I take your point. In practice, everything comes into play somehow. Ideologically, however, the focus in modern consumer societies is on the accrual of material wealth and status*. This is how success is defined and the primary means of achieving it is and must be aggressive competition, overt or otherwise, because it is not for everyone (and increasingly for fever and fewer as inequality increases).

*Not to satisfy real needs but to foster and flaunt excess.

I don't think it's inherently undesirable, we'd need to look at the process of filling those positions, and what our goal was. If we found that the processes looked at were typically impartial and reasonable, and did select the best candidates, then we can't call the process sexist, at least.

I'm generally uninterested in representation, but even if the processes were devoid of sexism, that doesn't mean they accommodate the genders equally. We could stop talking about gender and instead talk about characteristics, such as agreeableness, where men are largely less agreeable, but only on average. I could agree that more should be done to ensure agreeable people have their talents recognised and properly rewarded, even if my motivation had nothing to do with gender.

In terms of patriarchy, and power, the processes in question are mostly of entrepreneurs and politicians. Apologies, but to me, it's completely unsurprising that men dominate the field of entrepreneurship, as men dominate virtually every competitive environment as I've pointed out. I don't see a problem with this.

In terms of political representation, I'm not sure, but I think a strong case can be made against allowing 100% male representation under any circumstances. The traits that succeed in being selected don't even necessarily correlate with how competent one is at their job, which makes me care less about who is selected. To be honest, I don't think I could see 100% representation and believe the social organisation was gender-neutral, but if it was let's say 80%, I'd be okay with it in principle.

Gender just isn't the important way to divide people for me, and so my question might be, can I also mandate that a certain number of introverts hold positions of power? I guess not, right?

I could be convinced that there should be some separation by gender that would ensure some percentage of female representation. I might do some research into it sometime, but currently, I have no strong views on it.

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. — universeness

And how useful is it to label yourself? Who benefits exactly?

My own view is shaped by systems science. That says an organism relies on a dynamical balance. It’s identity is fluid in ways that make it adaptive. It’s identity is not tied to some absolute constraint as that is mechanical. It is instead tied to the homeostatic ability to find a productive balance that matches the demands of its environment or larger context.

So labelling yourself is counterproductive in that it over-constrains your sense of self in a mechanical fashion. As a system, that makes you brittle. It is a shallow strength that breaks suddenly rather than a supple strength that adjusts.

But then on the other hand, at the level of humans as part of a social collective, encouraging self-labelling is useful. Society wants to fix people into predictable roles and attitudes so that they can play parts within larger political and economic scripts.

Again this is the logic of systems science. Hierarchical order is based on higher level constraints acting downward to shape the parts that construct the system. Complexity of form can arise when it is based on the simplicity of material that it can produce.

So civilisation requires humans get turned into citizens. Lists of attributes like honour, loyalty, industriousness, diligence, etc, become ways in which behaviour is restricted so as to produce the right kind of cogs for a more complex level of social machinery.

Or as we move into the modern economic paradigm, the worthy attributes become entrepreneur, self-starter, winner, influencer, etc.

This is how it is. Society finds life simplest when we do answer to labels. But society functions best when our behaviour is intelligent and expresses a dynamical balance. Labels then become the dichotomous signifiers of the conventionalised limits of behaviour. We can dance within the space defined … or step back to critique the settings of social system that is seeking to over-simplify us.

it’s difficult not to consider answers such as these without asking ‘as opposed to…?’ Especially when reading it as a woman. — Possibility

I think most people would probably agree with you. When I say that being an engineer is part of my identity and that for me this means I tend to be pragmatic, focused on solving problems, process oriented, and good at math and science, that doesn't mean I consider myself as an engineer in opposition to some other category. The same is true for my attitude toward manhood.

Aggression, for instance, is traditionally considered a masculine trait - yet young women these days, freed from learned expectations of passivity as ‘feminine’, are often (not always) more openly aggressive than their mothers and grandmothers were. They no longer need to appear ‘ladylike’. — Possibility

I would not describe any of the women I've known well, except for maybe my Aunt Katsie, as "ladylike." Katsie definitely was, but she was also strong and stood up for herself. And none of them were in any way passive.

The ‘maleness’ described here appears to prioritise individual agency and attributable action - a sense of identity and ownership found in isolating one’s self from the world as the subject. Competitiveness and conflict over collaboration - my life, my decisions, my honour, my family, my desire, as opposed to others and their (dis)agreement, vulnerability, etc. — Possibility

I'm not sure what to say to this. I'll start by saying that I didn't say anything about maleness, I only described what being a man means to me. That's not the same thing. Beyond that, what you've written is close to what I wrote, but with a dark shading of uneasiness and distrust. I'd just say that that darkness is in you, not in me.

to be recognised as the subject behind every event..but this ‘maleness’ seems more about consolidating identity through attributable action than intentionality. — Possibility

No. Not to be recognized, to take responsibility. To be held accountable for the things I do and don't do.

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. — Hanover

Yes. I was surprised by how one-sided the distributions were in many cases. I think the data you linked to was for the UK. I wonder how different it would in the US.

We would have to 'interview' the women who know Mr Clark 'well,' — universeness

But you can't, so I guess that's the end of the discussion.

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.' — Baden

Calling our society a patriarchy as that term is normally used includes an unstated assumption that it is a bad thing. It seems to me that would be true only if men's lives are somehow better than women's. Is that true? Is our society, taken as a whole, better for men than it is for women? Happier? Safer? Healthier? More satisfying?

It seems to me that would be true only if men's lives are somehow better than women's. Is that true? — T Clark

The answer, of course, is NO, it is not true.

Over the last 50 years, real wages have been cut and inflation has reduced purchasing power at significant levels. Neither men nor women are exempt from falling income and rising costs of living. More and more families live on the precarious edge of poverty, having to work more hours in second or third jobs to avoid falling into the pit of poverty.

The realities of class overrun our educated chatter about sex, gender, men (masculinity), and women (femininity). Educated, professional workers are just not in the same boat as blue-collar / gray collar workers. I've been both. The latter is definitely more pleasant than the latter.

Battling "Patriarchy" is a war against the distorted shadows on the wall of the academic cave. Success or failure will have no consequences.

Battling "Patriarchy" is a war against the distorted shadows on the wall of the academic cave. Success or failure will have no consequences. — BC

I think you're right, but that's not the discussion we're having.

Battling "Patriarchy" is a war against the distorted shadows on the wall of the academic cave. Success or failure will have no consequences. — BC

:up:

Battling ignorance on the other hand...

You mean patriarchy doesn't denote 'a disproportionate control of national governments and multi-state/national corporations (re: resource investments, allocations, accumulations, subsidies, etc) by "wealthy" members of the male gender primarily for the benefit (i.e. maintaining "traditions" of hierarchical dominance) of "wealthy & professional" members of the male gender'? :confused:

Someone brave and willing to carry the burdens of others. As in ‘be a man’.

Calling our society a patriarchy as that term is normally used includes an unstated assumption that it is a bad thing. It seems to me that would be true only if men's lives are somehow better than women's. — T Clark

Regardless of whose lives are relatively better, we're all worse off. Men are not better off by being marketed a masculine ideology from a young age. The whole society is sick and we all suffer from it.

The realities of class overrun our educated chatter about sex, gender, men (masculinity), and women (femininity). Educated, professional workers are just not in the same boat as blue-collar / gray collar workers. I've been both. The latter is definitely more pleasant than the latter.

Battling "Patriarchy" is a war against the distorted shadows on the wall of the academic cave. Success or failure will have no consequences. — BC

You are mistaken if you think that even recognizing the reality of patriarchy means taking the side of academic feminists against the working man or some such. Patriarchy is bound up with capitalism and class oppression, not a distraction from it.

'a disproportionate control of national governments and multi-state/national corporations (re: resource investments, allocations, accumulations, subsidies, etc) by "wealthy" members of the male gender primarily for the benefit (i.e. maintaining "traditions" of hierarchical dominance) of "wealthy & professional" members of the male gender' — 180 Proof

:up:

At last. In a nutshell. Thank you :up: :100:

Appreciate your patience and perseverance :up: :100:

:pray:

Patriarchy is the term that's used when the liberated women of the West entered the social, economic and political power structures only to realize that they were unable to change it in the ways some had envisioned.

This of course demanded an explanation, and in a somewhat typical fashion men became the scapegoat for this unfortunate state of affairs and the use of the term suggests projected misandry.

What's actually happening is that these spheres are fundamentally dictated by the dynamics of power, power structures, heirarchy and domination. Apparently, those things are equal to 'masculinity' (hence the term 'patriarchy'), and the fact that women's entry into the various fields was unable to change things for the better can squarely be attributed, of course, to men.

This view is of course nonsensical, since women wield power and create heirarchies (and thus dominate) too.

These dynamics always have, and always will, dictate the relations between people on a societal level. There's nothing about power, heirarchy and domination that's inherently masculine, and to attribute all of society's unfortunate but innate characteristics to men is, as I noted earlier, projected misandry.

Neither sex is responsible for it, and neither sex is able to change it. No one participates in it voluntarily. One might consider this view 'social realism', thinking along the lines of political realism. Simply a result of the structures and dynamics of power and mankind's flawed nature.

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.

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. — Judaka

Patriarchy:
a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line:

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it: "the dominant ideology of patriarchy"
You keep describing 'competition' as if it's always 'fair and honourable' competition. It's nothing to force another to comply with your dictates due to you possessing superior physical strength, and such is easily nullified by technological development.
You also keep attempting to cite examples of where you claim men excel over women, when the truth is that women's contribution and women's achievements are often deliberately diluted or are just not mentioned.

board games, card games, e-sports, cooking, — Judaka

I could not think of 4 less important areas! and in each of those area there are women representatives, every bit as good as the men involved, especially in cooking.

Even if you were given your claim that (men are better than women), (Edit: sorry, just noticed I had typed this the wrong way round, an hour after I posted it :yikes: ) at competing (which you should not be imo) are men better than women at cooperation in your opinion? Cooperation produces far better results than competition imo.
Do you consider education a competition?
Do you think men have proven themselves more intelligent than women?

As @BC posted:
"A focus on masculine aggression and competitiveness ignores the extensive cooperative behaviors that are required to maintain a functioning complex society"

No one likes an asshole. — Hanover

Yet we all have one! Where would you be without yours?

Maybe under the modern label of libertarian socialism there is "total equality" ... — 180 Proof

At least 'maybe' offers hope. :up:

Patriarchy:
a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line:

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it: "the dominant ideology of patriarchy" — universeness

You probably know that there is more to 'Patriarchy' than simple definitions.
@Baden provided this link earlier. It's worth reading:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

And how useful is it to label yourself? Who benefits exactly? — apokrisis

It's as useful as giving yourself a name. What's in a name? Human intelligence is my answer.
Humans use labels to clarify and categorise etc, we all benefit from that, as it gives us a better ability to reference and it enhances or ability to memorialise. Can we have language without labels? Even glyphs and ancient cave paintings are labels.

So labelling yourself is counterproductive in that it over-constrains your sense of self in a mechanical fashion. As a system, that makes you brittle. It is a shallow strength that breaks suddenly rather than a supple strength that adjusts. — apokrisis

So why do you use your own name or 'apokrisis' if you believe the above quote is true?
The Greek word apokrisis
Found only in Lk. 2:47; 20:26; Jn. 1:22; 19:9, the Greek noun “apokrisis” meant “separation,” “secretion,” and “answer” (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged Edition, p. 474). In the New Testament this word always means “answer” (ibid).
Do you use the label apokrisis to invoke what luke 2:47 states?
"Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers."

But then on the other hand, at the level of humans as part of a social collective, encouraging self-labelling is useful. — apokrisis

I agree.

Society wants to fix people into predictable roles and attitudes so that they can play parts within larger political and economic scripts. — apokrisis

People want/need to be understood by other people regardless of personal notions of what 'society' wants. Who are you talking about when you use the label 'society?'

This is how it is. Society finds life simplest when we do answer to labels. But society functions best when our behaviour is intelligent and expresses a dynamical balance. Labels then become the dichotomous signifiers of the conventionalised limits of behaviour. We can dance within the space defined … or step back to critique the settings of social system that is seeking to over-simplify us. — apokrisis

It is also unwise to over-complicate us. Many folks on TPF use their language skills to appear to be saying stuff that's deep and meaningful, when in reality, when you 'decode' the fancy terms they employ, they are not saying anything deeper or more meaningful, than the local yokel with an average education, who has lived for long enough to come to some conclusions about some issues.

You probably know that there is more to 'Patriarchy' than simple definitions. — Amity

Yes, I do. But that does not invalidate the existing definitions, it just means that none of them are a prefect fit, for any given exemplification of patriarchy. This is often the case with any such terms, yes?

Agreed. We tend to choose any definitions which best suit our purpose. Provide support for our point of view. Or help us form it.
We can see how some prefer their own narrative of what 'patriarchy' means to them. Sometimes based on limited knowledge and understanding. This discussion has been enlightening.

:up:

:cool:

He saw the title of the book "Real men don't eat quiche", and murmured quietly "Real men eat whatever they fuckin' want. — Banno

I agree with this, and tip my hat to any badass man who bellies up to the biker bar in his fishnets and stilettos.

I'm pretty sure I've read versions of this 'Real Men Do Whatever The Fuck They Want' story before.
A bit of the Marion Robert Morrison about it!

Real men don't.... judge a book by its cover. And read beyond its title.

Real Men Don't Eat Quiche is a best-selling tongue-in-cheek book satirizing stereotypes of masculinity by the American screenwriter and humorist Bruce Feirstein, published in 1982 (ISBN 0-671-44831-5).[1]

The title alludes to the gender associations of quiche as a "feminine" food in American culture, which causes men to avoid it [2] and has served as the basis of the title of multiple journal articles.[3][4][5] To gain free publicity the publisher sent copies of the book to radio personalities and newspaper columnists, and the witty "real men don't ..." definitions were widely quoted. Listeners and readers then bought the book for more of the definitions — Real Men Don't Eat Quiche - wiki

You also keep attempting to cite examples of where you claim men excel over women, when the truth is that women's contribution and women's achievements are often deliberately diluted or are just not mentioned. — universeness

You're deliberately taking me out of context.

I could not think of 4 less important areas! and in each of those area there are women representatives, every bit as good as the men involved, especially in cooking. — universeness

This is all irrelevant. I was not arguing that 100% of men outcompeted all the women, or anything close to that. This is about the top 1% or 10% being male-dominated, not male-exclusive.

Even if you were given your claim that (men are better than women)... at competing — universeness

My claim isn't that men are better at it, just that they're dominant in competition. I could attempt to explain why, but my reasoning would be anecdotal, but it certainly isn't just "men are better" lol.

Do you consider education a competition? — universeness

It's a valid counterargument to bring up education, this is an area where girls are not just 50-50 but just outperforming boys. Why this is happening is a complicated topic, but nonetheless, it shows girls are equally capable in competitive environments under the right circumstances.

are men better than women at cooperation in your opinion? Cooperation produces far better results than competition imo. — universeness

I don't know if men are better than women at cooperation, it's too broad of a scope, very subjective.

Do you think men have proven themselves more intelligent than women? — universeness

No.

Reading your reply, it seems you've entirely taken me out of context. As if, I didn't bring up any of what I said for a particular point, I was just trying to explain why men are superior to women or some shit. The entire problem with this argument of patriarchy is that there's zero effort to look at alternative explanations. If there's an unequal gender outcome, assume sexism caused it, and if anyone objects, address them as sexist, amazing. Though, wasn't your position AGAINST the critique of the West as a patriarchy?

'Real Men Do Whatever The Fuck They Want' — Amity

Do you think 'real women do whatever the fuck they want,' would offend those on this thread who consider themselves manly men?: :lol:

This is all irrelevant. I was not arguing that 100% of men outcompeted all the women, or anything close to that. This is about the top 1% or 10% being male-dominated, not male-exclusive. — Judaka

But to me, you type as if you don't seem to understand that the reason this is still true, in some areas of the human experience today is because historically, women were deliberately forced to comply with men's will, via physical threat and physical force, and that lever is now considered pathetic, by the majority of intelligent people imo. So why are you harping on about this top 1% or 10% who exist, only due to a nefarious history of the pathetic imposition and abuse, of a no longer important biological advantage, of male physical strength used in an imbalanced competitive manner?

Reading your reply, it seems you've entirely taken me out of context. As if, I didn't bring up any of what I said for a particular point, I was just trying to explain why men are superior to women or some shit. The entire problem with this argument of patriarchy is that there's zero effort to look at alternative explanations. If there's an unequal gender outcome, assume sexism caused it, and if anyone objects, address them as sexist, amazing. Though, wasn't your position AGAINST the critique of the West as a patriarchy? — Judaka

Patriarchal 'pressure,' and notions of manly men masculine identity, is a strong factor towards why any man who identifies as a woman might consider killing themselves. The 'group think' mentality of such, results in a great deal of vitriol being directed against trans folks in very nasty ways. Every bit as bad as the vitriol thrown at homosexuals in the past.
Is your use of these 1% or 10% male dominance exemplars, intended as evidence to explain why the imagery invoked by:

I grew up in what most would call a conservative environment. To the point that upon expressing I wanted long hair as an ~10 year old kid (I had a male friend who had long hair and liked it) my parents responded "Do you want to be a girl?!" to dissuade me. Something so innocuous as a child thinking his friend was cool and wanting to be like that was interpreted as a bad thing that needed to be avoided. I don't know how Morman's congregate now -- but in my youth they had separate classes at church for men and women. Sex was the excuse, but gender was the rule. — Moliere

is imagery we should all find ridiculous? Or are you using such exemplars, in support of such historically traditional conservative values, regarding masculinity and how it should dictate what is socially or sexually acceptable?