NationStates Jolt Archive

We've all seen HerPower's thread and ideas. Right now, I have a simple question to branch off from that.

The question is: in today's world, do we live in a patriarchy, or in the very least, a male-dominated society?

My take? Yes, to a degree, we are living in a male dominated society. Much of the time we only see male leaders coming to power and taking posititions of authority. To understand this we need to look at history, and genetics itself.

It is a fact that females of the human species have lower muscle mass than the males, and since much of human history has revolved around warfare, males have dominated. Even males who do not participate in war are given this "birthright" of power and authority. And that is why we are living in a male-dominant society; because society itself has ingrained within us the idea that men should lead.

However, this is slowly changing. We've seen that women can create real change in society, and every right has been afforded to them. Women also have more power than they give themselves credit for. For one thing, it seems women are always in the right in relationships. If you doubt this, they almost always win-out in divorce settlements, and they pretty much control the sex lives of men. If they don't want it...we don't get it. And you know what, I'm even able to admit that women mature 3 years faster than men.

Within the next century, I think that the gender roles will be so blurred that they will be almost non-existant. I think it is for the better. What people need to understand however, is that while it is inevitable, it is going to take time. All change takes time. This is especially true for this issue, since it seems to have been ingrained within our society since society even existed.

Okay, I've given my perspective. Now, yours.

KEEP IT CIVIL!

Originally posted by Bolol
Within the next century, I think that the gender roles will be so blurred that they will be almost non-existant. I think it is for the better. What people need to understand however, is that while it is inevitable, it is going to take time. All change takes time. This is especially true for this issue, since it seems to have been ingrained within our society since society even existed.

I agree, eventually even the military will give in and let women do special forces and front line combat.

To a degree, but much less so than in the past.

yes we live in a patriachy. it really is quite regretable because almost all of the matriarchs of the past flourished(never heard of them? thats because some warmonger king wiped them out and history is written by the survivors?).

I'd say we do. Just look at the composition of congress and tell me that something isn't wrong.

To a degree, but much less so than in the past.

A good thing, huh?

I'd say we do. Just look at the composition of congress and tell me that something isn't wrong.
something isn't wro*choke* nope can't do it.

something isn't wro*choke* nope can't do it.

What was that about?

What was that about?
pointless digression i apoligize

pointless digression i apoligize

Don't worry, humor is a good thing on these boards.

Anyway. I wonder why the ultra-feminists feel the need for a complete separation from men to thrive?

The question is: in today's world, do we live in a patriarchy, or in the very least, a male-dominated society?
Before I answer, let me ask my wife.

I think an important question that might be asked is why men try for power in the first place. Why be quarterback? Why be senator? Why crush the neighboring country? Why get rich? Why be alpha male?

Simplified answer: It impresses girls.

I think an important question that might be asked is why men try for power in the first place. Why be quarterback? Why be senator? Why crush the neighboring country? Why get rich? Why be alpha male?

Simplified answer: It impresses girls.
at least we think it does but you do make a good point that politics aside women do tend to hold more power on a personal level

I say no. It's true that most politicians are male but the people who voted them and the people who may or may not relect him/her are both male and female.

I tell you what. I just love this debate. I'd say that, yes we are living in a male dominated society. I don't find this wrong or right. It just is. I would truly prefer a balanced society, but we don't have one. Here is my problem with the "Matriarchal societies r0xx0r, patriarchal societies suxx0r" arguments I always see on these forums.

The idea that the world would be a peaceful place if women were in charge is the biggest load of crap I ever heard. Ever hear of the corruption of power? All humans, the ladies too, are subject to this. The greatest form of human corruption is war. Put that women in charge of the world, and guess what? You get some "warmonger" Matriarchs.

I agree with the above poster.

do we live in a patriarchy, or in the very least, a male-dominated society?
Yes, to the detriment of men as well as women.

It is a fact that females of the human species have lower muscle mass than the males, and since much of human history has revolved around warfare, males have dominated. Even males who do not participate in war are given this "birthright" of power and authority. And that is why we are living in a male-dominant society; because society itself has ingrained within us the idea that men should lead.
Actually it has more to do with the patriarchal nature of western religion. The chart of importance goes God - Man - Woman. Our western patriarchy centers itself around the fact that men view women as property, or vessels of property transference.

Consider the disparity between attitudes about male sexuality and female sexuality. Our society is far more concerned with controlling female sex than male sex. Guys who have lots of sexual partners are "studs". Women who do the same are "whores". This fact is the topic of a great deal of feminist critical theory.

Historical England (and the US through inheritance) had adopted as a society the notion that women were supposed to be white alabaster art work rather than real people. Anytime they lived up to this imaginary concept they were praised as "good" and "wholesome" Any time they refused or failed to do so, they were portrayed as blemished (but still property). A man with blemished property was himself blemished in the eyes of his peers.

We still feel this way today. Most men are highly uncomfortable dating/marrying a woman who has more sexual experience than they do (as with the 17th century English, blemished property is stigmatized). Women are far less bothered when their husbands/boyfriends have had more girlfriends. And, as typical of the patriarchal "binary", only monogamous heterosexual relationships are even considered in this model.

Think about tyrannical fathers today. If their child is "out of control" or "a freak" - they get upset - but only because that child is an embarassment to them; they can't control their property. This is exactly how women are treated in a patriarchy, namely how we treat women in western society.

If you doubt this, they almost always win-out in divorce settlements, and they pretty much control the sex lives of men
Women almost always "winning" in divorce settlements is exactly the opposite - proof that we still view women as less capable than men. Otherwise we wouldn't need to have "their man" (or ex man) continue to provide them with support.

I almost laughed out loud at the ridiculous notion that women control the sex lives of men. Men still absolutely control the sex lives of women. One great example was the picture that was taken when Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban. Surrounded by Congressmen - all men in fact, not a single woman in the picture, at all. We still live in a society where men who have sex outside of a monogamous marriage are patted on the back; and women who do so are treated like filth. This attitude is at the heart of patriarchy - the control of women's sex lives, because they are viewed as objects belonging to and reflecting on the reputation of men. The roles we've allowed women to take in society has somewhat changed, but patriarchy is still alive and well.

I almost laughed out loud at the ridiculous notion that women control the sex lives of men. Men still absolutely control the sex lives of women.
Well, hell, now I'm going to have to tell my wife when she comes back in here that I'm actually in control of our sex life. We'll see how that goes over. I expect that I might be Wielding Male Dominance over the sofa tonight. :rolleyes:

EDIT: So I informed my wife that I am, in fact, in charge of our sex life. She said, "I don't think so."

Parnassus, you've made alot of statements. Can you back them up?

Well, hell, now I'm going to have to tell my wife when she comes back in here that I'm actually in control of our sex life. We'll see how that goes over. I expect that I might be Wielding Male Dominance over the sofa tonight. :rolleyes:

You being pussy whipped has nothing to do with our societal views on women.

You being pussy whipped has nothing to do with our societal views on women.
I personally think it has everything to do with our societal views on women.

By the by, "pussy whipped" is kind of an odd phrase to be using for a person who wrote the above observations about the abusively tyrannical patriarchy, isn't it?

Parnassus, you've made alot of statements. Can you back them up?

Gayle Rubin - Traffic in Women
Emma Goldman - (same title)
Judith Fetterly - On the Politics of Literature
Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar - Madwoman in the Attic
Michel Foucault - History of Sexuality

Read some cultural theory.

Which, by the way, is also where HerPower was getting her pregnancy and power rant (via Adrienne Rich).

I personally think it has everything to do with our societal views on women.

Anectdotal relationships between one couple do not have anything at all to do with our society as a whole.

By the by, "pussy whipped" is kind of an odd phrase to be using for a person who wrote the above observations about the abusively tyrannical patriarchy, isn't it?

Yes - and despite my angry (and rude) attempt to make an off-the-wall point, I apologize. (edit: Meaning that at the time I thought I was trying to make an off-the-wall point, but I realize that I was also trying to be a jerk - which I apologize for).

Actually it has more to do with the patriarchal nature of western religion. The chart of importance goes God - Man - Woman. Our western patriarchy centers itself around the fact that men view women as property, or vessels of property transference.

Again these ideas are far dated, and have no practical implications on todays more equal society.

Consider the disparity between attitudes about male sexuality and female sexuality. Our society is far more concerned with controlling female sex than male sex. Guys who have lots of sexual partners are "studs". Women who do the same are "whores". This fact is the topic of a great deal of feminist critical theory.

You of course fail to recognize the reality that it is women perpetuating this disparity between sexual persimcuity on their own... And women are the largest opponents to permiscuity of women in general....

We still feel this way today. Most men are highly uncomfortable dating/marrying a woman who has more sexual experience than they do (as with the 17th century English, blemished property is stigmatized). Women are far less bothered when their husbands/boyfriends have had more girlfriends. And, as typical of the patriarchal "binary", only monogamous heterosexual relationships are even considered in this model.

This quite frankly is not reality, and I challenge you to show me evidence of it.. in fact I propose the opposite, men find it quite enticing to forinacate and elope with women with more sexual experiance as it enhances their sexual experaince.

Think about tyrannical fathers today. If their child is "out of control" or "a freak" - they get upset - but only because that child is an embarassment to them; they can't control their property. This is exactly how women are treated in a patriarchy, namely how we treat women in western society.

Quite frankly... peopel this distrubed by embarassment to themselves can also be found projecting embarassment of others on themselves, in that if friends or family members (brothers, sisters) as well act in a manner "out of control" they project that "freakish nature" as a blemish onto themselves and again are embarassed.. does this mean they think of friends and family all as property ? No... the reasy they are Tyrannical in the first place is because of insecurities in their own lives.

Women almost always "winning" in divorce settlements is exactly the opposite - proof that we still view women as less capable than men. Otherwise we wouldn't need to have "their man" (or ex man) continue to provide them with support.

This might have been reality 20 or 30 years ago.. but just as in cusdity cases.. Women are more and more not being favored... Once mothers were almost always given custody of the children.. today there is almost and equal opprotunity between Fathers and Mothers to gain custidy of their children.

I almost laughed out loud at the ridiculous notion that women control the sex lives of men. Men still absolutely control the sex lives of women. One great example was the picture that was taken when Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban. Surrounded by Congressmen - all men in fact, not a single woman in the picture, at all. We still live in a society where men who have sex outside of a monogamous marriage are patted on the back; and women who do so are treated like filth. This attitude is at the heart of patriarchy - the control of women's sex lives, because they are viewed as objects belonging to and reflecting on the reputation of men. The roles we've allowed women to take in society has somewhat changed, but patriarchy is still alive and well.

Again I state, as with the issue of abortion and social disgust with those permiscious women.. this is an idea not perpetuated by the patriarcel men, but rather by women... women are by far the largest opponents to abortion, while men actually remain more centrist even leaning toward pro chioce.

Anectdotal relationships between one couple do not have anything at all to do with our society as a whole.
Of course they don't. I just wonder which style of marital relationship you would characterize as closer to typical, mine or the aforementioned tyrant husband who conquers his wife for sex.

I apologize.
Thanks. :)

As a semi-sequitur, sexual selection in mammals most commonly manifests as the female selecting upon the male. As a consequence, males use physiological traits like pronounced antlers and behavioral traits like ritualized combats as proxy indicators of fitness to raise their status and garner the sexual attentions of females, who try to raise their own gender-internal status to be able to mate the ranking male. Any of this sound like high school?

You of course fail to recognize the reality that it is women perpetuating this disparity between sexual persimcuity on their own... And women are the largest opponents to permiscuity of women in general....
Even if this is accurate, it's hardly proof that patriarchy doesn't exist. It's like saying that stereotypes about black entertainers don't exist because there are black people who encourage others to be entertainers. It simply shows that those particular people have been successfully interpellated into society.

This quite frankly is not reality, and I challenge you to show me evidence of it.. in fact I propose the opposite, men find it quite enticing to forinacate and elope with women with more sexual experiance as it enhances their sexual experaince.
Hardly. If this were the case, prostitution would be legal, we wouldn't have the different attitudes toward men who "wander" and women who "wander" - and we clearly do in our society.

Women are more and more not being favored...
I was responding to the assertion by the original poster; not arguing that women are favored in divorce proceedings. Women being favored suggests a patronizing attitude. Moving away from this is a good thing.

Awomen are by far the largest opponents to abortion, while men actually remain more centrist even leaning toward pro chioce.
I'd love to see some evidence for that. I think the opposite is true. Women are more likely to be pro-choice, and men are by far the largest opponents of abortion. Out of the 125 sponsors and co-sponsors (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR03660:@@@P)of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban only 5 were women - 5 out of 82 women in Congress. And anyone can see that the largest amount of pro-life support comes from (predominently male) theologians.

The societal projection of "normality" that manifests in the superego still has a somewhat patriarchichal construction.

Of course they don't. I just wonder which style of marital relationship you would characterize as closer to typical, mine or the aforementioned tyrant husband who conquers his wife for sex.
Hmm - not what I meant by men controlling the sex lives of women. I'm not talking about tyrannical rapist husbands who drag their wives around by the hair. I'm talking about the societal norms that we accept as "proper" behaviour for "young ladies". We do not respond as a society to sexually active boys as we do sexually active girls. Our responses are based on long held ideas inherited from and heavily influenced by 17th century English society. At this time, English society was shackled at the hip with the religious patriarchal concepts of their time - that the hierarchy of purity was God - Man - Woman, taken directly from Augustine (and others) who stated openly that a woman's only purpose in life is to tempt and corrupt man.

We in modern society have moved away from this, and continue to change our attitudes - but we have to recognize that our sense of sexual proprieties stems largely from Elizabethan and Puritan England. I don't think we've rid ourselves of these patriarchal beliefs because we've ended certain practices any more than I think we rid our society of racism simply by ending slavery.

As a semi-sequitur, sexual selection in mammals most commonly manifests as the female selecting upon the male. As a consequence, males use physiological traits like pronounced antlers and behavioral traits like ritualized combats as proxy indicators of fitness to raise their status and garner the sexual attentions of females, who try to raise their own gender-internal status to be able to mate the ranking male. Any of this sound like high school?
If human sexuality were nothing but a biological response, this would hold true. However, our sexuality is controlled by other factors as well. Ancient religious beliefs play a part in our sexuality (proscription vs homosexuality, monogamy) as do social factors like class, race, etc.

Even if this is accurate, it's hardly proof that patriarchy doesn't exist. It's like saying that stereotypes about black entertainers don't exist because there are black people who encourage others to be entertainers. It simply shows that those particular people have been successfully interpellated into society.

being .. mainly.. women ? Women are the basic perpetuators of their own submission is what Im saying. It is not men holding them down any more, but themselves doing the holding. And it is accurate.. i encourage you to ask any of your woman studies professors


Hardly. If this were the case, prostitution would be legal, we wouldn't have the different attitudes toward men who "wander" and women who "wander" - and we clearly do in our society.

.... there is that slipper slope argument.. there is a fine line between women who are sexually experianced and prositites who sell their bodies... Men realize this difference and belive in it accordingly.. Speaking as a man with many male friends all of whom share similar views I can tell you from my own belif what I say is the case.. I think you would be hard pressed to find a man who is turned off because his female interest is more sexually experienced then he is. Your opinion on the matter is not reflective of reality


I'd love to see some evidence for that. I think the opposite is true. Women are more likely to be pro-choice, and men are by far the largest opponents of abortion. Out of the 125 sponsors and co-sponsors (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR03660:@@@P)of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban only 5 were women - 5 out of 82 women in Congress. And anyone can see that the largest amount of pro-life support comes from (predominently male) theologians.

.... i dont get this.. have you ever even taken a woman studies class ?? this is all basic information which is given to you while you are fed the usual women are being oppressed bit... I know.. i suffered through no less then 5 of these idiotic classes each repeating the same dribble. But Fine i will entertain you with some facts http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030701-115636-9509r.htm

And if you get the break down statistics for all supporters of pro-choice you will find a larger percentatge of women who are lower income especially minorities are in high favor of pro-life... while the primary female support for pro-choice are higher-income white women. The rational for this is simple.. those women champion the right to choose are women seeking ways to put off pregnancy as things like careers and education come in the way. While lower-income familes are more prone to be religious less educated and have fewer reasons to put off their biological clock are more in favor of pro-life. These are simple rationals you would get in any basic woman studies course had you taken one..

And the fact that you saw so many senators (most of whome are men) voted for this partial birth aborition ban is not reflective of the fact that MEN are more prone to be pro-life... becuase that is to suggest that men are more likely to vote these people into office of whom reflect their ideas.. which of course is folly because voter statistics show us both Men and Women vote on equal terms.. in fact the senate divide show us (keeping in mind senators act as representatives for thier consitutiencies or they dont get re-elected) is reflective of the divide in public opinion.

To further drag this on I will add this article highlighting these studies :

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_11_34/ai_98953795

"Very few studies have looked at the men implicated in unwanted pregnancies. Drexel University sociologist Arthur Shostak and journalist Gary McLouth surveyed 1,000 men in abortion clinic waiting rooms and did some in-depth interviews for the 1984 book Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love. They found that in most cases ending the pregnancy was a mutual decision, and only percent of the men didn't want the abortion--though nearly half of the single and divorced men said that they had suggested getting married and having the baby."

Which maybe extrapolated to suggest that abortions are now mutual decisions.. and if men were so furvently against the abortion or chioce... we would not be seeing these types of statstics would we..

Depends.. if you believe in Gender roles as well.

If human sexuality were nothing but a biological response, this would hold true. However, our sexuality is controlled by other factors as well. Ancient religious beliefs play a part in our sexuality (proscription vs homosexuality, monogamy) as do social factors like class, race, etc.
As I like to say, sex and its evolutionary logic are a couple of billion years older than sentience. There is a reason that sex subverts rational processes. A hundred thousand years of being impressed with our opposable thumbs isn't a long time to overcome that. ;) There's also the chicken and egg question of why certain beliefs and factors persist over others.

Guys who have lots of sexual partners are "studs". Women who do the same are "whores".
This comes back to the same thing. Look at this in terms of evolutionary logic for a second. Purely in terms of passing genes to offspring and maximizing reproductive success.

Physiologically, men have nothing to gain from withholding sex, as sperm are cheap to make and men don't get pregnant, so they don't run the risk of resource committal or temporary disabling that women do. Consequently, a popular evolutionary strategy would be to spend as much sperm as possible. They gain from singular relationships with many women, as they run less risk of devoting time and resources to a cuckolded child. However, men would also benefit by learning from other men that a woman with a low threshhold of demands for sex is also available, as it costs a man little to invest sperm as long as he does not plan to invest much more in the way of resources on whatever offspring result.

Physiologically, women do have much to gain from withholding sex for some time, provided they can use this behavior to cause a male to feel a sense of investment that will cause him to devote time and resources to an offspring he might otherwise abandon. Women who are free with sex, then, not only lower their own ability to expand resources for their offspring but also lower the ability of nearby women to do so as well, as men are presented with a cheaper option. However, as long as both strategies result in offspring, both will persist, but women who take the "high road" approach will be damaged by women taking the "low road" approach.

It's a cold way of looking at it, but there it is.