Is patriarchy inherently wrong?

[AgnosticBoy]

This topic is related to another topic that questions why God would make rules that subjugate women. I can accept that there are rules in the Bible that subjugate women. What I don't agree with are the views and that says that all rules involving men being over women (or taking a lead role) are wrong. I question these views because there are some patriarchal standards that are good or that don't cause harm and/or the suppression of women.

When I've had this conversation in the past, I tend to find a lot of assumptions of how patriarchy should be (as if there's only one way to lead - the dictator way?) or I find a lot of double-standards. So let's debate!

Is patriarchy inherently wrong (meaning any or all forms are wrong)?

[Miles]

.

So, what are some of the patriarchal standards that are good or that don't cause harm and/or the suppression of women? And what rules involving men being over women (or taking a lead role) are right? ..Sexist egotistical lying hypocritical bigots would like to know.

.

[AgnosticBoy]

.

So, what are some of the patriarchal standards that are good or that don't cause harm and/or the suppression of women? And what rules involving men being over women (or taking a lead role) are right? ..Sexist men would like to know.

.

1. Men taking the lead role in protecting (security, warfare, etc).
2. Men taking the lead role when it comes to providing, especially when there are kids involved.

*Keep in mind, that I'm not arguing that the man should do these things. My point is that it is a good option for those that choose to live with that arrangement.

[Miles]

.

So, what are some of the patriarchal standards that are good or that don't cause harm and/or the suppression of women? And what rules involving men being over women (or taking a lead role) are right? ..Sexist men would like to know.

.

1. Men taking the lead role in protecting (security, warfare, etc).

Not roles but "standards" and "rules." In any case, we have:

Lori Robinson, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) is a retired four star general. Laura J. Richardson, (Commander, U.S. Southern Command) and Jacqueline D. Van Ovost (Commander, U.S. Transportation Command ) are also four star generals; while Lisa M. Franchetti (Vice Chief of Naval Operations ) and Linda L. Fagan (Commandant of the Coast Guard) are admirals. Seems there are a lot of leading roles women can take in protecting (security, warfare, etc).

Keep in mind, that I'm not arguing that the man should do these things. My point is that it is a good option for those that choose to live with that arrangement.

And what of those women who would choose to live with that arrangement? Shouldn't they be afforded the option?


.

[AgnosticBoy]

1. Men taking the lead role in protecting (security, warfare, etc).

Not roles but "standards" and "rules."

I wouldn't talk about rules or standards as if one person is prescribing them. My arguments rests on a consensual form of patriarchy where a couple chooses to follow traditional gender roles.

In any case, we have:
Lori Robinson, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) is a retired four star general. Laura J. Richardson, (Commander, U.S. Southern Command) and Jacqueline D. Van Ovost (Commander, U.S. Transportation Command ) are also four star generals; while Lisa M. Franchetti (Vice Chief of Naval Operations ) and Linda L. Fagan (Commandant of the Coast Guard) are admirals. Seems there are a lot of leading roles women can take in protecting (security, warfare, etc).

I'll scale back my example because your example is too broad for my point to work unless we get into hypotheticals. An obvious problem is if a woman wanted these positions of leadership, and men kept them from getting it, then that would be suppression. A more realistic scenario is a couple deciding that the man should take the lead in protecting the family. If patriarchy was inherently wrong, then there would be no scenario where gender-based leadership would be good.

Keep in mind, that I'm not arguing that the man should do these things. My point is that it is a good option for those that choose to live with that arrangement.

And what of those women who would choose to live with that arrangement? Shouldn't they be afforded the option?

Did you mean to say chooses not to live under that arrangement? Then she doesn't have to. She can decide to live out other more egalitarian options just as long as it causes no harm. I would presume that those who would say it is wrong under any circumstance (i.e to let the man take the lead) are assuming that patriarchy can't coexist with consent.

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's another scenario:
- If a couple is out on a date and is confronted by a person who is trying to rob them, traditional gender roles would have the man protecting his girlfriend.
Does this standard harm women?

[Miles]

1. Men taking the lead role in protecting (security, warfare, etc).

Not roles, but "standards" and "rules."

I wouldn't talk about rules or standards as if one person is prescribing them. My arguments rests on a consensual form of patriarchy where a couple chooses to follow traditional gender roles.

But I didn't ask about roles but the standards and rules you mentioned.

"I question these views because there are some patriarchal standards that are good or that don't cause harm and/or the suppression of women."

"What I don't agree with are the views and that says that all rules involving men being over women (or taking a lead role) are wrong."

Q 1: What are some of the patriarchal standards that are good or that don't cause harm and/or the suppression of women?

Q 2: What rules involving men being over women (or taking a lead role) are right



NOTE: The balance of our discussion is getting just too messy to continue.

.

[AgnosticBoy]

NOTE: The balance of our discussion is getting just too messy to continue.

I can keep that in mind. One change I was considering making was using the terms "traditional gender roles" in place of the word "patriarchy". I figured the two concepts were the same which is why I've used them interchangeably.

Did you read my post #6 which has clearest point here on standards?

But I didn't ask about roles but the standards and rules you mentioned.

"I question these views because there are some patriarchal standards that are good or that don't cause harm and/or the suppression of women."

"What I don't agree with are the views and that says that all rules involving men being over women (or taking a lead role) are wrong."

I was trying to explain that a "standard" and "role" are not mutually exclusive. It can be a standard for the man to play the head role. The Bible makes it a "rule" for the husband to play the head role (e.g. where it says wives submit to husbands).

Let me know if you need anything clarified or simplified as I'm really interested in seeing an argument that shows that any or all forms of patriarchy are harmful to women.

[AgnosticBoy]

1. Men taking the lead role in protecting (security, warfare, etc).

Not roles but "standards" and "rules." In any case, we have:

Lori Robinson, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) is a retired four star general. Laura J. Richardson, (Commander, U.S. Southern Command) and Jacqueline D. Van Ovost (Commander, U.S. Transportation Command ) are also four star generals; while Lisa M. Franchetti (Vice Chief of Naval Operations ) and Linda L. Fagan (Commandant of the Coast Guard) are admirals. Seems there are a lot of leading roles women can take in protecting (security, warfare, etc).

Taking a second shot at this...

I don't dispute that women can be leaders, but it would be relevant to the topic to also show that it would be harmful if only men held those positions. Take the more isolated example that I offered regarding a bad guy trying to rob a couple. Sure, you can say that the woman can fight off the bad guy, but the question is if it would be harmful to women if the man did the fighting for them.

*I presume that the man doing the fighting or protecting was a patriarchal standard or a traditional gender role.

[mms20102]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]

In the introduction of a book I recenty read and recommend for everyone to read (King Warrior Magician Lover by Moore, Robert L.) I found this main idea of the fact that patriarchy is nothing but immature masculinity.

you can borrow the book here and see where it spoke about patriarchy
https://archive.org/details/kingwarrior ... PATRIARCHY

Feminism took this concept of patriarchy to attack masculinity as a whole and the book showed how both attacking masculinity and patriarchy are wrong.

Understanding mature masculinity and applying the ideal form of it, will not result in patriarchy on the other hand putting actions under patriarchy just to attack those actions is something we need to consider.

So we need first to understand what you mean by patriarchy in order to say whether it's right or wrong also we need to know according to what we will say it's right or wrong.