Exploring this concept.
I got burnt out and bored pretty quickly, but here are some notes.. I guess.
Intro ∞
I started my chain of research from https://youtu.be/lkC7KdIW8s0
I can't find the initial video cited. I looked through Kristi Winters' videos. I could have looked much harder, but videos listed like "2 months ago" is confusing as hell.
Definition one ∞
https://youtu.be/lkC7KdIW8s0?t=2m30s
A social system in which power is held by men, through cultural norms and customs that favor men and withhold opportunity from women.
This says:
- Social systems exist
Power exists
- .. and can be held by men
- .. and is held through 'cultural norms' (below)
- .. and is held through 'customs' (below)
Cultural norms exist
- .. and can favour men
- .. and can withhold opportunity from women
Customs exist
- .. and can favour men
- .. and can withhold opportunity from women
Social systems ∞
Social systems exist
- system does not mean government
I don't understand what "social systems" means. I thought 'system' means government. I've never heard of a 'social government'. I also don't understand the suggestion of 'a social system', saying that there is more than one social system. That's definitely not 'government'.
Women are the majority population and majority voters, so they have power over, and therefore through, 'the system'. This is external power over the system.
If the argument is that there's something preventing women getting into or staying in government, that needs to be demonstrated. There are laws, which are very strongly enforced, against discrimination against women. In the workplace and most definitely in government positions. Maybe this can be thought of as internal power from within the system.
Frankly, I think we're at the point in the west when a woman can just say 'I have a vagina' and get a free pass in all levels of government. Isn't that social power? (below)
- social power
Women have social leverage, social power, social ability. Something. However people say it, women are superior to men in all social things.
But I don't think that is a "social system".
.. so there's something I don't get. I have another way to understand this, below..
Power ∞
Power exists
- .. and can be held by men
- .. and is held through 'cultural norms' (below)
- .. and is held through 'customs' (below)
I guess this is the ability to do stuff in the world which one wants.
Individual women seem to apply power not just for their own self but for women in general. This means that a woman's power is vastly amplified because they pursue things for 'the collective'.
Men don't actually do this for other men. Think of it as being more selfish. This makes it important to examine 'cultural norms' (below) and 'customs' (below).
Yes, power can be held by .. wait, power can't be held by groups of men if they're selfish. So this means there needs to be some sort of coordinated effort by all men, which there obviously isn't, or the effects of individual men impact all men (and not women), which.. requires the examination I attempt below.
Cultural norms ∞
Cultural norms exist
- .. and can favour men
- .. and can withhold opportunity from women
It simply isn't proper to be sexist. That's why the concept exists and is made negative. That's why people are openly shamed for it. That's why people are legally pressured for it. People lose their jobs for it. Sexism is not accepted and thereby cannot be normal!
I'm sure some fringe cases can be dug up, but again with the normalcy problem. Fringe is fringe. Fringe is not common and not normal.
Think of it this way.. when the concept of 'sexism' is brought up, does one ever think about sexism against men? This really says something. I think it says something about how it's normal to not be sexist about women. I think it says something about normalcy of sexism against men.
Furthermore, any example brought up which talks about normalcy cannot, by its very nature, talk about..
- a small group of men effecting a large group of (women|people)
a large group of men effecting a small group of (women|people)
Customs ∞
Customs exist
- .. and can favour men
- .. and can withhold opportunity from women
I guess customs exist. Customs are made by generations of people. I guess it impacts them, but anyone who talks about customs having anything negative, or customs which have norms which 'need to change' are demonstrating the possibility to change culture. So free will in spite of culture must exist.
If people (adults) have free will.. how is it possible for pro-male customs to exist? Again, the very concept of sexism exists, is negative, and is amplified when thinking about women. We have laws against sexism. Where is there sexism in culture? When thinking about sexism in culture, is it a fringe culture?
Definition two ∞
https://youtu.be/bzFo150G4V8?t=19s
In the simplest terms, patriarchy is a social system that values masculinity over femininity.
I like this as a simple explanation. The rest of the video goes much deeper into things, but I want to latch onto this form to understand these two concepts by building on what I've already written.
Yes, I'm going in 'blind', without watching the rest of the video. This is intentional so I can use my brain to come up with questions from where I am right now, without having my hand held. Hand-holding closes the mind.
Social system ∞
See Social systems
Again with this concept. This makes zero sense.
Masculinity and Femininity ∞
These are real. These concepts exist to label things that are actually seen in the actual world. Not things on paper in some waffling college course.. they exist in the actual world.
Valuing one over the other ∞
Very bluntly put, this is saying:
- Masculinity is good.
Femininity is bad.
This is an obvious outright lie, so I'll examine it another way.
Seeing these in the world ∞
I guess we could say that some things are valued more than others. Is this patriarchy hypothesis saying that certain traits which are (presently) valued in the world are masculine?
Is this looking out in the world and assigning masculine traits to 'everything valued'? That angle is dumb. Instead, taking a huge swath of men from all walks of life, examining what 'masculinity' means, then examining what things of those are 'valued', would be useful.
When examining a wide swath of males, it becomes necessary to examine a parity-swath of females. There is no other way to know what 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are than to compare traits of males and females. Making any assumptions is dishonest.
For example, aggressiveness is not an exclusively male trait. Is it more common in men? By how much? How much would it have to be to become useful information? How much does society value it? Saying 'aggressive' is automatically a negative. Can something negative be valued?
What trait exists significantly more in men more than women which is also valued more?
I can think of some. Assertiveness, competition, reasoning, accountability. Actual problem-solving with real things in the real world. These are valued more because they are the driving forces of all innovation. Of civilization itself.
I think of these things when I think about women in relationships. Sitting back and 'waiting', making choices from a defensive position. Passing blame. Talking over acting. Feelings over facts. I can easily see how those traits are not valued, even by women, out in the real world. Those things don't lead to the comforts of civilization.
Again I state that these are trends of large swaths of people.
I don't see how the driving forces of innovation could, or should, be devalued.
I think it's an interesting conversation to examine how more commonly-feminine traits could, or should, be made 'as valued' as masculine traits.
I think it's a terrible idea to manipulate people, especially children and especially against their parents' wishes, to create parity of these traits over those swaths of people. Good god, that's terrible. Terrible like a totalitarian mind control dystopia.
'Fixing' women to give them more masculine traits is terrible.
If your brain went straight to 'taming' men, that's sexist. And, again, terrible. This entire line of thinking is sexist. How could the value of traits which are the driving forces of civilization not be valued?
Why is this concept of 'value' even be important? This is a suggestion that other things are not important, which is ridiculous. Why wouldn't femininity be valued in a different way than the more obvious 'value' of civilization and assumption of its link to masculinity progressing it?
Definition three ∞
I couldn't find a proper video for this..
https://youtu.be/lkC7KdIW8s0?t=4m10s
Patriarchy is defined by feminist social theory as an unjust system to forces[sic] gender roles and oppresses both men and women by promoting male dominance over women.
Maybe she meant "that forces". Maybe "that enforces". I'll go with that.
Feminist social theory exists
- .. and defines patriarchy
Patriarchy is a system
- .. which is unjust
- Enforces
Gender roles exist
- .. and are enforced
Oppresses
- .. men
- .. women
Promotes male dominance over women
Feminist social theory ∞
Feminist social theory exists
- .. and defines patriarchy
This is by far the most useful statement I've heard so far. This means there's a 'feminist bible' which I can refer to as an official source. Dictionary definitions are garbage, as they only ambulance-chase concepts that are used live. A live theory is much closer to actual usage, and can even be used to enforce use.
I think examining this would mean going to actual literature ("the source", so-to-speak), which I'll save for some other year. My philosophy backlog is astonishing. I'm a slow reader, if you couldn't guess by this.
Also, using the word theory breeds an assumption of correctness. People use 'theory' to shield themselves behind real science. I don't mean 'real' science, I mean actual real science. Social 'sciences' using the word theory are almost always outright and knowing liars. Yes, you read that right. Hypothesis is the correct term.
Patriarchy is an unjust system ∞
Patriarchy is a system
- .. which is unjust
See Social systems.
However, I feel that saying it 'enforces' is somehow notable. I think of this as self-reinforcement. A feedback-loop of sort. I think that thinking like this will be a big step toward understanding the mind behind this patriarchy concept.
Gender roles ∞
I think this is something linked-to yet different from the ideas in Cultural norms and Customs. The Masculinity and Femininity concept seems to apply.
I don't think this isn't a "role" like a student being assigned a role in a play. And not a role like an actor applying to a tv show. More like an expectation that individuals have for themselves. This is the tie to culture. An expectation of others for individuals would be cultural norms.
I think I generally understand this already, though I'd argue that humans have free will, that cultural expectations aren't bad, and that breaking from cultural norms is .. well, it's perfectly normal.
Sure, there's pushback (like shame) from culture (like parents and peers) against being not-normal.. but that's exactly what's expected. Culture shifts as free-will (and trends) push back harder than culture. This is cultural evolution. This will happen at its own pace.
Speeding it up by manufacturing a trend is just shaming manipulation of culture for one's perspective. It's like the shamer wants to make a crowd for them to be a part of without themselves changing. I think this is the major "pushback" that "normalcy" uses as its high ground.
I think it's safe to say that the enforcement concept goes back to the feedback-loop I just spoke of.
Oppression ∞
Oppresses
- .. men
- .. women
Oppression is the high ground that this patriarchy hypothesis. I don't think it means what they think it means.
I think it's being used in the colloquial 'it's bad' usage, just as 'theory' is being used colloquially.
I'll just let this sit, and move on.
Dominance ∞
Promotes male dominance over women
I can't imagine any circumstance where males dominate .. wait, shouldn't this read 'male dominance over females'? Or men's dominance over women?
Well let's work with the latter. I don't see this. Not in life experience, not from anyone I know, not from anyone I've ever met, and not from any third-hand tale.
Is this talking about Social systems?
Is this going toward abuse?
Frankly, I see every supporter of 'patriarchy theory' promoting female dominance over males. Is that meant to push toward balance? I could, therefore, examine any action and look at what that action pushes against and check if that thing promotes men dominating women or not. Citation needed, because I've never seen that.
If this dominance examination and pushback is meant to push toward balance, does that mean there are knowable goals, whose achievement would mean feminism could then be disbanded? Is it possible that a dominance-push could push blindly and never stop? Has this already happened for some goals? Has there been push applied to unneeded things? Is this not being applied in places where it should be?
Again, this really needs to be explored, because it's not obvious so far from, again, this intentionally closed-scope writing.
Definition four ∞
https://youtu.be/vQpFkwR8adA?t=1m25s
It all comes down to to our underlying mindsets about masculinity and femininity, and so since our society has an overwhelming preference for masculine values and masculinity that's what makes our society patriarchy.
This appears to parrot Definition three, leading me to think there is some curriculum being interpreted.. evidence of a 'bible', of sorts.
Definition five (Sally J. Scholz) ∞
This is a published author. I don't have a quote from within that book. This might have been Feminism: A Beginner's Guide (February 1st 2010-02-01 book).
Patriarchy denotes a social organization that systematically oppresses women and benefits men.
-- Feminism, by Sally J. Scholz
I guess this is talking about Social systems, but this wording is new and interesting.
Social organizations exist
- .. and can systematically do things
- .. and can oppress women
- .. and can benefit men
Saying "organization" means things are organized by multiple people. This also suggests there are driving forces and not just the feedback concept I wrote on earlier.
A small cabal would fit this description, but I don't get the impression this says that. Still, I find it amusing to think about a small cabal of feminists who, through manipulating systems (laws/government, education, media) systematically oppress women. (e.g. the removal of agency/infantilization, manipulating statistics to make college girls fear for their lives.)
I see the exact opposite of this oppress/benefit statement taking place, and by feminists. I see this as "bringing balance to the force", and in the correct (negative) sense. It's pushed anywhere and everywhere, and any time I see any feminist activity I see it either acting unnecessarily, incorrectly or simply going too far.
Definition six ∞
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Patriarchy&oldid=1698321
"Patriarchy" (derived from patriarch in Greek) is a term for societies in which male is the favored gender, and in which men hold power, dominion and privilege. That position is reinforced by societal and cultural norms, religious teachings, media portrayals of gender roles (specifically female inferiority), the use of perceived feminine characteristics as insults, and even formal definition of gender roles, including laws limiting women's rights.
(keep in mind that wikis are basically made up)
- societies exist
males are favored
- .. as a gender
power can be held
- .. and are held by men
dominion can be held
- .. and is held by men
- privilege exists
privilege can be held
- .. and is held by men
Tired ∞
I'm getting tired of this project, so I'm going to write up the rest of the quotes and return to this if I ever get interested again.
Definitions seven (Andrea Dworkin) ∞
Do keep in mind that this is an actual prominent feminist. One which influences discussion. One which influences publications, law and curriculum.
Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.
- http://www.azquotes.com/quote/666824 (citation needed)
Propagating fear. Manufacturing victims. Infantilizing women. Hating boys. Hating men.
--
Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.
- http://www.azquotes.com/quote/700105 (citation needed)
Hating boys. Hating men. Propagating fear. Outright lying. Infantilizing women.
--
Feminism requires precisely what patriarchy destroys in women: unimpeachable bravery in confronting male power.
- http://www.azquotes.com/quote/849835 (citation needed)
What?
Definitions seven (Gloria Steinem) ∞
This is probably one of the most prominent feminists. Is this the one who was raised by a literally-insane man-hating mother?
Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself... The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their home.
- http://www.azquotes.com/quote/598056 (citation needed)
"Subliminal"? No evidence. Propagating fear. Are you surprised to learn this woman is single?
--
No wonder male religious leaders so often say that humans were born in sin—because we were born to female creatures. Only by obeying the rules of the patriarchy can we be reborn through men. No wonder priests and ministers in skirts sprinkle imitation birth fluid over our heads, give us new names, and promise rebirth into everlasting life.
- http://www.azquotes.com/quote/513609 (citation needed)
Christian bias, I guess. Wait, what? What? Oh man, I'd need more religion to understand this even partly.
--
It's hard to measure success when we're dealing with between 500 and 5,000 years of patriarchy depending on which continent we sit, so I would say feminism has been successful and we have a huge distance to go, huge.
- http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1076786 (citation needed)
I already wrote about pushing too far. This is seriously terrible.
--
... patriarchy creates megapatterns that affect us all--even as we forge different individual choices within them--just as do the megapatterns of nationalism or racism.
- http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1233242 (citation needed)
What about the megapatterns of socialism, communism, marxism and fascism?
--
We are still in various kinds of patriarchal systems. The very definition of patriarchy is that men control women as the means of reproduction, so the idea that a woman's main role is to have children often means society wants more workers, more soldiers. The idea that how many children we have should be controlled by the family, the church, the nation - by anyone but women themselves - is still very deep and very strong.
- http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1284009 (citation needed)
Women have birth control rights. Women have the right to abort (without the potential-father's consent) both early and late-term. Women can put a baby up for adoption. Men have unreliable condoms. Feminists picketed male birth control pills. Tell me, again, about men controlling reproduction..
Women control reproduction. Women control education. Tell me, again, about how women don't control children.
--
Patriarchy 101 would have you believe otherwise, but you know - that's just not true. Those inequalities are recipes for resentment. And, yes, the formula isn't perfect yet. We don't all have that. But we're trying.
- http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1348295 (citation needed)
I don't comprehend this at a glance.
