as well. I think these issues are going to be around for quite some time to come, but I also think there is evidence that the most recent writings in the area are tending to say the sorts of things you and I have come to work out for ourselves. It seems there is a "quiet revolution" going on, "common sense" is prevailing over "political correctness" -- and little by little, science seems to be backing common sense.

I will be in Indonesian for the next couple of weeks, and after that I have some writing deadlines to meet. I will be submiting a chapter on feminism and patriarchy, so I'm sure I'll have a lot of material to select from, to add depth to wiki's patriachy entry, at least until someone has time to bring it up to date again later. ;-)

Anyway, best wishes for the New Year, tchuess, alastair


 * Thanks for your excellent contributions and detailed, considered replies. Enjoy Indonesia! Rintrah 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)