Talk:Androcracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page was nominated for deletion, it was decided to move it to its current title instead, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrarchy
[edit] NPOV?
This does appear to be suggesting widespread oppression of women, disenfranchisement, etc.; while I am not advocating a view for or against that proposition, I do not believe that this article is NPOV. 195.137.95.70
- Can you be more specific? --Viriditas | Talk 06:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Chiefly that Australia is 'androcratic' - while I realise the policy changes themselves are described as 'androcratic', there seems little objective evidence that these are conducted solely in the interests of men. Never ascribe to a conspiracy what you can ascribe to stupidity.195.137.95.70
- Let's start by addressing the content you dispute:
- In Australia, androcratic policy changes have impacted women in many significant ways: In 1999, the majority of Australian women's organisations were defunded by the federal Office of the Status of Women; In 2000, a consumption tax was added to tampons and breast pads; Funding for child care was decreased. Efforts are also underway to undermine federal sex discrimination laws that protect women. (Women in Action, 2003) --Viriditas | Talk 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I feel that is better described by 'chauvinistic' than 'androcratic'. While it is, to be sure, a series of policy changes which benefit men, it seems to me unlikely that they are deliberately to benefit men, or that they are symptoms of governance institutionally by and in the interests of men. Probably I'm being silly.195.137.95.70
- In Australia, androcratic policy changes have impacted women in many significant ways: In 1999, the majority of Australian women's organisations were defunded by the federal Office of the Status of Women; In 2000, a consumption tax was added to tampons and breast pads; Funding for child care was decreased. Efforts are also underway to undermine federal sex discrimination laws that protect women. (Women in Action, 2003) --Viriditas | Talk 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Let's start by addressing the content you dispute:
- Chiefly that Australia is 'androcratic' - while I realise the policy changes themselves are described as 'androcratic', there seems little objective evidence that these are conducted solely in the interests of men. Never ascribe to a conspiracy what you can ascribe to stupidity.195.137.95.70
-
-
-
- I am not sure it is a series of policies to benefit men. How do they benefit? There seems to be no reason to single Australia out here and if noone minds I think that section ought to go. Anyone think of a reason why it, and not the US or Iraq, or China, should remain? Lao Wai 15:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] all over the map
Article should mention that the term was coined by Riane Eisler in The Chalice & The Blade, 1987, HarperCollins, p105
I'm not aware of any controversy about "gynocracy". I imagine there are a few well-documented cases of Amazons and such.
There is a controversy is about whether perhaps neither gender dominated the social organization of ancient cultures.
If we had a partnership model we wouldn't need the social programs cited by the article. IMO to cite "defunding" misses the point.
--Munge 08:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Example section? What?
The "Example" section is odd - what exactly is being exemplified? What in that section is an example of an androcracy? Simply because a government has a (even vast) majority of men, does not make it an androcracy. Androcratism is intentional (whether communicated or implied). Perhaps actual examples should be given instead of this bizzare paragraph. I would submit republican ancient greek and roman governments as examples of explicit androcracies.
