There's no merit in fostering an unnecessarily hostile competition between the sexes, maybe in that, we could agree. — Judaka

We do have common ground there.

I'm not going to formulate my views differently just because some morons believe they're living in a patriarchy. — Judaka

Their moronic views still have to be challenged though, for as long as they dare to promote them.

Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden

I think that was more true in the past than it is now. Certainly not in every town and city on the planet but I think caring/protectiveness/cooperation etc is valued much more than 'aggressive competition' in the minds of more and more men, in particular.

Oh the casual misogyny of celebrating the little homemakers who "are really in charge" because they tend your heirs just as your wonderful mum tended you. Pass the sick bag. — apokrisis

It's possible if you try not to read everything through your limited lens that you are the protector of women and all other things small from the men monsters of old who hate everyone not themselves, even their moms who supposedly were like June Cleaver and not far more complicated as such things tend to really be.

I responded empirically to the question of what men are. The data are remarkable really. There are a whole host of occupations that are nearly 100% male, particularly in the trades. These jobs are not particularly well paying, prestigious, or glamorous. In fact, they're backbreaking and necessary, literally assuring such things as your light bulb turning on when the switch is flipped.

Why do men take these jobs and women not? Does the patriarchy elbow out the women and save the glory for the man to solder the pipe and pull the cable? I don't think so. I think it's because women don't want those jobs.

Why do men take them? I suppose it says something about men, which I took to be the question of the OP, but then you interjected to help the women cross the street because they needed a man to help them from my maybe bad words.

Worry not. I'm only looking at what men do to answer the question of what men are.

The link. You missed the link. — Hanover

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.
Women were completely restrIcted to the jobs men decided they should do!
What about during WW II for example when women demonstrated they could do the heavy industrial jobs men did, just as well as men.
It's the same concept as the victors get to write history. The stats you highlight are the result of historical male dominance and they are not a result of what women wanted or were capable of doing.

It's the same concept as the victors get to write history. The stats you highlight are the result of historical male dominance and they are not a result of what women wanted or were capable of doing. — universeness

I know. So many women wish to plumb but are held back by the bullies who force them into other professions.

It's impossible to find data unsupportive of your narrative. Such is how Gospel works.

OK, funny -- I laughed. There's too much interplay between the sexes, and cross-support (especially in a family structure) to define men by their occupation. The men may build things, but they don't do everything (there are women at the worksite who are just as capable), and they rely upon the network of women in the more traditional set-up.

One thing I'd note, though, is that you're equating men and women in terms of ability -- which I agree with -- but you're not setting out what it means to be a man, unlike Hanover. We may disagree on masculinity, but he answered the question. Do you have an answer? — Moliere

My earnest answer to 'what is a man or what is masculinity,' lies within the answer to 'what is a human or what is humanism.' The answers to the question of what are the differences between a man and a woman or masculinity and femininity are just too trivial to me. Highlighting differences in genitalia/some internal workings and parts or chromosomes or aesthetics or strength or even in historical/traditional role play are just unimportant now. Old backwards thinking imo, we need to drop all that shit and declare men and women as equal, in every way conceivable and declare general differences in physical strength, as no longer of any significant value, in the age of modern technology.
Notions of a patriarchal or matriarchal dominance has zero value now and should be declared utterly dead and gone!

If you want me to answer the question of 'what is a human or what is humanity or what is humanism then I can and will, although I think I already have, over many posts in many threads.
If you want me to answer the question 'what in your opinion are the differences between men and women,' then I can only answer that from many different angles, traditionally, physically, psychologically, legally, politically, socially etc, etc. But, as I said, they all pale in comparison to the commonalities.
Masculinity and femininity should be part of each individual human, as each can balance and strengthen the other.

If an individual wants to nurture an internal patriarchy or matriarchy then fine, they can do so, as long as they don't impose it on anyone else, by force. If their internal identity results in an overwhelming need to change their physical biological sex, then that's ok to. They are still bound by laws, such as not raping a woman using a penis that they happen to still have, even though they are a woman themselves.
Sexual assault is sexual assault regardless of the sexual status of the perpetrator or the victim.

all you've really said, over and over again, is that you don't recognize the way I understand myself and my society as valid. — T Clark

I argued that it was invalid and gave reasons. Simple as.

So many women wish to plumb but are held back by the bullies who force them into other professions. — Hanover

Try to be more balanced! Does the following edit help you?
So many women wish to be educated, have equal opportunity, choose their career path etc but are held back by the patriarchal bullies who force them into other roles.

Why do men take them? I suppose it says something about men, which I took to be the question of the OP, but then you interjected to help the women cross the street because they needed a man to help them from my maybe bad words. — Hanover

:up:

Humans need to be understood in terms of the dichotomies that give reality to the notion of life involving "choices", or at least a flexible range of options so that behaviour is not reflexive and stereotyped.

If you label yourself as X, then you are locked into "being X", and this mostly measuring yourself in terms of actually too often "failing to be perfectly X". It is a broken way of thinking when it comes to being a man, a human, an engineer, a whatever. — apokrisis

It's about humans understanding other humans and humans explaining and justifying themselves to other humans. It's also about self-analysis. That's why Rabbie Burns wrote:
"O wad god the gift tae gie us
Tae see oorsels as ithers see us."

A person may see themselves as X but yes, as you suggest, they then have to convince others that they are in fact X and that X is justifiable.

So you might find it useful to have a spectrum of human behaviour that runs between the masculine and feminine. Being able to move about this range "at will" – as a personally adaptive choice – seems a good thing as who wants to be stuck in the rut of a stereotype? — apokrisis

I agree, but only as the internal spectrum you suggest and not when it overspills into a patriarchal or matriarchal identity that you think should be the dominant societal driver.

Why not have a debate about the prosocial~antisocial spectrum? That would be a more general human level alternative to a gender-based dichotomy. And it would for instance capture more of what T Clark looks to want to claim about his personal identity. — apokrisis

Sure, seems like a useful suggestion to me.

I can sometimes be a pretty intimidating person for people who don't know me. I'm high energy and aggressive verbally. Women tend to be more intimidated by me than men do, so I have to be more careful.

At the same time, women tend to like me and trust me once they know me better. I treat them with respect they can sense is sincere. I'm pretty transparent. People can see I'm trustworthy and not a threat. — T Clark

We would have to 'interview' the women who know Mr Clark 'well,' with the Rabbie Burns quote I used above as our measure. I have often heard friends tell me how they think they are perceived by their friends and family and then I get a very different story indeed when I have spoken to those very same friends and family as they have often also been my friends and family.
Often the way my sister thinks my other sister perceives her is incorrect and vice versa and so on and so forth. I am sure this is also true of my perceptions, that I think others have of me.

I often hear from friends and family, regarding how 'intimidating' a loved one is.
Let's call the person 'husband' for example. I have had commentary such as:

"yeah, I have to stroke my husbands ego a little, now and again. He is actually quite emotionally vulnerable and fragile. You have to let him think he is in charge and that we all respect him deeply and find him intimidating. He is a little lost boy in reality, living in the residue of a bygone age when men were men and they believed all women found them exciting, rather than merely useful."

I am editorialising of course but I think many of us have heard others say similar things.

My earnest answer to 'what is a man or what is masculinity,' lies within the answer to 'what is a human or what is humanism.' — universeness

In this context, terms like "human" and "humanism" seem to me about as useful as "earthling" and "geocenrrism", respectively.

Earthling is ok by me, but are you including all fauna in that?
Does a man and a woman have total equality under the label human or humanism, in your view?

Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden

Is this your basis for saying there's a patriarchy in these "contemporary societies"? I'm not interested in a modern feminist reimagining of what patriarchy is, that defines the term in the most incredibly vague, broad and subjective terms possible. What you seem to be talking about is capitalism, because otherwise, no, I don't agree that "aggressiveness" is privileged and I'd love to see your argument for why you think so.

Characteristics that succeed in a competitive environment will naturally be celebrated within the context of that environment, whether they're masculine or feminine doesn't matter.

Even if masculine traits were overly praised, well, it's unsurprising, considering that for most of human history, women have had less competitive roles in society, and I believe men are just generally more interested in competition regardless. Success in competition might be part of masculinity itself, the desire of having the best things and being the best, fits the ultra-masculine alpha types pretty well to me.

Losing & failure can be emasculating, a man may feel the need to prove himself, to provide, to succeed, to be respected etc. Masculinity can include whatever brings about success, and women who want to succeed in competitive environments will probably need to abandon or redefine their femininity to some extent. It's not some global conspiracy against women, it's just that feminine traits aren't valuable in a competitive environment, at least in terms of producing success.

The problem with modern feminism is that sexism isn't a motivation or a belief, it's an outcome. Just saying feminine characteristics don't produce success in a competitive environment would probably be sufficient to get some of them riled up. Doesn't matter whether it makes any sense for feminine characteristics to be as competitively viable as masculine characteristics, if they aren't, it's just evidence of patriarchy, haha.

Success in competition might be part of masculinity itsel — Judaka

women who want to succeed in competitive environments will probably need to abandon or redefine their femininity to some extent — Judaka

So, a social system based on competition for status and material resources where men, according to your own analysis, are naturally advantaged and where woman are naturally disadvantaged in their ability to participate in power structures is not a patriarchy? What definition of patriarchy are you using that you think doesn't match up with the situation as you've just outlined it?

Success in competition might be part of masculinity itself, the desire of having the best things and being the best, fits the ultra-masculine alpha types pretty well to me. — Judaka

War is the traditional, historical competition that matters most, yes?
Which image do you think we should nurture, for how masculinity should progress?

That dude in your profile pic... Did evolution result in that guy having instincts that naturally result in 'patriarchy'? (Regardless of whether he approves of evolution having had such a result.)

Don't know what the relevance of this is. But you can make your point more directly if you like. I'm simply trying to figure out from those who don't believe our societies are patriarchal why they believe that. I suspect it might be because they don't like feminists and feminists say that, therefore they feel they have to disagree.

I'm curious as to how you conceive of patriarchy.

The relevance is that there are reasons to think that our species evolved with differences in physical attributes between the sexes, including instincts, which result in societies naturally tending towards 'patriarchy'.

So when you ask:

So, a social system based on competition for status and material resources... ...is not a patriarchy? — Baden

...I wonder what you think competition for status and material resources are based on, and what you mean by "patriarchy". Is patriarchy something that would require genetic engineering and eugenics to eliminate, or a conspiracy by people in power that might be eliminated by social engineering, or...?

A man is a male.

Masculinity is whatever the current social trends are. I believe now the relative social norm is being relatively athletic if not outright strong and having a quality of what can be called "assertive" or "dominant".

Sigh. Imagine me yelling at you the following phrases:

You don't ASK for directions, you GIVE directions. You're NEVER lost. You're just somewhere you never had the care to visit before.

You don't ASK for help, you GIVE help. Whether fools want it or not.

You don't ASK for a solution. You BECOME the solution.

You don't INVITE people to a party. You ARE the party.

It just gets more and more illegal as you continue on. Crabs in a bucket? Definition of insanity? Perhaps. But you don't care! You're the MAN, man.

In this day and age of ignorance, just being as loud and annoying as possible as well as prone to violence will probably define what your looking for. Essentially being an adult child but with the distinct quality of being able to incapacitate anyone who calls you out for being such so as to emulate the quality of a god ie. omnipotence.

Or being of or having the quality of being able to "take it like a man" ie. pain tolerance. I suppose to defend that which instead solely nurtures and attack in response.

In contrast to femininity which is essentially to nurture.

The difference is in intent, what I'm describing is a natural consequence of the differences between men and women, though, I do appreciate that it isn't entirely the result of nature, and sure, it can be lessened.

Patriarchy isn't any system that produces unequal outcomes in the ability for men and women to acquire positions of power, where results skew towards men. Part of what comprises the understanding of feminists on the patriarchal nature of society is the idea that gender differences are largely the result of social engineering.

I account for the nature-based differences and the practical realities between the sexes, which I explained, that's not a justification for patriarchy. I require the unequal outcomes to be the result of sexist societal and governmental structures or societal attitudes. The competitive environment is not equal for many reasons, but unless those reasons involve our attempt to ensure that men dominate and women are subjugated, then it's not patriarchy.

In virtually every competitive environment, men dominate, whether it's board games, card games, e-sports, cooking, or whatever really. Why is that? Is it a global conspiracy against women? Or is it because men have a proclivity towards engaging more seriously with competitive activities, and have characteristics that produce success in comparison to women? When your benchmark for talking about patriarchy is equal outcomes in competitive environments, you've already completely misunderstood what you're dealing with.

War is the traditional, historical competition that matter most, yes?
Which image do you think we should nurture, for how masculinity should progress? — universeness

It's just a question of equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. I think almost all social groups agree, that if a woman can pass the fitness tests, and displays sufficient competence, just as any man would have to, then she should be considered for a position. If she's the best choice, then she should get the position. Just don't be surprised if these conditions don't produce equal participation in armies by gender.

The relevance is that there are reasons to think that our species evolved with differences in physical attributes between the sexes, including instincts, which result in societies naturally tending towards 'patriarchy — wonderer1

Yes, there are reasons to think that, but this has nothing to do with what we should choose as the best form of society.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

what you mean by "patriarchy" — wonderer1

I mean what it's defined as in dictionaries, reference books etc.

E.g. ''Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of dominance and privilege are primarily held by men.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

Is patriarchy something that would require genetic engineering and eugenics to eliminate, or a conspiracy by people in power that might be eliminated by social engineering, or...? — wonderer1

I think we can work towards a more balanced society without getting the clippers out. But one thing Judaka noted is true, patriarchy is bound up with capitalism, so isolated talk of "eliminating" it is to misunderstand it as is your ''conspiracy by people in power' notion. But I'm not trying to offer solutions, I just found it odd that some could think it "moronic" to characterise our societies as patriarchies when even by their own descriptions they fit the bill.

Why is that? Is it a global conspiracy against women? — Judaka

Again... Sorry, but can you or someone else reference the definition of patriarchy you're using that requires it to be a "global conspiracy against women". I have no idea where you are getting that definition from and we're talking at cross purposes. I'm happy to use the WIKI definition I've quoted.

I mean what it's defined as in dictionaries, reference books eh. — Baden

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says:

patriarchy
1
: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line
broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power
2
: a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy
For 20 years the country was ruled as a patriarchy.

I would guess from your last response that the second definition is not what you meant. However, unless I'm interpreting you incorrectly, the first definition doesn't sound to me like a good fit with what you mean either. Sure there are families which are patriarchial in the first sense, and larger societal groups that advocate for patriarchy in the first sense. However, there are lots of families, if not the majority, who don't fit the first sense of patriarchy in many nations.

So it isn't obvious to me how the dictionary definition helps all that much in understanding your view.

Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden

Are the maternal characteristics you identify the result of genetics or societal influences. It must be genetics for this to work else the system would not have resulted in this clear distinction because our XXs would be just as likely to have these paternalistic behaviors to this day. This acknowledgement seems to defeat the argument that we should not assign gender distinctions on the basis of sex. From this, the conclusion we'd draw is that the common correlation we typically see between gender and sex is likely actually causative in most people.

I have no difficulty acknowledging we live in a patriarchal society as you've described it. If our society allows men certain advantages and you insist these advantages arise from manly traits, then we're forced to that conclusion, but this is a pretty black and white binary system you've described, with women in need of help by men due to their inability or lack of desire to compete. How did we circle all the back around to women being X and men being Y, and since Y leads to greater acquisition of shit, we need to carve out a special room for X?
That sounds fucked up even to me.

Anyway, enough trying to sort through the inconsistencies and I'll just state the obvious. Women and men both compete equally in the vast number of fields in contemporary society, but for likely genetic reasons women tend toward some professions and men others, but if a man wants to work in a nursery school and a woman wants to operate a back hoe, they both can. Mostly they just don't want to.

The great equalizer is an education because outside of brute strength and perhaps some limited distinctions in intellectual interests and in certain fields, there are more than sufficient opportunities for both sexes to fully and equally enjoy their lives on this planet earth.

This isn't to say you don't have a bunch of chauvinistic men who use their increased presence in the workforce to deny women their right to compete, so we make laws to stop that. And men pass these laws too because fairness is a value both men and women prefer. No one likes an asshole.

So let's get off the idea that men and women are just the same but for a few anatomical differences, and that it makes sense to respect some amount of gender behavior is in fact caused by basic genetics, and let's all stand behind the idea that you can't subjugate anyone, especially if it means putting your boot on a woman's neck because she'll outperform you if you don't.

Huh? I was talking about board games and card games and other competitions, and why men dominated them, what you've quoted has no relevance to my view on patriarchy.

I'm not happy to use the definition you've given. I'd remark on the fact that patriarchy is a very negative term to describe a society, and that is true regardless of the definition. I'm not saying that's how it should be, just that's how it is. If we use a definition that allows us to label the West as a patriarchy, then it will be our moral obligation to rectify this so that the West is no longer a patriarchy.

Therefore, if you propose a definition of patriarchy that, depending on how one interprets it, and on you've interpreted it, isn't a problem for me whatsoever, then it would be a mistake for me to accept your definition. I can't argue for patriarchy under any circumstances, so, while I'd normally be happy to let you define a term however you liked, in this case, I can't agree to any definition that a society can qualify for without me condemning it.

If your definition of patriarchy can be established by nature-based differences playing out without any sexist motivation, then I'll reject the definition. To be frank, and I hope you don't think my view on this is silly, but objective definitions for these sorts of things are not possible. I won't accept any definition of patriarchy that omits the intentional design of a society aimed at accomplishing male dominance over women. Entirely because I am not interested in condemning disparities in gender-based outcomes, I'm only interested in condemning sexism.

@Baden A focus on masculine aggression and competitiveness ignores the extensive cooperative behaviors that are required to maintain a functioning complex society--cooperation exhibited by men and women separately and in combination. Cooperation and competitiveness are not exclusive -- tune into any team sport broadcast, or just observe the vast array of cooperative activities going on all the time.

Granted, humans are not universally cooperative, either on a macro scale or a very granular micro scale--the source of wars and domestic disputes about household chores.

broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

=What I said.

So it isn't obvious to me how the dictionary definition helps all that much in understanding your view. — wonderer1

You can just read the wiki article if you like. This is not esoteric knowledge.

I'd remark on the fact that patriarchy is a very negative term to describe a society, and that is true regardless of the definition. I'm not saying that's how it should be, just that's how it is. If we use a definition that allows us to label the West as a patriarchy, then it will be our moral obligation to rectify this so that the West is no longer a patriarchy. — Judaka

Recognising reality can be inconvenient, but that doesn't constitute an argument against doing so.

To be frank, and I hope you don't think my view on this is silly, but objective definitions for these sorts of things are not possible. I won't accept any definition of patriarchy that omits the intentional design of a society aimed at accomplishing male dominance over women. Entirely because I am not interested in condemning disparities in gender-based outcomes, I'm only interested in condemning sexism. — Judaka

Appreciate your honesty but you can't both invent or reject definitions to suit your agenda and also expect to have a meaningful debate. What you're telling me is, you don't care what the word means because, again, it might be inconvenient to do so. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

It must be genetics for this to work else the system would not have resulted in this clear distinction because our XXs would be just as likely to have these paternalistic behaviors to this day. This acknowledgement seems to defeat the argument that we should not assign gender distinctions on the basis of sex. From this, the conclusion we'd draw is that the common correlation we typically see between gender and sex is likely actually causative in most people. — Hanover

I don't really know what your point is here. Gender distinctions clearly relate to biological sex but aren't absolutely bound by them because social reality is a compromise between biology and psychology. E. g. Genders are assigned on the basis of biology but it's (now) socially acceptable for them to be changed (reassigned) on the basis of psychology.

I have no difficulty acknowledging we live in a patriarchal society as you've described it. If our society allows men certain advantages and you insist these advantages arise from manly traits, then we're forced to that conclusion — Hanover

:up:

this is a pretty black and white binary system you've described, with women in need of help by men due to their inability or lack of desire to compete — Hanover

l never said that.

So let's get off the idea that men and women are just the same but for a few anatomical differences, and that it makes sense to respect some amount of gender behavior is in fact caused by basic genetics, and let's all stand behind the idea that you can't subjugate anyone, especially if it means putting your boot on a woman's neck because she'll outperform you if you don't. — Hanover

I haven't taken a position on nature / nurture here. (I think) all I've said is that (broadly speaking) we live in patriarchies, that that's not a result of a conspiracy, and that it's related to our societies being capitalist, which mode of organization aligns well with "masculine" values. I also haven't commented on what should be done about it except that cutting off men's bits is not part of my agenda. So maybe we agree on that much and can therefore get on to putting our imaginations to work on what a more balanced society might look like and how it might be achieved.

Does a man and a woman have total equality under the label human or humanism, in your view? — universeness

Maybe under the modern label of libertarian socialism there is "total equality" ...

Recognising reality can be inconvenient, but that doesn't constitute an argument against doing so. — Baden

I am certain that you are working under the same principles that I've outlined. There is not a single case of sexism that you agree with, not a single case of racism that you support, not a single case of oppression you'd justify. That's not the result of you being a saint, it's because you're bound by the same circumstances that I am, we define morally charged terms in accordance with our principles of right and wrong. If I present you with a definition of sexism, it is simply unthinkable for you, or anyone, to accept that definition and use that definition to justify sexism.

"Ah, this author defines sexism as treating people differently based on gender, well, I do think people should be able to do that, sexism is fine by me". Others will substitute your use of the term with their understanding of it, and they'll just hear you say sexism is fine, and it'll cause all kinds of problems. The term reflects just a category of immoral acts related to gender, the speaker replaces that vagueness with their interpretation, every person's "sexism" always reflects their views on what should and shouldn't be okay within the overarching context that sexism refers to.

Moral arguments aren't about whether sexism is fine or not, it's already determined that sexism is wrong. Therefore, the entire moral debate is in the definition and interpretation of the term, how you define sexism represents the entirety of your argument. It's the same here, with patriarchy, the entire debate is in the definition. If you give me a definition and use it to argue that "Patriarchy is proven when there's an unequal outcome by gender in positions of power", I'm not going to play the idiot and take the position defending patriarchies.

I've outlined a view against your definition and use, by explaining that there's nothing inherently immoral with a society that creates unequal gender representation in positions of power. A fixation on definitions is pointless, there is no authority that gets to define for me, what patriarchy is, or what sexism or racism is. I've explained what I'm for and against, that should be good enough.

I don't usually do hot takes but here's one: it's about risk. I doubt it's entirely a social construction, but if I suggested that male mammals are more, shall we say, disposable, that would be a just-so story. Vaguely the right place to start though, to find the material social construction has to work with.

The roles men are expected to take on -- with the usual caveats here -- that neither women nor children are, are risky. Men go to war, not just because of their aptitude for violence, but also because there is considerable risk.

The Pony Express used to run this ad: "Wanted. Young, skinny, wiry fellows. Not over 18. Must be expert riders. Willing to risk death daily. Orphans preferred." As a group essential but individually disposable.

I won't multiply examples, but I'll add that it might make sense for a society to arrange itself partly in terms of risk. There have generally been dangerous things that need doing, so you probably don't want everyone doing them. Obviously today we have women soldiers, fire fighters, and so on, and we have child soldiers too. Yay.

I've outlined a view against your definition and use, by explaining that there's nothing inherently immoral with a society that creates unequal gender representation in positions of power. — Judaka

Ok, let's not argue about the definition for now and just examine this. Suppose a form of social organization results in 100% male representation in power. You would neither consider that immoral nor patriarchal, correct? How about at least undesirable?