Talk:Patriarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Patriarchy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Patriarchy, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
align="left" 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Archive
Archives

Talk:Patriarchy/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Patriarchy talk page

Hi friends, I've done a bit of work on this article and should be around for a couple of years or so watching it. So edit and comment away and there'll be at least one interested person to respond to you. Please note the talk header if you're new to Wiki. It's especially important on this page, because the article's subject is an emotional one for many people. Other than debating the cons or pros of patriarchy and other than personal attacks, let's go! :D Alastair Haines 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meta-edit question

While I was researching this topic, it seemed there were three (3) groups that used the word patriarchy. The people who use patriarchy the most, and most recently, seemed to be feminist scholars. The next largest group who use the word are anthropologists. Finally, there are a smaller number of writers, but from a very wide range of different areas and interests who use the word too, this group includes writers who used the word before anthropology or feminism really started. (One such group is the eastern orthodox Christian churches, who have used it for more than a thousand years.)

When I arrived at this page, anti-feminists and feminists were removing one another's edits and it was a bit unpleasant for anthropologists, who weren't quite as passionately motivated as the others. One smart lady anthropologist started a new topic entry Patriarchy (anthropology), which meant the anthropologists could get on with things in peace. It also got me thinking.

Feminists and anthropologists know a lot more about patriarchy than most of us will ever learn. They do have some special meanings when they use the word though. Patriarchy in anthropology is slightly different to patriarchy in feminism, and both are much more detailed than the basic use of the word, which is really quite simple.

So, now we have a disambiguation page. Patriarchy (disambiguation) points to all three options:

  • patriarchy [+0] – the basic idea – literally, "father rule";
  • patriarchy [+anthropological] – special use – about male domination, socially, as scientific observation;
  • patriarchy [+feminist] – special use – about male domination, its causes and consequences, and how to deal with it.

I will be personally defending the free speech of feminists at the patriarchy in feminism page. POV tags are not appropriate just because a statement or quote expresses a POV. On a page describing a feminist point of view, you have to describe that view. (In fact, I was looking for information about patriarchy in feminism when I first found this page.)

On this page itself, both the anthropological and feminist uses of patriarchy are now explained briefly, and links point to the main entries ... but those entries need expanding! Please help by expanding those main entries.

Actually, I'm hoping we can do the same with the Biology of gender subsection. It also deserves its own main entry. In other words we could merge most of this section into a new article, there's just not enough writing done on it yet. Again, you will be helping if you can expand that section in the mean time. Alastair Haines 07:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha

"The status of the alpha is generally achieved by means of superior physical prowess, however, in certain highly social species such as the bonobo, a contender can use more indirect methods, such as political alliances, to oust the ruling alpha and take his/her place." From alpha (biology) Billbrock 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Type A theory is considered to be obsolete by many researchers in contemporary health psychology and personality psychology," from Type A personality, the human psychological analogue to alpha. Not sure what you're saying Bill, or how it is relevant. If you are implying there are matriarchal species you are quite correct. There are probably thousands or millions of them. Ants and bees are the best known. Biology only teaches us male and female brains are usually different in animals, nothing about patriarchy in sea-slugs as far as I know; but it also tells us that the human brain makes males more agressive. This explains the observation made by anthropologists that all known human societies are patriarchal. The bonobo is probably an example of a species where biology makes the female more aggressive, which would explain female alphas in that species. Dominance behaviour can probably be caused by things other than aggression. I don't think queen bees or queen ants dominate via aggression, haven't studied it. The point for this article though is, if we really want to change the human phenomenon of patriarchy, we may need to intervene genetically or chemically to do so. Scary thought either way, isn't it? Glad I don't have to take sides. ;) Alastair Haines 10:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Pulling together existing sources in a new way is original research. You are not the alpha here, sorry. Article is nonencyclopedic. Billbrock 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dr Bill, thanks again for your interaction. As an aspiring postgrad, I take your first sentence as a compliment. The second, however, looks like a personal comment, but I can live with it. You are welcome to view the article however you like, even delete it if you wish (but I will restore it, good ol' Wiki democracy). We can't work together to change things for the better unless you actually make a specific point. If your point is that you grant that the article presents existing sources, but does so in a way that makes a new point, which is, in fact, merely the view of the editor, please state what that point is. Alastair Haines 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your question can be answered by a close reading of the 2nd half of the article. (And seriously: what do the national flags add to the article? They, like the laundry list they decorate, undermine your attempts to present serious scholarly work in std enclopedic fashion.) Dirty secret: an article that is truly NPOV would be boring. But this is way too POV (even if the POV expressed is unideolgical truth) as a central thesis of the article is not confirmed.... Billbrock 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This is how Wiki define NPOV.
“ "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." ”

I must ask again, please be specific, what is the thesis of the article? I am not aware of there being such a thing. I do intrude editorial comment, namely arguments in favour of both science and ethics. These are provided precisely to ensure that well known and divergent views on the subject of patriarchy will be taken equally seriously by the reader in forming her opinion. The editorial comment adopts a point of view – the neutral point of view – which makes the text encyclopedic rather than a quote farm.

As it turns out, I think the article has a major flaw in that there is no "Writers who defend patriarchy" section. There are many such writers. American conservatives excercize their free speech too, only I haven't reported their opinions. Literally hundreds, many of them women, promote patriarchy. However, the feminist analysis is considerably more widely published – thousands of works. My current editorial judgement is to stick to the scientific angle as much as possible – etymology, history, anthropology and biology. I have kept the moral debate to a minimum, and chosen the writer who is least challenging of the feminist view, in fact, he doesn't really challenge feminism at all, only the extreme view that claimed gender distinctions are 100% cultural.

Regarding flags, some friends of mine were giving me feedback as I wrote the article. These included Australians, Indonesians, Turks, Brazilians, Germans, Indians and Americans. Several mentioned that names of people and titles of roles seemed familiar to them (before I provided the flags). The flags helped them locate which societies were ones they were likely to have heard about at school, or which fell into their areas of interest. For example, an Indonesian friend thought the Batek might be the Indonesian Bataks, but they are not. The Batek are actually from Malaysia, which is close enough to Indonesia linguistically to explain the familiar sound of names and titles. The same Indonesian friend was intrigued to learn (because of the flag) that the Iban are actually Indonesian. In fact, she and I were in Borneo studying a school with many Dyak children in January 2007.

The backhanded compliment that the article is too interesting to be POV offsets yet another overly personal comment regarding "laundry list". Personally, I find that list fascinating, however, it is not there to stimulate people, but as a reference (which is why it comes last in the article). When people read, as they often will, that Mead considered the Tchambuli to be matriarchal, or that the Minangkabau are matriarchal (this is taught in Indonesian schools), they can look these up in an alphabetical list and find references should they wish to check the facts.

Another reason the flags are there is to communicate that they are real societies. I added internal links for the same reason. Until I researched the section, I hadn't heard of any but the Iroqois and Filipinos/Filipinas. As far as I knew, people had just made up the societies, or they didn't exist any more. Some people are visual learners (in fact most), it is certainly true of me, the flags have helped me internalize the locations of all the fascinating peoples in that list. I greive that so many of these societies have had their unique cultures swamped by globalization. Can't say that in the article though. Alastair Haines 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the Iroquois appreciate the U.S. flag: adds to the authenticity of the article. Billbrock 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with you on that one, Bill. I admire what I've read about them very much indeed. Since you mention it, I will seek an indiginous symbol for them and add it if I find one. I won't take the US flag away though, many are Americans, I presume their fellow citizens are proud to be united with, because many fought for American independence. Their original homeland, according to the sources I read is New York state. Alastair Haines 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Canada and Quebec flags, can't upload the Iroqois own flags, probably because they rightly own the copyright. Alastair Haines 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Flags from the nations of Central Asia would be a fitting addition to the article. Billbrock 04:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Some feminists have argued that Kubla Khan's pleasure-dome was a matriarchy. Could you kindly refute this in the article? Could work another flag in that way, thus bolstering your argument. Billbrock 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
LoL, I actually quoted KK in a draft paper, but only to establish that culture-laden poetry can communicate universals transgenerationally. A damsel plays a dulcimers, Kubla builds a pleasure dome, where she might be part of the pleasure. Sounds more like classic patriarchal abuse to me, but I've not looked into it. Alastair Haines 05:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biology of gender section

Gender is (generally) an anthropological term; sex is generally a biological term. One rather doubts that unpacking the causal relationships & distinctions between identity of the biological individual, the identity of the biological individual in culture, and the subject of this article belong in this article. WP:NOR and all that. Billbrock 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Bill. A small detail, beyond the scope of this article -- gender is actually traditionally a linguistic term.

The dichotomy sex=biology / gender=role is now largely out of date. Sex researchers use a taxonomy ranging from chromosomal, hormonal, gonadal, genital, physical, identity and role up to sexual orientation. This taxonomy follows the known development of sexual characteristics in humans. In other words, there are not two aspects to femaleness and maleness but many. Chromosomal and hormonal are at the biological "sex" end; and identity, role and orientation are at the social "gender" end. Published and accepted results almost two decades old discuss the causal relationships between all the levels. Thus there is no longer a clear, objective distinction between biology and sociology (see Sociobiology), so a sex/gender distinction is now an outdated, oversimplification, mainly useful in early classes in gender studies.

This issue is an important one, because there are a significant number of people with medical variation from the normal female body and female mind pattern. These people want to understand themselves and be understood by other people. If society insists (contrary to the facts now known), that gender is either purely biological or purely sociological, it makes life very difficult for these people (see Intersex and the tragedy of David Reimer).

The fact that one is not aware of research, does not make it original. The proof that research is not original is that it is already published, therefore not new. Dr Milton Diamond is probably the best known sex researcher, his faculty in Hawaii has a web-site with an archive of publications you can consult to verfiy all the comments I make above.

Addressing the issue of biology is necessary in this article for two reasons. Firstly, although it is old news to people familiar with sex research, it has not generally entered the public awareness. Encyclopedias are part of the process of making research available to the general public.

Secondly, since feminist criticism of patriarchy normally proceeds on the basis that there are no biological grounds for it, i.e. it is a cultural phenomenon that can be reversed, it is necessary to address the issue. There is an alternative, we can remove feminist criticism from the article. Personally, I think, since there is a criticism of patriarchy it should be recorded, and since there is criticism of that criticism, that should also be recorded. Alastair Haines 04:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What are your citations for the 2007 synthetic version of that criticism? Does Dr. Milton Diamond (e.g.) link his research to a theory of patriarchy? Synthesis is original research; whether it's a brilliant addition to scholarship, crackpot, or somewhere in between. WP:NOR (yawns) Billbrock 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a quote for a 2006 article before seeing this comment, that should answer your fair request for a citation. Mind you, the Harvard book citation that has stood since I first created the section is sufficient to establish almost everything stated (except the genetic stuff which is new). That whole section is still incomplete, though, (and flagged as such) it is just a stub for a fuller article at the moment. Only a summary will remain here I expect. Follow the internal links if you want to know more. The entries for Money and Diamond (kinda cute pair of names, lol) cover pretty much all the general things I've learned about them and point to some helpful offsite pages.

Diamond is not directly interested in patriarchy, nor are the other biologists, which makes them excellent objective evidence to confirm Goldberg's hypothesis. Goldberg is the critic of the critics, he predicted biology would provide an explanation for male dominance behaviour, he was right; but just as he said, it doesn't help our moral dilemma much, and it's ultimately the moral question that concerns people most. Interesting times ahead ...

Regarding synthesis, at another entry I wrote up for Wiki, I was awarded a "Quote farm" tag. I checked the Wiki style guide which recommended synthesis and paraphrase rather than a sequence of direct quotes. It said there were exceptions like lists etc. There's always room for personal taste in these things. The important thing is, everything on this page can be verified. It is factual. I'm satisfied I've used a variety of approaches suited to each context, regarding an approach to citations.

Comments like "(yawn)" make me <giggle> so I'll wave this second personal slight. Hope you get a good night's sleep Bill, cheers. Alastair Haines 16:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You are unsubtly collapsing the distinction between male biological dominance (Great Apes) and the subject of this article. Where's the social structure? Billbrock 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate this direct interaction with the logical flow of the material presented in the article. Yes, the logic is not made explicit in the article for two reasons. Firstly, because the Biology of gender section is explicitly incomplete, and secondly because not every i can be dotted or t crossed in an article, most logical connections must be left to the reader. In this case though, I agree with you in essence, that male gorillas are dominant is no argument that male humans will be dominant. That false argument is normally presented the other way though. For example, female bonabos are dominant shows female humans can be dominant. Of course it shows no such thing.

What consideration of other species shows is only that, the brains of species that reproduce sexually, have individuals of each sex (unlike plants and some worms), and have brains (unlike non-cephalic species) – these species also have sexual dimorphism of the brain. In other words, Homo sapiens would be extraordinary if the brains of men and women were not different. Now, it could be that the difference between male and female brains is real, but of little significance for behaviour. That is something that needs to be studied. In fact, we only have limited information on it at the moment. One thing that is clear though is that male agression and dominance do reside in a sexually dimorphic neuroendocrinological system. In other words, patriarchy has real biological components.

Male dominance among antlered deer is not patriarchy. Patriarchy is, by definition, a human phenomenon. What is important about species other than Homo sapiens is sexual dimorphism, not male domination. Male domination is universal within some species, Homo sapiens is merely one of those species. In Homo sapiens we call male dominance patriarchy. Hope that clears things up. Alastair Haines 02:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"In Homo sapiens we call male dominance patriarchy." And your source for this original research? Is monarchy domination of the "mon"? Anarchy, domination of the [m]an? How does your private definition account for Papa Smurf and Vito Corleone, patriarchs in an overwhelmingly male world? Why is the word "patriarchy" and not "virarchy"? Billbrock 05:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC) The first sentence of the current edit reads, "Patriarchy describes the structuring of society on the basis of family units, where fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of their families." Rather more than male dominance. Billbrock 06:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill, you have a great sense of humour and a quick wit, not to mention other obvious indicators of a keen analytical mind and social sensitivity. I really appreciate your comments and they have helped stimulate and clarify my own thinking, you have influenced more of what I have written than you might imagine. Also, let me say I really appreciate that you don't hassle me about bias, which you readily can see is not an issue. I take your original research line seriously and in good faith, like all your comments. Without joking about it as flattery, I appreciate defending against the charge because I think that is much more likely to be my weakness. Still, you have not convinced me of it.

The first line of the article repeats the standard definition of patriarchy – father rule. The third explains the feminist and anthropological extention to male dominance, i.e. public office, human "Alpha"s if you like. Anthropologists and feminists do not apply patriarchy as a description of animal behaviour. So, not original research, it is feminism that has taught me male dominance in human society is called patriarchy and I've acknowledged that source.

Monarchy is defined in this article, anarchy isn't, the "an" in anarchy is a negating prefix, so the word means no-rule, as I'm sure you know. Actually, "androcracy" (krat, being the Greek root for power), is used rather than "virarchy" (which would mix Latin and Greek); and yes, "androcracy" is the traditional word for formal power being vested only in men. Feminists have changed the terminology though. They have a very good theoretical basis for that too – one thing leads to another, state and family model off one-another. That is feminist original research, that I think is a helpful contribution to human knowledge. I'm not going to quibble over the feminist change of terminology, especially when anthropologists do it too, and did it first. Alastair Haines 13:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Alleged matriarchies," Take Two

Encyclopedia articles have conventions. They are not books; they are not platforms for proferring original research or peer-reviewed research marginal at best to the article's topic. I have previously offered objections to this section here. A substantive response has not yet been received. Billbrock 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill, you have not provided any substiantiated objection to this article as it stands, or I would have changed it. The anthropological material is obviously related to patriarchy, every society mentioned in that section is a patriarchy. They are listed for precisely the reason that they are patriarchies. In other words, they provide a cross-cultural picture of patriarchy. If others find the heading confusing, perhaps it could be clarified by calling it "Patriarchies claimed by some to be matriarchies". This seems rather a cumbersome way of dealing with what most readers are, I think, smart enough to work out for themselves. It's a matter of how much faith we have in our readers. I will trial the heading "Patriarchies in dispute".

Personally, I find it hard to see why a list of patriarchies would be relevant at the matriarchy page, or I would place them there. It is especially odd because of more than a thousand cultures in the standard literature, near all are patriarchies, does that seem helpful to the argument of the matriarchy page? If you think the material is relevant to matriarchy, please copy it there, or link to it from there (at the moment that page tells only one side of the story, but tells it well and I like it). I will not remove what you copy to the matriarchy page if you do that, but nor will I restore it if people delete it there.

A wise Wikipedian pointed out to me, if you think an article is POV, correct that by addition, not subtraction. I personally am in favour of free speech and against censorship. The matriarchy page is POV, but done appropriately. Putting the case for patriarchy there would swamp the minority view. I want all points of view heard. The encyclopedic convention is to report each of all published views, without leading a reader to which selection is prefered.

I am against censorship of feminism, against censorship of patriarchy, against censorship of matriarchy, and against censorship of biological research. Alastair Haines 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"A wise Wikipedian pointed out to me, if you think an article is POV, correct that by addition, not subtraction." What new national flag would make an appropriate contribution to the Patriarchy#Patriarchies_in_dispute cutting-edge scholarship exhibited in this section? Billbrock 20:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh my! Thanks again Bill, but unfortunately I really don't think quoting the original ethnographers, several going back to the 19th century counts as being very original. It's a quote farm, i.e. not original, they are really old quotes, so not original, Britannica says "no known matriarchies according to anthropology", so not original, Mead said it in the 50s, so not original, sourced from published bibliographies, so not original. Love the sound of "cutting edge" though, tickles my masculine vanity perhaps, damn that testosterone. ;) Cheers again Bill. Alastair Haines 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patriarchy (anthropology)

Hmm. Distinction between the articles?

Yeah, not much, please add some! :D Alastair Haines 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The correct WP solution is to merge. Billbrock 19:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The WP software is telling me the Patriarchy article is long and recommends some subsections become stubs for new main entries, retaining only a summary at Patriarchy. The longest section is the Patriarchies in dispute section. This material is all anthropological, so I copied that section to Patriarchy (anthropology) which was only a stub. If those who opened and maintain that section are happy to host the material, I will remove it from the main Patriarchy entry. Wiki is a team effort I am not willing to merge without consultation. I am willing to wait for comment from active, contributing editors. What is important is that sourced and verifiable content not disappear into limbo. Unsourced, unverifiable material can be deleted at any time, especially if it is slander of living people, or political or commercial advertising.

If you twist my arm hard enough, when I have time, I will write up a section sourced on the American moral majority to express the promotion of patriarchy angle, and win space for it by merging the Patriarchies in dispute section to Patriarchy (anthropology). That will have to wait, because I know what will happen. "Edit wars" will resume. Anonymous users will daily delete that section until admin are forced to place a "protected" tag on the material. The only time protection is necessary is when it is clear that deletion is regular.

I consider it a miracle that the anti-feminists have not been removing the Feminist criticism section. It was mainly to establish the stability of that section that I wrote this article in the first place. (I came to this entry while researching patriarchy in feminism.) That's why the article only has minimal criticism of the feminist position – just enough not to be guilty of feminist POV. The anthropological and scientific data only make the feminist position more urgent, though, they do not genuinely challenge it.

Anyway, the Wiki guidelines I read pointed out that erring on the side of having more information than less is preferable, as their storage capacity is not an issue, but voluntary contributions are a precious resource. Information is therefore duplicated, awaiting stability of Patriarchy (anthropology) subtopic. Alastair Haines 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nature and nurture?

Dear readers, especially Bill, please help me. I want to make a concession to Bill. I stand by everything I've written in discussion above, but want to move on from those points. What is important in the discussion above is that Bill asks all the right questions about the article conforming to Wiki encyclopedic policy, and I think I provide all the right answers. It is a good discussion, and it is good to have it documented.

What I would love to hear feedback on is the following. Above I deny that this article has a "thesis" or presents an "argument". This may seem strange and is a little technical. The important challenge Bill raises is that if the article does argue for something, then that makes it a thesis. It is then either original research or a point of view, and the opposing point of view should also be expressed, or we lose neutrality.

The obvious points of view regarding patriarchy are feminism, which is against it, and "conservative family values", which are broadly in favour of it. As it turns out, this article does not actually put the "family values" argument. Personally, I don't think that is too much of a problem, because the definition and related words and customs give a picture of those traditional values anyway.

However, the moral question for or against patriarchy is not the only issue related to the subject. There is a separate but related question. Are gender roles 100% determined by society and therefore changeable, are they 100% determined by biology so something we should learn to live with, or is it more complicated and something in between?

As it turns out, patriarchy is right at the heart of the debate concerning nature or nurture in gender roles, and has been since Goldberg was published in 1973. As it also turns out, we now know a lot more than we did 30 years ago.

Now here are my questions. Do we need more information regarding those who defend the moral advantages of patriarchy? Do we need more information regarding the biological influences on patriarchal behaviour in humans? Do we need more information regarding cross-cultural evidence of patriarchy? Or ... are these things sufficiently verified as the article stands? My personal instinct is to avoid the moral debate and stick with the history, culture and science, those things are merely a matter of reporting published results.

The other reason to focus on the science in this article is because that is what has changed most in the last 30 years. It is likely to trigger a lot of debate into the future. It is verifiable and important, without telling people what to think about how to organize life or society, it can inform them to make such decisions. What do people think? Alastair Haines 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic, POV, original research. Would benefit from more flags. Billbrock 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't see those things myself Bill, you'll have to help me and explain how you come to that perception. Alastair Haines 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There are 192 United_Nations_member_states. How many flags do you have? Q.E.D. Billbrock 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I counted them Bill, there are 20 distinct flags, including Quebec. Your point? Leaving out 172 flags is biased? ;) I'm keen to replace the flags with public domain pics of tribes, tribal areas or ethnographers, got any time to source those for us? Alastair Haines 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm confident you can work this into the article. Brevity and focus are virtues. Laundry lists are impediments to understanding. The addition of national flags are mere decoration, and would be considered cheesy on a junior high school poster board. Billbrock 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal slights, however witty, are not serious contributions to improvement. Let's ignore the domestic allusions re kitchens, laundries and cheese, to address relevent issues like brevity and focus.

First, focus: I repeat from above, each item on the list is a description of an authoritative source describing a patriarchy. Are patriarchal societies relevant to an article on patriarchy? I honestly can't find an argument against that. Second, brevity: again as recorded in the article, of more than 1,000 patriarchies only a couple of dozen are listed (2%) (of 192 flags, 20 are used -- 10%).

Returning to focus, the selection of the societies is simple, any society seriously claimed to be matriarchal is listed (non-serious fantasy suggestions like Amazons and Kubla Khan are excluded). Wiki can do better than the "no matriarchies" claim of Britannica, given the storage space available to an electronic reference work. Wiki can make the verification of authoritative sources available to her readers. This is also important because half the societies listed are claimed as matriarchies within Wiki. That's ok, 'cause those articles are simply reporting minority points of view. The natural place for the data, on which the majority report of expert opinion that "patriarchy is everywhere" is based, is Patriarchy, of course. What else do we do? Say there is so much evidence of this, but we can't show it to you, because some readers might get bored? I have relegated the data to an appendix for this very reason.

Now, there is an alternative, we could delete all the references to possible matriarchal societies across Wiki, and protect the secondary and tertiary citations that verify the majority view, and leave it at that. That would help brevity, but that doesn't make sense to me, as claims for matriarchies ought to be reported and space isn't an issue. If we keep those references though, we also need to record the alternative, majority view somewhere. Wiki has no policy of silencing the majority view on subjects, so the minority can be heard, especially at a page describing the phenomenon the majority and experts consider universal. There's something very wierd about that kind of suggestion. Alastair Haines 06:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Personal slights, however witty, are not serious contributions to improvement." I believe the slight was directed at the lame article. Every serious writer has produced utter crap; the trick is to recognize it as such. Namaste. Billbrock 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I'm sure you'll be pleased to know, Wiki have actually made a template to make it easier to recognize country references, by automatically providing flags! I'll get on to this right away. :D Alastair Haines 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
“ Wikipedia:Country referencing templates are designed to provide a tiny thumbnail of a country's flag next to its hyperlinked name, meant to visually improve lists of nations. ”
So the Naxi Kingdom was Maoist? Billbrock 02:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appears to contradict article Issues in anarchism

I have tagged this article because it appears to contradict something stated in Issues in anarchism: "Anarcho-primitivists point to the anti-authoritarian nature of many 'primitive' or hunter-gatherer societies throughout the world's history as examples of anarchist societies." (Note that I am not making any implied comment on whether one article is more reliable/credible than the other. I am about to tag the other article as well!)

However, if all known primitive societies were patriarchal - as asserted by this article, that implies that in all such societies, women were basically subordinate to men. Hardly "anti-authoritarian".

Which statement is right? Or have I misunderstood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greenrd (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello! Thank you for this good work! This is just what Wiki is all about. If we detect a contradiction, we can investigate and improve one or both articles.

The thing that first jumps to my mind here is how the anarchy page can verify that, "'primitive' or hunter-gather societies throughout the world's history" were anarchies and anti-authoritarian. Before 3,000 BC everyone is guessing, because we have no written documents describing society before that time. That's not too much of a problem, though, because we have plenty of documents over the last 5,000 years describing contact between literate societies and those without writing, who were often considered "primitive", and were indeed generally less complicated in social structures (which is what is probably meant by "primitive").

Now, I'm afraid my knowledge of the 1,500-2,000 or so known societies of human history is quite limited. I know the ancient near east, and I know about socities with high levels of focus on women, but that's about it. What I have picked up, though, is that even the most primitive seeming societies usually have strong social systems. There's enough for patriarchy anyway, but that's not necessarily enough to avoid anarchy. What I mean is, if every man and his family do what they like, without having clan chiefs, that's pretty close to anarchy, while still having patriarchy, if you see what I mean.

Both patriarchy and anarchy are not ON and OFF switches, they are more like volume controls, they slide from 0% to 100%. Yes, at a family level, 100% anarchy would mean 0% patriarchy, and that probably never happens; but let's say 50%-50% seems likely. Say children tend to put their own desires second to their father's wishes about 50% of the time, that'd probably be true in a lot of pretty normal patriarchies. I guess though, you'd need to have 90% anarchy though for it to really count as anarchy.

I think what anarchy is about is at a higher level than the family though. The anthropologists say all societies have marriage, family and an incest taboo. Obviously those are all family matters. I'm sure anarchy is still anarchy even if families are pretty stable, if there's no government, it's anarchy.

There are two main reasons I think there's no contradiction here though:

  1. this article says there are no matriarchies it doesn't say all are patriarchies
  2. the anarchy article says some people claim some primitives societies were anarchies, it doesn't say that is a fact

These might seem funny points to make. The theory of patriarchy is that IF there is a heirarchy, men will jump for the top jobs ... then you get patriarchy. BUT if there is no heirarchy, there's nothing for men to go for, so there's no patriarchy, just anarchy. Can you see how that resolves the apparant contradiction?

Also, although it would be nice if everything in Wiki was true, actually that's not the aim of an encyclopedia. What an encyclopedia does is record what people know and think about things. Hopefully this will include lots of true things. However, sometimes people don't agree about what is true, so we are careful and record both views and the reasons for those views. Usually those views are both given within the same article, but sometimes they are given in different articles.

I'm going to check out the anarchy page, check that this article doesn't say all societies are patriarchies, find some sources if necessary, and remove the tag. If you are unhappy with my answer here, please return the tag and we can talk some more. Alastair Haines 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I checked the anarchy page, I'm happy the sentence you quote actually contradicts itself. If anarchist societies have no authorities, how can they be anti-authoritarian? ;)
Here it is again: "Anarcho-primitivists point to the anti-authoritarian nature of many 'primitive' or hunter-gatherer societies throughout the world's history as examples of anarchist societies."
Cheers Alastair Haines 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assesment March 30 2007

I have reassessed this article for the Sociology Wikiproject. I feel that a lot of work has been put into this article and that it is now a low B class article. I have the following suggestions for improvement of this article:

  • There is a lot of information but it is poorly organized. Related words and Related customs should be moved to the end. Maybe make it one section.
  • Patriarchy and Feminism. Give an overview and move most of the info over to the article on this.
  • Patriarchy and Anthropology section. Leave it in it's own article. Have a summery on this page.
  • Images. There are too many. Use no more than 1-2 images per section. Make them larger. Make sure that they are relevant. Also give the images descriptive tags. Rather than just a persons name also give a short description of why you have a picture of them or what your graph is illustrating.
  • Table. Should probably be moved to its own article. Maybe "List of possible matriarchal societies" or something similar.
  • Links. Don't use "see" to direct people to links. Write the links into the text of the article.
  • Research Ethics section. Not sure why this is here.
  • Tone. It is too conversationalist. Try to adopt a more formal tone.
  • The main thing is the article is suffering from information overload. A small amount of info well organized is more useful than a large jumble of information. I suggest drawing up an outline for the article on paper. Before adding any further information organize what you have and then look and find out what is missing. Let me know if you have any questions. Jvbishop 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/Talk%7EPatriarchy_2878.html"