8 ms·

No one thinks the patriarchy is a merely legal system enforced by a cabal of men. Patriarchy refers to interwoven social structures that promulgate certain ideo

No one thinks the patriarchy is a merely legal system enforced by a cabal of men. Patriarchy refers to interwoven social structures that promulgate certain ideologies, doctrines, and social customs. The nuclear family is part of patriarchy, for example. Also, actually, there is still a cabal of men in America forcing women to behave in certain ways: The systematic, coordinated campaign against women's reproductive rights.

exstudent2 11y ago
I'm not sure who you mean by "no one" but I certainly don't agree with anything you've stated. It's a pretty extreme view I think few would share.
- icebraining 11y ago
  What's extreme about it? It's just a different definition.
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    I don't think most people would view traditional society as being "the patriarchy". I've only ever heard that term even used in this context by fairly hardcore feminists. I also think this statement is very extreme: > Also, actually, there is still a cabal of men in America forcing women to behave in certain ways: The systematic, coordinated campaign against women's reproductive rights. I don't think that's a mainstream view.
    - comrh 11y ago
      The view that the GOP engages in "the systematic, coordinated campaign against women's reproductive rights" is a pretty mainstream view in the Democratic party, which is pretty mainstream.
      - exstudent2 11y ago
        Is it? I'm neither democrat nor republican but that seems like a non-nuanced way to look at things. I doubt the majority of democrats hold such a simplistic view. Regardless the GOP is not a "cabal of men in America forcing women to behave in certain ways". Even if they believed that (I don't think all republicans do) they in no way have the authority to "force" women to do anything. Abortion is legal in the US. Also GOP != patriarchy.
        comrh 11y ago
        They want to make abortion illegal, a major point of most GOP platforms. So I guess they do believe they have the authority to have a certain amount of control of women's bodies. Certainly it is also a simple view to assume just because something is legal, there is no aspect of control. Funding, access, privacy, there are tons things to consider outside of just if it is legal. I never said GOP = patriarchy. Just that there is a "systematic, coordinated campaign against women's reproductive rights" and that certainly isn't a fringe statement. This campaign is indicative of one of the OP's definitions: "interwoven social structures that promulgate certain ideologies, doctrines, and social customs."
        exstudent2 11y ago
        The op said "cabal of men". The GOP is presumably 50/50 male/female. You're really stretching the original comment to try to make it less extreme.
        comrh 11y ago
        You're splitting hairs to ignore my point. There are also only three women on the RNC leadership and only 10% of the GOP in Congress is female [1] so I don't know where you got 50/50. There is even a long wikipedia article detailing the "War on Women"[2]. Quotes by Obama and the DNC follow similar rhetoric. You can keep calling it "extreme" but it is a very common view. A group, the large majority of are male, are trying to limit what a women can do with her body. The same thing the OP said. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/upshot/gop-women-in-congress-why-so-few.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/upshot/gop-women-in-congre... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women
Vaskivo 11y ago
Besides the obvious abortion debate, what is still missing concerning american women's reproductive rights?
- comrh 11y ago
  Denying birth control based on your employer's religious beliefs, defunding women's health initiatives, ect.
  - hiram112 11y ago
    You meant subsidizing women's health issues, I think.
- waqf 11y ago
  [A]part from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
>The nuclear family is part of patriarchy, for example. You are presuming that traditional behaviour is pathological. Why? Why exactly is the nuclear family pathological? Two people in a partnership raising the children they love together using division of labour? This seems pretty rational. My mother did this. Was she a victim for doing so? It is good to offer people the freedom to choose, but when they choose something other than what you would do not blame it on brainwashing.
- xixi77 11y ago
  There is nothing wrong or pathological about people who want nuclear family having nuclear family; the question is, should people who aren't necessarily as interested in it be socially pressured to having one as well?
  - fleitz 11y ago
    Who cares, seriously if you can't stand social pressure you're just not cut out to be a leader. The entire point of leaders is to do things that are unpopular that benefit the group. You don't need leaders to do popular things, they just happen. Fundamentally if you want to make omelettes you're going to have to break some eggs, if your friends say breaking eggs is bad you have two choices, tell them off, or don't break eggs. Those that are willing to break eggs are allowed to be chefs.
- pyre 11y ago
  Yes, people should not be disparaged for their choices, and in general we want to offer the ability to choose. The real problem is are people growing up in a society where they are being subconsciously funnelled towards a particular choice (to the point where they don't see other options as valid choices due to subconscious biases). You just have to look at all of the crazy responses to Target (a US retailer) removing the gender-specific labelling of toys (from "Girl Toys" and "Boy Toys" to just "Toys") to see how as a society we are not at a point where "we" aren't trying to impose a particular ideal (e.g. "Barbies are girl toys") on children as they grow up. > Two people in a partnership raising the children they love together using division of labour? This is more generic than the "nuclear family" traditionally is viewed. If it was just two people dividing up labour, then the "nuclear family" could equally have the father as the homemaker and the mother as the breadwinner. When people typically refer to the "nuclear family" they are referring to some idealized Leave It To Beaver type setup.
tomp 11y ago
> The nuclear family is part of patriarchy, for example. So in your view, basically patriarchy == culture? Why use a new word then? > Also, actually, there is still a cabal of men in America forcing women to behave in certain ways: The systematic, coordinated campaign against women's reproductive rights. You could equivalently claim that there exists a cabal of women that is forcing unborn babies to die. Populist claims are populist.
jazzyk 11y ago
There is also a cabal of (conservative) women campaigning against women's reproductive rights. This example does not prove your point.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Last I checked, the majority of both genders support banning some forms of abortion and legalizing some forms of abortion, generally with later abortions being banned more often and earlier abortions and those involving the classical exceptions being legalized more.

exstudent2 11y ago

I'm not sure who you mean by "no one" but I certainly don't agree with anything you've stated. It's a pretty extreme view I think few would share.

icebraining 11y ago
What's extreme about it? It's just a different definition.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  I don't think most people would view traditional society as being "the patriarchy". I've only ever heard that term even used in this context by fairly hardcore feminists. I also think this statement is very extreme: > Also, actually, there is still a cabal of men in America forcing women to behave in certain ways: The systematic, coordinated campaign against women's reproductive rights. I don't think that's a mainstream view.
  - comrh 11y ago
    The view that the GOP engages in "the systematic, coordinated campaign against women's reproductive rights" is a pretty mainstream view in the Democratic party, which is pretty mainstream.
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      Is it? I'm neither democrat nor republican but that seems like a non-nuanced way to look at things. I doubt the majority of democrats hold such a simplistic view. Regardless the GOP is not a "cabal of men in America forcing women to behave in certain ways". Even if they believed that (I don't think all republicans do) they in no way have the authority to "force" women to do anything. Abortion is legal in the US. Also GOP != patriarchy.
      - comrh 11y ago
        They want to make abortion illegal, a major point of most GOP platforms. So I guess they do believe they have the authority to have a certain amount of control of women's bodies. Certainly it is also a simple view to assume just because something is legal, there is no aspect of control. Funding, access, privacy, there are tons things to consider outside of just if it is legal. I never said GOP = patriarchy. Just that there is a "systematic, coordinated campaign against women's reproductive rights" and that certainly isn't a fringe statement. This campaign is indicative of one of the OP's definitions: "interwoven social structures that promulgate certain ideologies, doctrines, and social customs."
        exstudent2 11y ago
        The op said "cabal of men". The GOP is presumably 50/50 male/female. You're really stretching the original comment to try to make it less extreme.
        comrh 11y ago
        You're splitting hairs to ignore my point. There are also only three women on the RNC leadership and only 10% of the GOP in Congress is female [1] so I don't know where you got 50/50. There is even a long wikipedia article detailing the "War on Women"[2]. Quotes by Obama and the DNC follow similar rhetoric. You can keep calling it "extreme" but it is a very common view. A group, the large majority of are male, are trying to limit what a women can do with her body. The same thing the OP said. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/upshot/gop-women-in-congress-why-so-few.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/upshot/gop-women-in-congre... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women

Vaskivo 11y ago

Besides the obvious abortion debate, what is still missing concerning american women's reproductive rights?

comrh 11y ago
Denying birth control based on your employer's religious beliefs, defunding women's health initiatives, ect.
- hiram112 11y ago
  You meant subsidizing women's health issues, I think.
waqf 11y ago
[A]part from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago

>The nuclear family is part of patriarchy, for example. You are presuming that traditional behaviour is pathological. Why? Why exactly is the nuclear family pathological? Two people in a partnership raising the children they love together using division of labour? This seems pretty rational. My mother did this. Was she a victim for doing so? It is good to offer people the freedom to choose, but when they choose something other than what you would do not blame it on brainwashing.

xixi77 11y ago
There is nothing wrong or pathological about people who want nuclear family having nuclear family; the question is, should people who aren't necessarily as interested in it be socially pressured to having one as well?
- fleitz 11y ago
  Who cares, seriously if you can't stand social pressure you're just not cut out to be a leader. The entire point of leaders is to do things that are unpopular that benefit the group. You don't need leaders to do popular things, they just happen. Fundamentally if you want to make omelettes you're going to have to break some eggs, if your friends say breaking eggs is bad you have two choices, tell them off, or don't break eggs. Those that are willing to break eggs are allowed to be chefs.
pyre 11y ago
Yes, people should not be disparaged for their choices, and in general we want to offer the ability to choose. The real problem is are people growing up in a society where they are being subconsciously funnelled towards a particular choice (to the point where they don't see other options as valid choices due to subconscious biases). You just have to look at all of the crazy responses to Target (a US retailer) removing the gender-specific labelling of toys (from "Girl Toys" and "Boy Toys" to just "Toys") to see how as a society we are not at a point where "we" aren't trying to impose a particular ideal (e.g. "Barbies are girl toys") on children as they grow up. > Two people in a partnership raising the children they love together using division of labour? This is more generic than the "nuclear family" traditionally is viewed. If it was just two people dividing up labour, then the "nuclear family" could equally have the father as the homemaker and the mother as the breadwinner. When people typically refer to the "nuclear family" they are referring to some idealized Leave It To Beaver type setup.

tomp 11y ago

> The nuclear family is part of patriarchy, for example. So in your view, basically patriarchy == culture? Why use a new word then? > Also, actually, there is still a cabal of men in America forcing women to behave in certain ways: The systematic, coordinated campaign against women's reproductive rights. You could equivalently claim that there exists a cabal of women that is forcing unborn babies to die. Populist claims are populist.

jazzyk 11y ago

There is also a cabal of (conservative) women campaigning against women's reproductive rights. This example does not prove your point.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Last I checked, the majority of both genders support banning some forms of abortion and legalizing some forms of abortion, generally with later abortions being banned more often and earlier abortions and those involving the classical exceptions being legalized more.