Talk:Patriarchy

Archives
Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 1 Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 2 Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 3

No examples

No examples of matriarchy? Really? What about the Jewish people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.142.130 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish people have been mentioned in this article for a long time. There are three references:

1. Patriarchs in their earliest traditions—Abraham and others;
2. Matrilineality not matriarchy in contemporary tradition of defining Jewish decent; and
3. Kibutzim as examples of contemporary patriarchal societies, despite being established with a different ideology.

Only the last of these is sourced, but none of them have ever been challenged. Many sources are available to provide further verification if needed, but only the last has been controversial afaik. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Taken Out

Took out "However, since Eve caused Mankind to Fall from Paradise, this is a small price to pay." which was the last sentence in the Feminism section. Please keep this shit off wikipedia. I also agree with the "Biased Introduction". This whole article seems slightly twisted and biased in favor of Matriarchy, even the feminism section. =\ I created an account just to edit this vandalism out, so sorry for posting in the wrong spot. Tavenfuzzle (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and comments. This is a long way from being the most vandalised or biased article at Wiki, but I'd guess it's above average (or below, depending how you look at it). Alastair Haines (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice of reversion

Over the last six months I have observed a steady erosion of this article. Sourced material regarding the subject has been removed. Unsourced POV and weasling has been used in other places.

The problem is that the word patriarchy is more common in contemporary discourse as a pejorative term within feminist influenced thought. This leads editors familiar with feminism to expect documentation of the neologism, and creates surprise when a classical, objective treatment is found instead.

However, simply because the term ownership, for example, has extensive use within 1990s packaging of management theories, does not mean that a Wiki article on Ownership should be primarily about a specialist theoretical usage.

Relativity has sufficiently large number of sufficiently notable related but divergent specialist uses, that the main entry is a disambiguation page.

This article must primarily be about patriarchy, and only derivatively about any feminist criticism of patriarchy.

There is a huge literature regarding the social benefits of patriarchy, by both women and men, that goes back five millenia to the beginning of history. There is a rather mixed bag of popular, affluent, recent Western writing, that speculates about alternatives in the course of raising criticisms about what appears to be a fairly basic aspect of human nature.

It is a notable and worthwhile thing for Wiki to record debate regarding the merits and demerits of patriarchy. It is, however, putting the cart before the horse to place evaluation prior to objective data. It is also contra Wiki's NPOV stance, to presume to take a stance on the subject, which is what recent edits having been doing.

I am writing this prior to major reversions as a last attempt at assuming good faith. In future, weasling, either with words or with tags, will simply be reverted for what they are, and I will not feed trolls or Wiki lawyers.

Genuine contributions and genuine questions are always welcome at Wiki, but ideologically motivated censorship is not. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bla bla bla. Just contribute citing your sources, and please quit commenting as if you were in some kind of authoritative position, that sounds ridiculous.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what authority you are claiming to tell me what to do, and what not to do. Please follow Wiki guidelines at the top of the page. Assume good faith. Address specific issues in the article. Don't make personal attacks on other editors. Welcome to Wiki, and to this article. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis and Sources

Is there a reliable source that states the table contains all societies claimed to be matriarcle? Is there a reliable source that states that all societies claimed to be matriarcle are actually patriarcle? If not, then this it is unpublished synthesis of published material. Neitherday (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You might have missed the second paragraph of the article -- Encyclopedia Britannica says this. About half a dozen other sources are also cited. Or are you suggesting Britannica is not reliable on this topic? What source do you have for that? Alastair Haines (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Patriarchy (ethnographies)

Template:Patriarchy (ethnographies) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neitherday (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal made by Neitherday on 31 March 2008. After one month of listing, not a single editor supported the proposal. Proposal declined 1 April 2008. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Autonym?

I think in this line "Bamenda Africa Cameroon patrilocal only Kom matrilineal patriarchy Phyllis Kaberry 1952 female" in the Patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal there is an error. Bamenda is a city and the name of an area in Cameroon and not the name of a ethnic group. Moreover in the article on Phyllis Kaberry is said that she lived with the Nso but in the article on Bamenda only Tikar, Mankon people and the Mbum are mentioned. And Mbum seams to be a language. Can anyone fix the entry? thanks.--Dia^ (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, there is no autonym for the Bamenda people -- they are linguistically diverse. The designation Bamenda for these tribes is due to academic precedent among cultural anthropologists. It designates the "chiefdoms" of the "grassfields" (see preface to reprint of Kaberry's work, there are several free online copies). It is the similarity of their social structuring as "chiefdoms" and their traditions of common origin that have led professionals to group them together.

The introduction to a reprint of Kaberry's work describes the region of Cameroon as the "grassfields", noting that the Nso are but one of the local tribes. The Nso were Kaberry's hosts, however she observed, as commissioned, all the tribes in the area, you have listed some of them by their autonyms.

Interestingly, she was commissioned due to the British government being concerned that women were mistreated in these areas. Kaberry's final judgement was contrary to this. She politely explained how such an impression might be formed by a casual observer, but that closer scrutiny showed men laboured to benefit the community just as hard, but differently to women, and that women were not excluded from participating in the benefits of the common wealth of the Bamenda societies. But I'm sure you've read this.

The fact that the modern town of Bamenda (lying not too distant from the grassfields) is so-called, is perhaps the best (but not adequate) argument to support Bamenda as an approximation to an autonym. It is most analagous to classifications like Scandinavian, Slavic, Mediterranean, European, Amerind, etc.

In placing Bamenda in the table, I was not entirely satisfied myself. However, I simply have to accept what the academic literature uses. Thank you for your eagle-eyed observation, but I fear there is no published alternative. Feel free to correct it if you find one. I, for one, will be delighted! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My edits to the "Feminist criticism" section

Imprimis: I have removed the following paragraph:

During the democratic and anti-slavery movements of early 19th century Europe and America, kingdoms became constitutional monarchies or republics and slavery was made illegal (see abolitionism). The civil rights movements of 20th century America also sought to overthrow various existing social structures, that were seen by many to be oppressive and corrupt. Both social contexts led naturally to an analogous scrutiny of relationships between women and men (see Mill above). The 19th century debate ultimately resulted in women receiving the vote; this is sometimes referred to as first-wave feminism. The late 20th century debate has produced far ranging social restructuring in Western democracies – second-wave feminism. Although often credited with it, Simone de Beauvoir denied she started second wave feminism, "The current feminist movement, which really started about five or six years ago [1970-71], did not really know [The Second Sex]". Some consider the "second wave" to be continuing into the 21st century, others consider it to be complete, still others consider there to be a "third wave" of feminism active in contemporary society.

I do not see the relevance of this; perhaps it could be moved to history of feminism?

2: I removed the claim that "patriarchy" has "been arguably overused as a rhetorical device" since this is POV in the absence of a specific claim to this effect.

3: I moved a few quotes inside the cites.

4: "However, the basic issue stands out even more clearly now than at the peak of second wave activism in the early 1970s." Which issue is this? Patriarchy? Real differences between men and women? I've removed it for now.

Ben Standeven (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By and large I agree with your edits Ben, thank you for them.

When I have time, I'll investigate the edit history to see if text has been removed that made the issue clear in context. From memory, the point used to be, as follows. "Current western society is still considered patriarchal (various evidences and interpreters cited). This is despite legislation to correct it. So why is patriarchy so stubbornly persistant in human society?" This naturally leads to the biological discussion, fronted by Goldberg's work.

With this article, unfortunately, people remove cited text and parts of the logical flow if they don't like what they think are the implications. Later editors notice the non-sequiturs, so introduced, and remove them. As I mentioned in a comment above, every six months or so, the article is reduced to triviality. That's fine, it's just a slow form of vandalism. It can be corrected by rolling back from time to time. Which is precisely what I do.

Over the course of time, some edits are, however, genuinely constructive. Yours fit this class. Thank you. When the inevitable roll back occurs, your edits will stand.

One disagreement though. You're welcome to remove uncited text like "overused as a rhetorical device". Words to this effect are, however, found in several recent works. Several feminist academics try to be gracious about the rhetoric of other parts of the movement, while seeking objective terminology to express their own work -- hence androcentric will generate google scholar hits. Androcentric is an important word for this article, because it is the academic synonym for patriarchy in 21st century feminist writing. Rather than deleting text, it would be easy for you to add dozens of references from the internet alone ... if you had the time. ;)

Fine, but I think it should be worded "So-and-so argues that the term "patriarchy" has been overused as a rhetorical device", rather than just "The term "patriarchy" has been overused as a rhetorical device". Ben Standeven (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember the source I took the idea from. It was a recently published textbook of Gender Studies by two Englishwomen. Unfortunately, it was on loan and I'm not keen to borrow it again for the page number. I've only got so much time.

I just found a [www.ciaonet.org/book/hoc01/hoc01_02.pdf page] (41) by a male feminist arguing a theoretical form for his views on masculinity. It's very well written. It is a feminist arguing precisely as my text described.

Unfortunately, casual (or biased) readers will overlook that. They'll not expect a feminist to be male, nor advocating something called masculism. I'll try to find something more obvious, and online.

However, I'll be returning the text on the strength of the source linked above. The burden of proof will be on critics to prove this writer is anti-feminist, and from reliable sources. There's plenty in the text that demonstrates his general alignment with feminism, he certainly nowhere condemns it.

And, the bottom line is that the use of patriarchy by many feminists is obviously loaded with specific implications, which are not neutral. It doesn't mean "father rule" (which they oppose, of course), it means male oppression in general. The quotes already in the article show that already -- Mary Daly et al.

They are entitled to use the word this way, of course, but it makes it a special use of the word, it doesn't replace other uses.

BTW if you're interested in thorough treatment of misandry in feminism, Nathanson and Young are the award-winning authors to have done this work. My concern in this article is NOT to get involved in documenting such views, it starts spinning off topic. My aim here is has been to give appropriate credit to moderating voices within the movement, close down the section and get back to the topic of the article. The more such things are challenged, the more I realise we need to remove feminist criticism from the article, it's such a big topic in itself it needs its own space.

Anyway, as I have time, I'll be both responding to some of your requests and restoring some sections removed by others.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, naive editors will jump at words like "overused" and "rhetorical" and presume a POV against feminist commentary on patriarchy. This is, of course, far from the truth. Feminism is the proof of patriarchy. If men didn't dominate, women wouldn't complain about it, would they? Is male dominance a human issue? If yes, humans are patriarchal and feminism makes sense. If no, humans are not patriarchal and feminism is a local, recent, western phenomenon.

The fact that all societies, including our own, have been patriarchal, and the fact that there are evolutionary, hormonal and genetic causes for this, is absolutely no argument to justify perpetuation of it. Rape exists, castration stops it. Precedent and testosterone uncontroversially do not justify rape. Is patriarchy like rape? Well, that is controversial. Feminists say yes, all traditional cultures and religions say no. Scientists tend to dodge the issue, except sociologists, who are divided.

The bottom line is you can't have "protestants" without something to protest about. Feminism assumes patriarchalism, and opposes it. This article simply documents the raw data that provides a foundation for feminist protest. I think the article would be best majoring on the facts, and minimizing the morality. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

sexism and selectivity of sources

This article is shockingly sexist. As other contributers to this forum have already said, there is no consensus in the current literature whether there have been matriarchal societies or not; that issue is very much a matter of debate. Furthermore, patriarchy can not only be explained with referrence to biological findings. The sources this article makes use of are too selective. I am aware of the fact that selectivity cannot be avoided, but I am convinced that a historical approach to the topic would be a great advantage. There are many gender historians who try to historicise patriarchy as a concept. The historisation of patriarchy is even more desirable as it is, first and foremost, a category established in the past and not, as the article tries to show, an inevitable outcome of natural facts. This article is sexist, too selective and confirms normative concepts; analysing and explaining patriarchy from a historical point of view could be a way to break up and come to terms with this category instead of justifying it.

Kamelfuss (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for taking the trouble to explain your evaluation of the article. It accords very closely with the early second wave feminist POV.

I'm not sure what definition of sexism you are using, but I would agree that the article unfairly gives feminist theories more of a voice than social commentators with opposite opinion, despite the other voices being more numerous. If treatment of feminism is equated with treatment of women (which is not normally done in serious literature) then this would make the article biased in favour of women. We've had several complaints at the page regarding that, and ideology will probably eventually be moved to another article, where both points of view can be more adequately presented.

As you note, the consensus of people who have not read the literature and do not note the citations in the article is contrary to what is actually published on this topic. (Though, I imagine there are a lot of people, like me, who would admit they can't know the answer without consulting the literature.) You may want to re-read the lead to the article and click on the references, most of them are available at public libraries.

Regarding biology. Again we agree. This article is actually explicit that patriarchy is not 100% biological, in fact, I have not found a single book that suggests this, despite reading many times that such books are supposed to exist, but never seeing an actual title or author mentioned. However, Goldberg's argument (followed by many others) is now supported by even more results from research. In fact they are being published at an increasing rate, there is simply too much to report in detail. Brain Sex way back in 1991 boldly said there is no reason but "mental indolence" to believe biology does not influence gender differentiated behviour, the correlations are too broad and too profound to ignore. As popularisation of science, this book was a decade behind the research that informs it.

I think perhaps you may be alluding to a theory that was advanced over the course of the 1970s that patriarchy is socially constructed from nothing—ex nihilo. That theory was only tenable because it didn't examine the scientific literature that was already available at the time. You are quite correct though, there is still considerable literature that speaks of that theory as though it is established fact, and such things are even more common in various informal modes of discourse. These, however, do not represent the best available sources on patriarchy, being ideological rather than scientific works. The ideological approach is explained in the feminist section. But, in any case, we are again agreed that all-nature, just like all-nurture, are extreme views that do not reflect the scientifically researched literature.

The historical approach to patriarchy, as currently understood in a consensus of the literature Britannica considers most reliable, is now considered "discredited". I am very happy for that discussion to be added to the article. I didn't research it in detail because it meshed with what I read anyway, and I didn't want to add even more "no matriarchy" material.

As it turns out, cross-cultural study of societies that have been claimed to be matriarchal gives a sense of how patriarchy may look with different levels of technology anyway. You may like to consult the appendix for a feel of that. As with most things in the article, they are heavily slanted documenting the concerns raised by "anti-patriarchalists". So, when we look at the details, we are looking at the most "matriarchal" cultures, or least patriarchal ones. It should be evident why the consensus holds that these societies are better considered patriarchal despite the claims sometimes made by some gender scholars working outside anthropology.

I conceed that the literature debunking the prehistorical matriarchy theory is very substantial, and would help authenticate Britannica's conclusion, while providing an opportunity to articulate a theory that was, for a time, considered a possibility in the absence of evidence. (Such speculation being typical of the normal working of the scientific method.) The only problem would be giving undue weight to what was a speculation based on limited evidence, but that would only happen if we failed to source it from the references in Britannica. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Flagcruft?

What an interesting article! I've posted here though about the data table, as I don't know what the flags add there. I think it would look better and convey more information if we just had the country names linked in that column. --John (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this very civil comment and well-founded suggestion for improvement. Please find my reply at the link you provided. Looking forward to hearing back from you. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Feminist criticism

Why does this section have claims like the fact that western culture is male dominated, and that it remains patriarchal that are not only pure POV, but unsourced? JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading anything published by a major feminist writer in the last couple of years if you'd like to confirm this datum. I'd recommend Naomi Wolf, 'cause I like her best, but feminist writers will explain the situation most clearly. There are men's movement moaners who won't deny it, but it clearly doesn't fit with parts of that movement to focus on things that haven't changed. However, despite my dislike of the men's movement, there are plenty of writers I don't deserve to sharpen a pencil for, who'd admit that many things haven't changed in forty years.

But to answer your question, I presume there is no source because you're one of few, of a thousand hits a day, over the last eighteen months (total c. 1/2 million hits), who's actually proposed there is an alternative view. Please tell us! All POVs in published sources are permissible at Wiki.

If you're asking for a specific source, every feminist and sociologist cited in this article claims western society is patriarchal at the time of writing, the most recent being 2007 from memory. None saw definitive change in the immediate future. Many are, however, working for change over the next couple of generations that might approach the ideals.

But, until the day feminism becomes a study of what people used to have to argue for, and when market forces rather than laws produce equal opportunity, that day we'll know we've arrived at gender equality. Many suspect this will only happen when men give birth to half the babies.

I'm sorry, but feminists are too smart to have invested time into seeking matriarchal or egalitarian societies in the most remote of places if they thought they could prove their point by observation of western society itself.

But if you know someone who's published that "feminist criticism is about the fact that western culture is not male dominated, and isn't sufficiently patriarchal", or that the Day of Equality has already arrived, please type up the text or give us the reference so we can add this important POV. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the beginning of the sentence to something like Despite decades of legislation and affirmative action virtually all feminists agree that western culture is still male dominated, and that it remains patriarchal would deal with the POV. Many masculists and men's rights activists (including women who also call themselves feminists but would probably be labeled anti-feminists by other feminists) would argue that in some areas, society is male-dominated and patriarchal and in others it is female-dominated and matriarchal. Just check out the writings of Warren Farrell or Cathy Young. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Steven Goldberg

There is much more recent research on the effects of testosterone. For example, see the references for Testosterone poisoning#Psychological analysis. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Testosterone poisoning is a "pejorative neologism" (cite Wikipedia, lol). The effects of testosterone are likely to be the subject of research ad infinitum since it has an influence on all sorts of health issues, not just on behaviour. If you have some research that says that testosterone is not as influential on female hyena phallus development and behaviour as it is believed to be, nor with the behaviour of other mammals, including Homo sapiens, please fire away. It's the beauty of science that incomplete theories are being constantly modified by additional data. Perhaps psychology could prove a social cause for female hyena phallus development based on Freud's "penis envy", perhaps there's "biofeedback", many things are possible with incomplete data, and data is often incomplete. Please write up any new research pertinent to the article. The [edit] button is there waiting for you. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the concept of testosterone poisoning. However, that section in the testosterone poisoning article is well researched and some of the sources could be used for this article. For example, according to research, it's not clear whether high testosterone levels increase aggression or whether high levels of aggression increase testosterone. Additionally, depending on which study you look at, high or low levels of testosterone have advantages or disadvantages. The reality is more complex than high testosterone bad and low testosterone good. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd not be surprised to find that the details are complex and could include feedback, whichever causal flow was the main one. Also, see below. Any published research related to the biology of gender is welcome, of course. Interpreting the results also needs published sources. Whatever the story, it would appear that it is now somewhat old news that biology does influence preferences and abilities in behaviour. But it is a matter of record that people did, at one point, suggest biology had no significant influence. That's an important thing to document I'd have thought. But I'm all for plowing on with new results as far as they are relevant. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"(...)At the time he wrote (1973), there were only very limited results from biological researchers to support or contradict his hypothesis. The situation has changed a lot since then." I think this would be a great point to provide an example of such research, like the recent study by the University of Michigan's Departement of Psychology into estrogen's effect on women's need for dominance (a characteristic traditionally attributed to androgens only): http://www.lsa.umich.edu/psych/news/department/news/?id=245 Cherryleaf (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add any sourced text, Cherryleaf. I'll check out the article, it would be an interesting experimental verification of the traditional interpretation of the curse on the woman in Genesis 3. Experientially, I believe I perceive "control freak" behaviour more often in women than in men, which is why I first rejected the argument of Goldberg's book in my own thinking. However, I've now read so many articles about testosterone in mammals, and speculate that "control-freakishness" is "differently shaped" in women and men. Hence, I'm more happy with the scientific consensus regarding testosterone and aggression. For people like me, though, who are inclined to believe the Bible on such things, we're well aware that science has not, as yet, uncovered the processes with sufficient refinement to prove or disprove the nuanced view available in the biblical text.

But that's all another story, although I like this result for various reasons, those reasons are not relevant here. Biology of gender and Sexual dimorphism in humans would be the core places I could think it would be relevant. I see a problem with including the result specifically at the point you mention, though, in that summarising all the results of sex steroid research as well as genetic dimorphism of the brain is well and truly beyond the scope of the article. The text above is suitably vague: "support or contradict", "changed a lot". Consensus says testosterone results alone provide very substantial support. The result you quote needs published evaluation with regard to how it compares quantitatively with testosterone effects in men. It appears the tests were designed quite specifically to be qualitatively analagous, which is perfect, but do we know if women are more dominating by nature than men, as men appear to be naturally more aggressive than women.

Perhaps the best thing to do is get the full journal cite for the study and add it to the bibliography of this article and the other two I mentioned (as well as any others that cross your mind). We need to document the result without guessing the interpretation regarding comparisons. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Alistair, thank you for your reply. I understand the concept you are talking about with regard to quantitative vs. qualitative research, however the addition I would like to make is not to state that either hormone is the more dominant one overall. Rather, the article I am quoting states that the research models of the past were male-centric in their approach, and that this has influenced the results : "Women have long been overlooked in biological research on dominance. Using a male model, the small body of existing research has struggled to link testosterone to dominance motivation and behavior in women. However, estrogen is very behaviorally potent and is actually a close hormonal relative to testosterone. In female mammals, estrogen has been tied to dominance, but there has been scant research examining the behavioral roles of estrogen in women. (...) Our findings perfectly parallel what we have observed for power motivation and testosterone in men.(...) In men, power motivation is associated with heightened levels of testosterone, particularly after a contest victory. In women, estrogen appears to be the critical hormone for power motivation.". The results are therefore still valid in my eyes, as they expose a fatal flaw in a reasoning that bases itself on the overall low amount of testosterone found in women. Cherryleaf (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article before posting my last. Thank you for quoting it here.

In the context of my reading on the subject, which is limited to only a couple of dozen books and several dozen scientific articles, this is an outstanding new result. Indeed, all I've read focusses on testosterone and what it does in mammals male and female, including Homo sapiens. Or it focusses on estrogen and progesterone and its effects on women, especially in fertility and menopause, but not in terms of any "dominance tendency". Note please that study of women has certainly not been neglected, nor has study of their sex steroids.

What has indeed been unbalanced is presuming men are more aggressive, and discovering that there is a link to testosterone, then concluding (erroneously) that this proves men are more aggressive and provides an explanation. It doesn't. Studies in the 1990s showed 40% of domestic violence was perpetrated by women on men. This was not expected. But men don't go telling everyone, "help me please, my wife is beating me." No one sets up groups or raises funds to support battered husbands.

Anyway, please write whatever you like into the text, it belongs to everyone and if people don't like it they can change it, but they can't remove quotes and citations without good reasons and (normally) support. I'd caution you a little, because the link was to a short journalistic description of the study results and their significance. Some of it seems a little off to me. The basic result sounds fine. What really matters is that women's hormones have also been linked to dominance tendency. I expect that result will be reproduced many times in future studies. If it hasn't yet been done, a comparison of dominance in men to dominance in women, and the relative hormonal correlations will be studied.

Finally, I'll note that no one has ever argued that men should dominate simply because they want to. Strangely, I half expect that some may indeed end up changing their minds and deciding women should dominate (or at least have the chance) if their biology leads them to that. Certainly some will probably say dominance should be shared for healthy life. But these things drift into the ethical and political questions.

Please, please ignore my comments if they make you shy about editing. Believe me, I want your edit there, because I love facts, and I love people contributing. However, you need to put it into the article, because I'm too busy to think through how to do it well. That's probably a good thing, because you'll probably come up with something better than me anyway! I'm only talking here to let you know someone has noticed you and values this input and sketch a bit of background regarding why others my come and play with whatever you enter, so you won't be surprised if it happens. Tchüß Alastair Haines (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again :) I know and thank you for noticing. It is nice to discuss changes that go beyond gnoming on the talk page first, so I don't really want to ignore the replies I receive! :)

And in fact I think you are correct in saying that this research doesn't fit in at this point as well as I first thought. Having re-read the article, as well as researched a bit about Goldberg and his other books, and his publisher, and the Guiness Record for most rejections, I feel very doubtful about the entire section, and most of the article, so I don't think that simply adding a little bit of balancing research will help. It will actually look quite out of place at this point. To be frank, when I first saw this article I was stunned (and still am). Other language-Wiki articles on patriarchy appear much calmer and more rational, like an encyclopedic entry should. This article to me reads like an advert or argument for patriarchy in too many places. For example, the inclusion of a section on benefits bewilders me, but not as much as the long table in the "Patriarchies in dispute" section, which reads like a list of places "won back from the other side". Goldberg's book, though controversial, may well deserve mention, but one would hope it contained better paragraphs to use as a first quote than "In every society a basic male motivation is the feeling that the women and children must be protected. But the feminist cannot have it both ways: if she wishes to sacrifice all this, all that she will get in return is the right to meet men on male terms. She will lose." Goldberg is clearly arguing for patriarchy. Wikipedia should not. Cherryleaf (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments Cherryleaf. Goldberg is pretty much a standard text on what has become consensus. The inevitability of patriarchy got the rejections prior to 1972 when it was "published to acclaim". His second volume, Why men rule, did not receive the same rejection treatment, Brain Sex came out about the same time. He is widely cited.

The benefits section should probably be moved to Patriarchy (ideology), along with Feminist criticism. Or maybe not. The problem is, Wiki can't say patriarchy is good, nor can it say it is bad, but there are many people who do hold each POV. The main reason the benefits section is there is simply to make some appearance of including both points of view.

The Feminist criticism section is important for a second reason, though. In feminist usage, patriarchy implies sexism—advantaging men at the expense of women. This is a specific and technical usage. It is clearly not the only usage, because the word was used prior to the rise of second wave feminism. In Women of the grassfields, Phyllis Kaberry, sent by the UK govt to investigate if women were being exploited, describes a patriarchal system that she thought fair to women, because although men were often idle while women were working, at other times men took a disproportionate share of heavy work. Also, the commonwealth of the societies were shared communally, women not being excluded from the fruits of their own labour. That responsibilities of "public office" like chief were work loads carried by men did not lead Phyllis to conclude women were in any way disadvantaged. A more recent commentator may differ with Phyllis on this, but Phyllis is the authority on the Bamenda tribes at that earlier point in history, before more modern influences had impacted their culture more deeply.

"Won back from the other side" is a cute expression, I get your point. "List of failed misappropriations" would express the opposite POV. Britannica notes that the consensus among anthropologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed, or words to that effect. Does that sound suitably encyclopedic? ;) We don't need to trust Britannica or Goldberg, we can explore the data they list, the societies that have been claimed to be matriarchal, according to the standard ethnographers for those societies.

Both Goldberg and Helena Cronin point out that just because all societies are male dominated, it doesn't mean we should accept that, a theologian goes further to say it shows how deep the problem we're facing. Goldberg doesn't argue for patriarchy in his book, except on the very last two or three pages. I can't remember Cronin taking any side. Daphne Hampson is against patriarchy, but thinks its everywhere, and probably biological. But the point is, that simply because something is so, it doesn't imply that it ought to be so. Denying that something bad exists, is like burying our head in the sand. Cynthia Eller makes that point in Why an invented past won't give women a future.

This article gets criticised as being pro-feminist because of the FC section and somewhat more regularly, and usually more articulately, criticised along the lines you are proposing. I don't see either myself. It describes the scope of the phenomenon of the title according to reliably sourced consensus. It provides the scientific hypothesis generally offered to explain the phenomenon. It provides examples and history, killing two birds with one stone, by providing the list critics of the consensus have compiled, but the standard sources for those societies, which explain the consensus position.

The Goldberg quote at the top of the section was added to verify that Goldberg predicted that feminism would not achieve many of its aims, because the title Inevitability of patriarchy was not deemed sufficient, if you don't like the quote, feel free to put reference tags around it and hide it in footnotes. That should make both parties happy. If you think the section is a quote farm, you can do the same with some of the other quotes. If the section then looks thin, put some back! :) Alternatively, I'd be happy to expand the section with more of an outline of Goldberg's data and argument.

Helena Cronin, David M. Buss and Simon Baren-Cohen are biologists and psychologists who have investigated the same sorts of things more recently. Your source is the only one I've heard of that proposes anything like a biological argument for female dominance tendency. It gives me a good excuse to email Goldberg again, ask him what he thinks (not that we can publish an email response), but also ask for appropriate permission to use the photo he sent me.

Sorry for the wall of text, but you did raise a lot of substantial points. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again :) thanks for your detailed reply. I will try to be brief.

Yes, I think moving several sections, such as the benefits, to a more appropriate place would be a great idea. Personally I think a section on the History of Patriarchy or Views on Patriarchy, with a link to a dedicated page perhaps, could work well, also for the list of countries (with references) currently placed under Appendix. In a page like that, appropriate criticism and comments can then be added, which needs to include issues raised on the influence of class and race, as well as implications of different definitions of the terminology.

Quoting Britannica on matriarchal societies should certainly be encyclopedic - for articles concerned with matriarchy. Why present patriarchy, which is itself called a "hypothetical social system" in Britannica, as dependant or influenced by the existence of matriarchy at this stage? This is especially problematic as not only are both terms loaded in popular use, but both have several different interpretations and usages (and once in popular use, these cannot simply be discarded by stating they are "wrong").

Neutrality is not always quite the same as being balanced, because whereas balance can also be achieved by adding extreme statements (like for example gendercide) to give each side a voice, what I mean with neutrality here is that the article does not get so deeply involved in perceived "sides". Their existence should not be ignored, but in-depth discussion should not be attempted here.

Regarding Goldberg, quotes should be representative, and wording is extra important with sensitive terms like this. While the quotes state that no value should be judged from this, they say that patriarchy is a natural consequence. The section alludes to reasons beyond testosterone, but never states them, making is simply sexist. If that is doing Goldberg an injustice, then this section has to be changed a lot, too.

Cherryleaf (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)