Yeah, but there's a world of difference between 24/7 solitary confinement and working on the prison farm (or so I've been told). — 180 Proof

Yeah, yeah!

What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy? — Athena

I'll just speak about patriarchy. It's a word that has a particular political meaning in our society. From the web:

Patriarchy - A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

This is a quote from a paper I found on the web:

Patriarchy is the prime obstacle to women’s advancement and development. Despite differences in levels of domination the broad principles remain the same, i.e. men are in control.

This is my understanding of an oversimplified example of what "patriarchy" means in feminism. Here's my translation in to T Clark-speak - Women are not responsible for the society in which they live. Or more strongly, men are to blame. My problem with such statements is not so much they're wrong, although they are, it's that they are deeply disrespectful to women. And men too, for that matter, but that's not the issue I'm trying to deal with.

Women can be scientists, athletes, philosophers, CEOs, soldiers etc just like men. It stands to reason they can also be dictators, — darthbarracuda

Not only that, but in a dictatorship power would be held by one dictator, so I don't think it would make much difference. Would a female Hitler or Stalin be better than a male one?

But I agree that patriarchy seems to be related to physical and biological differences between men and women. Of course women can be soldiers, etc. But the question is whether they can be soldiers and raise children at the same time.

Taking the dictionary definition of “patriarchy” as “male-dominated social system, with descent through the male line” and “matriarchy” as “female-dominated social system, with descent through the female line”, it looks like all successful societies have been male-dominated or "patriarchal".

It seems to be the case that societies that are competitive, assertive, and aggressive, tend to be more successful than others. Currently, those where women play a greater role in making policy, as in Western countries, seem to be on the retreat, and those where men are in control, as in China and Islamic states, are on the rise.

In any case, as we have no examples of successful societies run on the matriarchal model, the benefits or otherwise of a matriarchal system can only be hypothetical.

Most children throughout history have spent their formative years under the tutelage of their mothers. The rapid cognitive, physical, emotional, and social development of children occurs in their cauldron. All systems are, in this sense, matriarchal. — NOS4A2

Good, important, point.

I imagine benefits and problems of a gender based social structure would match pretty closely to the benefits and problems of the genders themselves.
Of course a problem common to both a patriarchy and a matriarchy is that it ignores merit in favour of an accident of birth. Anyone who thinks gender is more telling of leadership or social order than individual merit is a fool imo. — DingoJones

Well, that is an interesting comment. Before you decide who is a fool you might want to have more information. But I am pondering what you said and wondering why you said it. It kind of reminds me of the movie Brave New World. The way technology has impacted our consciousness is fascinating, but that is a different discussion I would love to have.

This is my understanding of an oversimplified example of what "patriarchy" means in feminism. Here's my translation in to T Clark-speak - Women are not responsible for the society in which they live. Or more strongly, men are to blame. My problem with such statements is not so much they're wrong, although they are, it's that they are deeply disrespectful to women. And men too, for that matter, but that's not the issue I'm trying to deal with. — T Clark

The term "patriarchy" - with all the negative connotations - also occurs among left-wing and far-left groups where it tends to crop up in slogans like "smash patriarchy" that appear side-by-side with "smash capitalism", etc., at some rallies.

I think one problem with the "feminist" view of patriarchy as a system where women are subordinate to men, is that the reality is we all take orders from the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc., and are subordinate to some authority or another.

In any case, you don't often see men in Western society with an army of women under their command, or going out of their way to "exploit" and "suppress" women.

And, of course, whilst in the West we are waging divisive culture, race, and gender wars, other truly repressive and violent regimes are on the march in Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc.

This is my understanding of an oversimplified example of what "patriarchy" means in feminism. Here's my translation in to T Clark-speak - Women are not responsible for the society in which they live. Or more strongly, men are to blame. My problem with such statements is not so much they're wrong, although they are, it's that they are deeply disrespectful to women. And men too, for that matter, but that's not the issue I'm trying to deal with. — T Clark

Hum another very interesting reply and also far from what I expected. You might notice how much the function of government has changed since women have filled the seats of government. I am absolutely blown away that we are now talking about how women can not work unless someone cares for their children so the government needs to provide child care. I never thought, in the US, we would say the government needs to assume that much responsibility for our children. For sure it is a change in what we think the government should do for us and it follows "liberating women" to work in the industries just like the communist did long before the US "liberated" women. I have a 1940 Oregon Family Law book and it says only when a woman has fulfilled her family responsibilities can she work outside of the home.

women are subordinate to men, is that the reality is we all take orders from the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc., and are subordinate to some authority or another. — Apollodorus

I think a feminist might say, with some justification, that the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc. are all institutions controlled by men.

In any case, you don't often see men in Western society with an army of women under their command, or going out of their way to "exploit" and "suppress" women. — Apollodorus

Most discrimination against women is not men "going out of their way." The problem is that the institutions are set up to do it as a standard way of doing business.

The term "patriarchy" - with all the negative connotations - also occurs among left-wing and far-left groups where it tends to crop up in slogans like "smash patriarchy" that appear side-by-side with "smash capitalism", etc., at some rallies.

I think one problem with the "feminist" view of patriarchy as a system where women are subordinate to men, is that the reality is we all take orders from the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc., and are subordinate to some authority or another.

In any case, you don't often see men in Western society with an army of women under their command, or going out of their way to "exploit" and "suppress" women.

And, of course, whilst in the West we are waging divisive culture, race, and gender wars, other truly repressive and violent regimes are on the march in Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc. — Apollodorus

We used to educate for independent thinking and for civic and industrial leadership. I have this crazy notion that democracy in American meant not relying on the government, you know as Tocqueville said in 1830 when wrote the book "Democracy in America". I think traditional family values are important to our liberty and that is why I started this thread. I don't think having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family is liberating women.

You might notice how much the function of government has changed since women have filled the seats of government. — Athena

I'm not sure that the increase in women's role in politics has had the effect you're describing. I'm not even sure your description is accurate.

I am absolutely blown away that we are now talking about how women can not work unless someone cares for their children so the government needs to provide child care. — Athena

I'm sixty-nine years old. When I was a kid, my mother stayed home and my father worked as an engineer. My wife was a nurse and I was an engineer. With me working full time and her working half-time, we had just about the same way of life as my mother and father did. I'm not complaining, I feel very fortunate, but today, you need two people working just to maintain the standard of living that our parents had.

"liberating women" to work in the industries just like the communist did long before the US "liberated" women. — Athena

I've worked with and for a lot of women in my engineering career. It is such a drag to just work with men. That's not an insult to them. A mixed work place is so much more human. The women I worked with were mostly professionals - engineers and scientists. Very few of them would have liked to be full-time homemakers. At the same time, most of them, and many of the men, would have liked more flexibility to fit their work in with their home life. That's true, even though I worked for companies that were supportive and flexible with their workers.

What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy? — Athena

I don't know, but as for me, it's time to turn over the reigns. There are some fucked up women (Palin, Taylor-Green, Boebert, et al) but they are outnumbered and don't have what it takes to deal with smart and wise women.

I feel the same way about the younger generation. And minorities. Woman, the 20-30-40 somethings, and the black and brown crowd can't possibly be any worse than the suit and tie crowd.

Fork that bronc and ride, ladies, kids, the oppressed.

Please rise above vindictive vengeance, though. Not all of us were out to fuck you.

I don't think having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family is liberating women. — Athena

As I said in my previous post, I can only go based on the attitudes of the women I worked with and my female wife, neighbors, and friends.

One thing which I wonder about in relation to your question is how it connects with issues surrounding the development and history of religion. Certainly, within Christianity there was the suppression of women within the Church and the role of a priesthood of men, even though that has begun to change. I believe that in many religions male supremacy has been linked to beliefs in a divine order. However, there is some archaeological and anthropological findings about gods, so one question may be about whether there was at any point a belief in goddesses, possibly prior to gods. This may be suppressed, alongside paganism, which emphasises the idea of sacred 'feminine' power and fertility rites.

What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy? — Athena

...as brute force trumps all other virtues. — Michael Zwingli

why didn't the men stay home while the women went out and stabbed one another with spears in the olden days? — Noble Dust

The question of why patriarchy came first, and is so ubiquitous, seems related to the physical attributes of men, which are the clearest differences between them and women. — darthbarracuda

...patriarchy seems to be related to physical and biological differences between men and women. — Apollodorus

...so male violence, then.

Another great unspoken.

I think a feminist might say, with some justification, that the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc. are all institutions controlled by men. — T Clark

The feminist may well say that. However, depending on the area or Western country you live in, institutions are not always controlled by men. There are female police chiefs, judges, civil servants, and politicians (including presidents or vice-presidents, prime ministers, and chancellors).

And the point is that in any system only the very top of the hierarchy are not subordinate to anyone. Children are subordinate to parents, pupils to teachers, employees to bosses ....

I think traditional family values are important to our liberty and that is why I started this thread. I don't think having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family is liberating women. — Athena

Good point. I think there isn't much point having family values if no one wants to raise a family.

Just think of the thousands of abortions being performed throughout the Western world. If all those babies were saved and given up for adoption or raised by the state, you would have the population of a whole country. But we complain that there is a shortage of workforce and prefer to import people from other places to make up for it. Crazy or what?

There are female police chiefs, judges, civil servants, and politicians — Apollodorus

...the result of a hundred and fifty years of fighting for equality.

Just think of the thousands of abortions being performed throughout the Western world. If all those babies were saved and given up for adoption or raised by the state, you would have the population of a whole country. But we complain that there is a shortage of workforce and prefer to import people from other places to make up for it. Crazy or what? — Apollodorus

That's a pretty slick, sick comment.

So, you think the state shouldn't make itself useful and do something for the people? Some people have abortions because they feel they have no choice. Why shouldn't the state help out? Western governments have trillions of $$$ for Afghanistan and other places but nothing for their own people. How is that right?

So, you think the state shouldn't make itself useful and do something for the peopl — Apollodorus

Oh, most assuredly, provide support for mums. And it should refrain from restricting women's choices concerning their own health.

Let's have abortion and childcare.

And it should refrain from restricting women's choices concerning their own health — Banno

I think a woman who feels she has no choice, e.g. for economic reasons, does not have a choice. Helping her financially would give her a choice IMO.

I agree. And if she still chooses an abortion, that is her choice, not that of Texas.

No one was talking about Texas. I was talking about the whole western world and about women who might make different choices if useless governments helped them instead of pumping trillions into Afghanistan and arming the Taliban to suppress women. I think that is crazy and sick. But each with their own opinion.

No one was talking about Texas. — Apollodorus

I am. Now you are, too. It's pretty much spot on the topic of the OP, having just introduced a law aiming at limiting the rights of women.

You raised the topic of abortion. I'm following your lead. If it makes you uncomfortable, that might be a good thing.

I raised the topic because @Athena mentioned women having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family, which obviously does not liberate women.

The only alternative to that is to have no children, including involuntary abortions.

On the other hand, if useless and fraudulent governments helped women instead of pouring trillions into Afghanistan and arming Taliban criminals to suppress women, then things might be a bit better for everyone ....

The only alternative to that is to have no children, including involuntary abortions. — Apollodorus

...unless, say, there was a basic income payed to carers.

Your "...only..." shows an impressive lack of imagination.

...involuntary abortions... — Apollodorus

Miscarriage? No, you mean women who later regret having an abortion. See this:

Emotions and decision rightness over five years following an abortion: An examination of decision difficulty and abortion stigma

Highlights
•We found no evidence of emerging negative emotions over 5 years post-abortion.
•High proportions of women felt abortion was the right decision across all 5 years.
•Relief was the most commonly felt emotion at all times over 5 years post-abortion.
•Initial differences in emotions by abortion decision difficulty converged over time.
•Decision difficulty and perceived stigma predicted decision rightness at 3–5 years.

The facts don't quite square with your claim.

There are female police chiefs, judges, civil servants, and politicians (including presidents or vice-presidents, prime ministers, and chancellors). — Apollodorus

According to the web, 87% of police officers are men. As of 2017, 66% of US Federal District Court judges were men...

A tremendous improvement.

..unless, say, there was a basic income payed to carers. — Banno

Which amounts to the state raising the children ....

If all those babies were saved and given up for adoption or raised by the state — Apollodorus

According to the web, 87% of police officers are men. As of 2017, 66% of US Federal District Court judges were men... — T Clark

In that case, I'm assuming that the remainder are women. 34% of Federal District Court judges is not negligible. How many are there under the Taliban?

In that case, I'm assuming that the remainder are women. 34% of Federal District Court judges is not negligible. How many are there under the Taliban? — Apollodorus

I didn't say it was negligible, and saying we're better than the Taliban is damnation by very, very faint praise.