| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. | |  Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | | | This article is supported by the Feminism task force, which deals with feminism articles. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | |
[edit] Proposals for history and feminism sections
- I've added more information about Artistotle's views. I would appreciated any comments or corrections. It is at [1] Also, I want to talk about the feminism section. First I guess it is technically true that patriarchy has been dominant througout history--or at least in the official history of our culture. But there is increasing evidence that there are entire races of people who have been erased from history. So I'm not comfortable with giving the impression that the human race just naturally gravitated to patriarchy. It also seems increasingly clear that political movements and sociological theories are part of the confusion--not part of real clarity. So it would be better to note the thoretical basis for any authors writing in this tradition, although it is useful to include the views. Also the historical period in which they lived...For example Mill followed in the tradition of Locke and others like him. He also shared the prejudices about women that existed in his era, even though he argued for women's rights. I'd appreciate any thoughts about this and will wait until later to discuss more of the feminism section.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's pretty clear that I should have participated in the merge discussion and if I have an opportunity, I will in the future. At this point I would like to work with whomever is interested on improving the feminist section, respecting the consensus that was reached to move it here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
As we discussed some time ago, Aristotle's views need to be expanded or explained. Also, the sources were Christian, which was unnecessary and might cause some to think this is a Christian apology. I added information about Socrates and Plato. Also, I think I"ve improved the sources. Since this was already discussed and the changes are on my rough draft, I'm assuming this won't be a problem, but I'm open to further discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The history section has been wikified. Let me know if it needs more. --Hammy64000 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I added information on the story of Eve to my rough draft. I have a lot more material but don't know where to put it. Maybe in the Eve article? The draft is at [[2]] --Hammy64000 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nice work. Might need a source for the St. Augustine bit though. Kaldari (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks--I fixed the source--that paragraph should have been with the one following it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you consider feminism postmodern?--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have the time, check out the biology/Culture section on my rough draft. It's a rough, rough draft. I would like to do it better, but the theory is complex and there is so much of it. The sources will be added later. They are Durkheim and postmodern culture by Mestrovic and Natural women cultured men by Sydie.--Hammy64000 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a great essay, but I'm not sure it's great for an encyclopedia article. Particularly, it is overly detailed and somewhat argumentative. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be general summaries, not in-depth analysis. Also it seems to be venturing into POV territory. You should be presenting all sides of the argument without favoring a particular one. In this case it seems you are discrediting the sociobological point-of-view. As much as I agree with that, such arguments are not appropriate for Wikipedia. For example, you can't say "Some of the problems with this approach are" in a Wikipedia article. Instead you need to say, "According to such-and-such, the problems with this approach are". Otherwise it appears that Wikipedia is taking a position on the matter. Kaldari (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, try to keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should be accessible to a general audience. You seem to be writing for a college-level audience, not for the general public. You might need to explain things on a more basic level. Your paragraph about Freud, for example, would be very difficult for an average person to make sense of. Kaldari (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Good points. I was dealing with information overload and made several starts before I got this down. It can be changed. As far as the feminist critique goes, argument would make sense I think, but I will look at it again.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The trick is to present the arguments of others (and properly attribute them). The article itself, however, cannot make any arguments, per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I think you've got some great stuff to add to the article though. I hope my response wasn't overly negative. Just trying to give some constructive criticism :) Kaldari (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I made quite a few changes but the page isn't working. Part of the text is missing when I save the page. It also says at the bottom that it was last modified with tomorrow's date--unless I'm too tired to read it right. I'll check it tomorrow and see if it's better. Thanks for your suggestions..the sociological theory was a lot more work than I thought and for some reason the section wouldn't go together. Everything had a source but I deleted a lot of it. I thought you were saying it was just too much and then it started to seem mean--so it's gone.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I wanted to share some thoughts about the direction of the biology section. Feminism is more central here than I realized. It is the only voice that addresses the male-centered ideas about sex roles. Engels and others talked about a matiarchal period, but Engels gave the problems of women second place in his theories of class struggle. The others had their own agendas too. Add to this the evidence that sociology didn't take feminist ideas seriously, and it becomes clear that their criticism must be stated clearly in the article. Then, although Mestrovic may have some constructive ideas, he wants to stress the feminist tendency to be combative and their call for female power. He's calling for peace but, from the evidence cited in this article so far, the war was not declared by the feminists. In this light a rebuke to the fiminists is absurd. I think feminism does have some issues, but I can't say that in the article until I see them described in an unbiased source. The feminist material I have read is concise and addresses the ideas in a responsible way. Also, their basic premises about this struggle are repeated in, "Modern Sociological Theory". I agree with your comments about the section, but you have also helped me to clarify these points. Does this explain my direction, even though it was probably too strong on some points?--Hammy64000 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
At this time I am requesting that you fix my user page so that all of the material in the edit page shows up in the rough draft.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed the broken references. Was there anything else that needed to be fixed? BTW, I know you're probably getting sick of me criticizing your work rather than helping to write it, but it looks like you have completely replaced the sociology section in your version, i.e. your version discusses sociological arguments about the theory of patriarchy, but it doesn't mention anything about the actual sociology of patriarchy. For example, that patriarchy is more prominent in cultures with less economic development. Also your version mentions that there are "theories about gender", but don't mention what these theories are, and just says they aren't "completely integrated into sociological theory". Since gender theory is actually very prominent in modern sociology, this claim seems a bit absurd. Sociology has a lot to say about gender and gender identity and that should be explained in the article rather than completely glossed over. As Wikipedia editors, we need to be presenting all sides fairly and equally, not presenting them based on our own judgements. Kaldari (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I think your Biology v. social construct debate section is too focused on the history of the debate rather than what modern scholars have to say on the subject. It basically reads like an extension of the history section. Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps your "Biology v. social construct debate" should be added into the history section and we should retain a separate Sociology section devoted to discussing what modern sociology has to say about gender relations and patriarchy. Kaldari (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted things last night and then when I couldn't read the text I stopped working on it. First on the criticism, I prefer criticism to silence. I haven't read the section lately, but I"m sure it's pretty toothless. I will be working on it today. On the theory about patriarchy--this section is first about the biological argument justifying patriarchy--not about patriarchy. I'm sure your impression is correct there too, as I changed it without adding anything new. This is part of the problem with this section--the fact that patriarchy is important, but it is difficult to address it without adding too much information. On gender in sociology--Gender theory did not exist until feminism developed it. Both my sources say that it is still not integrated, etc. Any real work on this is going to cite feminist theorists. On the history focus, it was more about theory before I changed it. I will be fixing that. NO, I think the history section is long enough. But please do not stop giving me your impressions--they are important. I would like to talk more about this after I have fixed the draft. --Hammy64000 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that feminist writers largely developed gender theory, especially in regard to patriarchy, but that was 20 years ago. Sociology has largely caught up in the meantime. You might be surprised to learn how closely modern mainstream sociology agrees with the feminist analysis of patriarchy (sociobiology excepted). Gender identity/roles as a social construction is the consensus view these days, not an obscure theory. Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, then the short and sweet route would be the way to go. I've spent too much time just getting acquainted with the arguments and the participants and it's been really hard to narrow it down. I am in agreement that the social construction consensus makes more sense. I even see that it has more support in sociology. But presenting the arguments is not that simple. Is sociobiology all put in a slot now, nice and neat? I'm assuming it is still being pushed. I took a cultural anthropology course as an elective in 2000 and I see now it was word for word sociobiology text book stuff. Also, I have one book that is feminist perspective and one that is general sociology and they agree. So I know it is not obscure theory just because it is feminism. Personally, I am more interested in the study of culture, which I see as more reliable than theories which depend on evolution to explain culture and to outline history. If a sociologist would like to write this section that would probably be better.--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is a short and sweet version on the rough draft.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
We could also leave what is already in the biology section--just add to it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Hope I don't sound snappish--I didn't know this would be so complicated. The paragraphs that are already there bring in Darwin, who was influential, and are well stated. There is no reason why they shouldn't stay.--Hammy64000 (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it seems a bit odd that the history section doesn't mention coverture or women's suffrage. Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal for biology vs social construct debate
Starting from a foundation in the theories of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin, many 19th-century scholars formulated a linear theory of cultural evolution.[1] One hypothesis suggested that human social organization "evolved" through a series of stages: animalistic sexual promiscuity was followed by matriarchy, which was in turn followed by patriarchy. This description was later refuted by most experts studying the subject.[1]
However the biological justification for patriarchy did not begin with Charles Darwin, and work is currently being done on biological theories of human behavior. Today these theories have proponents in the field of sociobiology. Sociobiology regards the genetic structure the prime motivator of social behavior. It follows that natural selection favors individuals who maximize their genetic fittness. A key factor in maximizing genetic fittness is the parental investment in the offspring. Since females have a greater investment than males they behave differently than males. Also, this investment in offspring leads to mutual exploitation between men and women. Conflict arises when both partners try to persuade the other to invest more time.[2] According to R. A. Sydie, sociobiolgists believe that these theories explain female coyness and male philandering and aggressiveness. D. P. Barash thought they illustrated the biological necessity of women being relegated to the nursery and men deriving satisfaction from their jobs.[3]
The most fundamental critique of sociobiology has to do with its tendency to comtinue the partiality that plagued the discipline of sociology at its inception, when only the male view point was represented. Biology was used to explain women's social roles by Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.[4]
Originally, it was the feminists who called attention to this partiality. Sydie argued that as long as female reproductive capacity is seen as an essential difference, affected very little by social relations, then even Marx's theoretical equality of 'true love' is mythical. (Marx and Engels thought that when private property was abolished, patriarchy would be abolished also. But monogamy would not necessarily disappear; it would be transformed into "true sex love".) Speaking of sociobiology in particular, Sydie said that its theories challenge the subject matter of sociology, because they propose a biological determination of behavior, the source of which is individual genotypes. In its claim that anatomy is destiny sociobiology is also seen as a challenge to feminist theory.
Most sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that social and cultural conditioning is primarily responsible for establishing male and female gender roles.[5][6] According to standard sociological theory, patriarchy is the result of sociological constructions that are passed down from generation to generation.[5] These constructions are most pronounced in societies with traditional cultures and less economic development.[7] Even in modern developed societies, however, gender messages conveyed by family, mass media, and other institutions largely favor males having a dominant status.[6]
--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. A couple comments...
- "It is thought these theories explain..." Thought by whom? Sociobiologists? Some writer in particular?
- "...even Marx's theoretical equality of 'true love' is mythical." This part went over my head. Perhaps it should either be elaborated or removed.
- Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the sources and explained the true love comment. I"m not sure if parenthesis is the best way. What do you think about shortening the feminism section--it doesn't all apply to this topic. And it's long. --Hammy64000 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Specifically, it begins with that assumption about patriarchy being dominant throughout history, which is not proven--and that particular sentence has no source. Then there is the paragraph that says it is only because feminism is considered the opposite of patriarchy that the word has a negative connotation from the feminist point of view. Also, the article mentions de Beauvoir only to relate her denial that she started second wave feminism. Finally, I"m not sure what is meant by the 'blame it on the patriarchy' paragraph. The section has potential as an aid to better perspective, which may be what the author hoped to do. It could bring in the postmodernists a little more--maybe have a different title, like feminism and postmodernism. I think it could be done without discounting any participant in the discourse. On my sources--would a postmodernist perspective from 1992 be obsolete for any reason?--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- That section is a total mess. I imagine anything you replace it with will be an improvement :) Kaldari (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of patriarchy
Were you saying to just go ahead and add the new material? If not, please look at the postmodern section on the rough draft. I had the sources in there, but there was a blocked source, which deleted all the new section, so it has to be done again. I'll fix it when I add it to the article. --Hammy64000 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please see my reply at User talk:Hammy64000/Patriarchy. Also, have you abandoned your idea of doing a section about both postmodern criticism and feminist criticism in favor of treating them separately? I don't see anything about feminist criticism in your draft. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- The challenge with writing a "Feminist criticism" section is that all feminist writing is criticism of patriarchy. Thus you would have to distill the sum of all feminist writing, from Mary Wollstonecraft to Julia Serano. Ideally it should almost be a summary of our feminism article. Kaldari (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. Sorry, I haven't checked this page lately. I'll get back to you soon. --Hammy64000 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are aditions to the rough draft. Assuming the technical stuff will be done for the sources, I'm hoping it can replace the feminist section. I printed that section and looked at each paragraph.
- The first one--the "throughout history" stuff already mentioned is a problem. Then useing John Stuart Mill--he shouldn't be used without qualification. He was like Locke in his agenda--according to Marxist analysis they only wanted to replace the status quo rulers. This explains their denial of property rights to women. The next paragraph--if you could relate the slavery stuff more directly to patriarchy it would work better, but it would still be sort of rambling I think. It sort of sounds like there was the attempt to define feminism as an offshoot of Marxism, or at least of the civil rights movement. Also, de Beauvoir is only taking up space--it is hard to see why she is mentioned at all. There is no detail about her thought. And I'm focusing on thrid wave feminism as the clearest opposition to patriarchy--I think it says this in the feminism article.
- Next paragraph is nonsense. I won't waste space on that. The next paragraph is ok, but I really don't think we still need to argue that patriarchy has been hurtfull. Also, I am making the point that it hurts everyone.
- NExt, Dworkin's argument about equality is beside the point. Plus it might have value, but needs a lot more discussion to tie it in. I think this is a discussion for a basic feminism article--not for this article.
- Finally, a discussion about women's rights and how far they still have to go is only indirectly about patriarchy. Also, it assumes that we are talking about something that all feminists find relevant.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The tag on this article still says it need additional citations. If this is true, please list the problems here so they can be fixed.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Universality of patriarchy
If all we're going to have in that section is a quote, can we just ax that section? It seems like a POV-magnet anyway. I don't think the article losses anything by removing it. Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Removing section per WP:SILENCE. Kaldari (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The bibliography and external links belong to the older version of the article. I would like to update those sections. This would involve deleting some entries.--Hammy64000 (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Please include sources for additional material
Jimtaip, can you add your source for the following addition? Thanks. "These words derive from the Latin word pater ("father")." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.33 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Removed above quote from Jimtaip, as the source was not provided--67.142.130.44 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC).
[edit] inevitability of patriarchy
Alistair, are you making a point with this long table? The title, "Inevitability of Patriarchy" suggests that you are attempting to claim inevitability rather than illustrate an argument. If so, what is your point? I propose that you make a shorter contribution in the patriarchy article and link it to the inevitablity of patriarchy article that already exists. I also propose a change of heading.--67.142.130.44 (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- correction: universality. My arguments remain the same as with inevitability. I would also like to point out that universality was not denied in this article, so your purpose here is not clear. --Hammy64000 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There was an additional, short article on either inevitability or universality of patriarchy when I looked earlier. I can't find it now.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposing a new section
It might be a good idea to present and analyze the anthropological arguments justifying patriarchy. I kept the most recent addition proposed for this article and have a direction in mind. For one thing, it might be helpful to clarify the differences between societies termed patriarchal. If, for example, even ancient Egypt could be called patriarchal by current definitions, and lumped in with Aristotle's defamatory explanation of society, then an important part of this discussion is being ignored. I can put any proposed material on my rough draft for review.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Change to first paragraph
This paragraph had two sources before it was changed. I believe the editor did not sign in when making this change. As it is now, the source only refers to the last sentence. Please provide a source for 'eldest male' sentence and the first part of the definition or remove your change.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- The citation that was removed was a citation to Wiktionary, which does not meet WP:V. I've added a citation for 'eldest male' as requested. In general, citation are only required in the lead for controversial or questionable assertions (see WP:LEADCITE). It doesn't seem like the 'eldest male' addition would be controversial, but since you have challenged it, I suppose a citation is warranted. Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. My first source said nothing of descent being traced through the male line so two sources were used. We might as well use the new source alone since it includes all of the ideas.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it was necessary to research anthropological claims of patriarchy, so I've done a little research on Alistair's table. I believed his addition must have had sources making these claims--but it seems to be a copy of a table on wikipedia with columns added by him claiming the majority of the societies are patriarchal. Here is one source that Alistair said defends patriarchal culture, but it looks like the opposite is true.[3] This doctored information is on at least 2 other websites, so his insistence on putting it here as well is just eerie. Given this editor's interest in patriarchy I'm sure this will have to be addressed again in June. I am aware of some archeological arguments and will work on the new section based on new information.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think he was mostly relying on the work of Steven Goldberg. I remember seeing some discussion of Goldberg's sources in American Anthropologist, but I don't remember where. Regardless, I don't think such a table would be appropriate for this article. Apart from it's questionable assertions, it is far too detailed and specific for a general encyclopedia article such as this. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it is too long--I can use part of it as an example of that argument. Now that I see the source it will be easier to make sense of it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Where did Steven Goldberg go to school? There is nothing about it on the internet. Also no mention of his birthplace. Did he go to the Chicago School?--Hammy64000 (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I have done some more research. I can not get any information by calling City College of New York. I get recordings and people who dont' know anything. I left several messages but have not had returned calls. I called the mayor's office, the Stste Department of Education--that was weird. I called a number in Albany and got LaGuardia College, a part of the City College system. I have left a message at the governor's office. There is an article on the web about the Mayor giving additional funds to the college system--creepy. Is New York occupied and no one told us? You said you saw his sources in American Anthropoligist. That is part of the American Anthropological Association. This organization has a review of Goldberg's 'The Inevitability of Patirachy' and it is scathing. They don't take it seriously at all. I saw the first page on Jstr. I'm going to the university here today to get a copy of the article.
- Maybe you should try to find those sources. In the meantime I will delete any material that I find to be from Goldberg--even indirectly. I have ordered his book, so I will know. If someone has information about his credentials, then please share them and if they are verifiable, then he can be used as a source.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the sources were mentioned in Eleanor Leacock's criticism. Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I called the university. They have that one and another one I did't know about. I'll get them both and see what I can find out. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now that I've calmed down--if everyone was having fun seeing shocking statements pop up in the article once in a while, I just didn't get the joke. To me Goldberg's stuff is the opposite of fun. I think if he's been treated well enough to be reviewed by anthropologists and allowed to intrude here, for example, and he is not an expert at all--he's had it pretty good. He's hardly a pitiful character at this point. Yet people have been giving him such thoughful answers, as though he's for real. I don't get it. --Hammy64000 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I called the Mayor's office in New York on Monday and got a woman with a hispanic accent. She directed me to the Dept. of Education--wrong site--it was a recording telling me I would have to provide my social security number. I called the same number for the Mayor this morning and got a recording saying 'Laura Peterson is not available at this time.' I know Internet traffic can be directed to a network under someone else's control. Here is a thing about Comcast hackers.[4] And that the directory at Verizon couldn't tell me whether they could actually be sure I was being connected to a legitimate land line. I also know people can buy Ph.d's on the Internet. At this point I don't even know for sure that this article can be seen by anyone else. This topic and the tactics used here are way more interesting than this poor 2-person discussion would suggest, yet there is silence from everyone else. I am suddenly remembering a visit to the Harvard campus several years ago. It looked like a battle zone with trash everywhere and full garbage bags thrown around. I think we are doomed. Not you, of course. You are the matrix. The rest of us--doomed.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- To ignore that last post--that is the wickedest thing I've seen here yet. Think you have it all sewn up, do you? I have no doubt you can create havoc in the world, but you will not prevail. You can't kill goodness and truth and honesty. You can just lie about it and lie to yourselves. But it's real and the fact that you can't see it should be warning to you--unless you are too far gone. This thing you are doing won't last.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
