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)?

[mms20102]

[Replying to PolytheistWitch in post #20]

Let's consider that I'm confused and it's not true but let's assume.
Since it's easy question to answer and you are not confused about it why you don't answer instead of speaking about me?!

[PolytheistWitch]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #21]

Because there's no reason to answer it. It's not a genuine question it's a politically motivated misogynistic expression of not understanding women and wanting to put it off on women as their fault.

[mms20102]

[Replying to PolytheistWitch in post #22]

politically motivated misogynistic expression of not understanding women and wanting to put it off on women as their fault.

Those are typical words of people trying to escape from a very simple question.

You can't and will not answer because you don't have a definition of what a woman is.

But don't you how quite confused you are right now to the point that you are attacking me instead of answering ?!

[Wyn Morrigan]

[Replying to Wyn Morrigan in post #16]

First, I am a woman who is married to a woman. Which of us should stay home and take care of the children?

What is a woman ?!

It seems strange for you to be asking this question after comfortably responding to earlier questions about the properties of a woman, unless you are asking for bad faith reasons.
However, if you need a definition, here are the definitions which apply to an individual from the top three dictionaries in the list, in order, if you google "Woman definition". Take your pick or offer an alternative - I don't think it matters for the purpose of the discussion.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... lish/woman

- an adult female human being
- an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth
- a wife or female sexual partner

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman

: an adult female person
: a woman belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woman

- an adult female person
- a female employee or representative

Once you have chosen your preferred definition, please respond to my arguments.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Wyn Morrigan in post #24]

here are the definitions which apply to an individual from the top three dictionaries in the list, in order, if you google "Woman definition". Take your pick or offer an alternative - I don't think it matters for the purpose of the discussion.

In fact I'm asking you about your own definition because it will totally affect the discussion.

So if you don't mind pick one definition and stick to it so I can reply to your arguments

[Wyn Morrigan]

[Replying to Wyn Morrigan in post #24]

here are the definitions which apply to an individual from the top three dictionaries in the list, in order, if you google "Woman definition". Take your pick or offer an alternative - I don't think it matters for the purpose of the discussion.

In fact I'm asking you about your own definition because it will totally affect the discussion.

So if you don't mind pick one definition and stick to it so I can reply to your arguments

/sigh

No, I'm not going to do that, actually. That's not how language works - language and definitions are descriptive and not proscriptive - and that's not how actually looking for true answers works, either - if a definition can be shown to be wrong, then you correct the definition.

I was hoping to avoid an irrelevant tangent, but if that's really where you want to go with this, then I suppose we can.
I'm willing to offer a provisional definition of the term - though it would be highly provisional at this point, because I don't have the spoons to attempt extreme thoroughness - but I reserve the right to learn and correct myself and my definitions if anyone can show them to be inaccurate.

But provisionally, I am willing to accept for the purposes of discussion the first definition from the list:

- an adult female human being

[mms20102]

For instance, are women naturally better at caring for children than men?

Yes of course

If so, then does that justify men being the main providers while the woman takes care of the kids?

Totally

First, I am a woman who is married to a woman. Which of us should stay home and take care of the children?

I bring this up not to quibble about breadcrumbs, but to make the point that if you are using a given system to determine who should be in charge of various tasks, and the system is simply unable to address real situations, then there is a problem with the system.


But to address your responses directly - you are making an invalid generalization.
It is definitely not the case that all women are better at caring for children than all men(which I recognize you did not explicitly claim), which means that it is entirely plausible (and effectively certain) that there are couple wherein the man would be the better caretaker, and the woman the better provider.
Further, your division of roles assumes that the effectiveness of the main provider has no weight on the determination - if the woman has a PHD and makes $150,000 a year, and the man is a high school dropout who works at a gas station, it would be ludicrous to disregard the discrepancy.

Perhaps we can say that on average the woman caring for the children and the man acting as the primary provider is the more effective solution, but that's descriptive, not proscriptive - so you cannot blindly rely on a system which proscribes roles or leadership based on gender.

First, I am a woman who is married to a woman. Which of us should stay home and take care of the children?
Both should find a man to take care of them but for both of you I have no right to tell you what to do.
Why because from my “personal view point” Lesbianism is only a psychological problem caused by either sexual abuse or assault, or bad raising at childhood, or fear of men for any reason.
And here are some sources that support my opinion


https://www.idpublications.org/wp-conte ... -Paper.pdf

All the results obtained from this study were tactfully summarized and presented as follows:-
1. Fear of contacting venereal disease can lead to lesbianism.
2. Peer group influence can lead to lesbianism.
3. Poor family upbringing can lead to or cause lesbianism.
4. Fear of becoming pregnant can lead to lesbianism.
5. Disappointment from men can cause or lead to lesbianism.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25942288/

We conclude that many variables influence the reported prevalence of child sexual abuse among sexual minorities.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21247983/

Across all studies, the highest estimates reported were for LSA of LB women (85.0%), CSA of LB women (76.0%), and CSA of GB men (59.2%). With some exceptions, studies using non-probability samples reported higher sexual assault prevalence rates than did population-based or census sample studies. The challenges of assessing sexual assault victimization with GLB populations are discussed, as well as the implications for practice, policy, and future research.

Those are only samples of many studies you can find.

But to address your responses directly - you are making an invalid generalization.
It is definitely not the case that all women are better at caring for children than all men(which I recognize you did not explicitly claim), which means that it is entirely plausible (and effectively certain) that there are couple wherein the man would be the better caretaker, and the woman the better provider.

saying that ultimately all men are is wrong assumption since caretaking and providing are two attributes that are more high at men that women and it doesn't mean the worst caretaking woman is better than the best caretaking man but it means worst is better than the worst and best is the better than the best.

Further, your division of roles assumes that the effectiveness of the main provider has no weight on the determination - if the woman has a PHD and makes $150,000 a year, and the man is a high school dropout who works at a gas station, it would be ludicrous to disregard the discrepancy.

This is a really invalid generalization that you have done so instead of sticking to your own words you made wrong generalizations and we can simply say that she made a wrong choice from the start when she chose someone who is less provider than her while the better providers exist. Look at nobel prize and by sex tell me the number of winners.

If we look at chess which is a great game in my opinion "one of the best" you always see a struggle between only two with no other intervention whatsoever we will see that males dominated this game by huge margin despite the huge female efforts of reaching the same level of males and reason is simple by practice females are more vulnerable to struggle than men
looking at polgar which is considered best player ever she was ranked 69 among all players for the same reason.

In any physical sport you can't make a male compete against a female since apparently it's always a lost case. Imagine even straight girls are already suffering from transgender competitors by they can't say a word about it or they will be eliminated why? because it's a forced opinion and no one can challenge inside the USA.

This is the third time to write this post due to site problems logging me out while writing a post so many words are lost in this third time.

[Wyn Morrigan]

I must admit, I was surprised and amused by the incredible level of misogyny; I shouldn't have been, because you're defending the idea that a patriarchy is good, but here we are. I should have known it would turn into this level of Brandolini's law, though.
We'll have to make an effort not to get caught in the weeds of nonsense.

First, I am a woman who is married to a woman. Which of us should stay home and take care of the children?

Both should find a man to take care of them but for both of you I have no right to tell you what to do.

This was the funny part. You said that my hypothetical high-earning woman should find a man who can provide even better than she can.
I'm at the 91st percentile for income for my state. Once you cut out all the women, the people who are married or otherwise taken, and the much older men, my market for a..."better" provider for me than myself would be pretty miniscule - I don't even know anyone who would fit that criteria, and all this is completely ignoring compatibility and the the human aspect of relationships.
Perhaps it would have been a better choice for me to remain single until I find such an improbable person within my social circles, or simply die an old maid?

However, if I could find a...<looks at the rest of your reply>...wealthy, nobel-prize-winning, grandmaster chess-playing, olympic medalist sugar daddy, I could probably roll with that ; but they'd have to be cool with a polycule, because the love I have for my wife inviolate.
The very concept that a relationship with a potential partner could bring my life greater joy than what I have with my wife, based on such sterile, irrelevant, utilitarian criteria as their capacity as a provider - or even the above listed areas of men's supposed excellence - is comically absurd.

And to be sure, I recognize that a debate predicated upon my individual circumstance is somewhat immaterial, as anecdotes and subjective reported perception and circumstance are poor evidence upon which to base an argument, but it's difficult for me to leave my personal existence out of the debate when it so wonderfully demonstrates the failure of the system under discussion; such proscriptive systems as you propose are always vulnerable to death by exception.

But to avoid turning this into a debate about my life, perhaps we should attempt to step back and work from some generalizations rather than individual example?


The generalization of the argument I was making with my example would be as follows:

- The OP proposed that patriarchy, later amended to patriarchal standards or traditional gender roles, is good because it does not harm women.
- You agreed to the proposition (of traditional gender roles) that women are naturally better caregivers than men, and that in marriages or relationships, that men should therefore be the providers, and women the caregivers for the children.

Agreed?

So to convert my own example into an generalized argument, I would say:

1. There are relationships where both partners in the relationship are women.
2. It is possible for sapphic partners (Women married to women) to have children, via one means or another.
3. In such a situation, traditional gender roles offer no guidance on which partner should take on any given role in the marriage.

Looking over your response, it appears that you believe that...
Such women should break apart a happy marriage and traumatize their children in order to take a long shot in the dating lottery that they can find a man who would be a better provider for them and their children?
And you think this would be less harmful to them and/or their children?

Or perhaps your argument is not so extreme, and is merely than lesbians don't actually exist, so there shouldn't be such situations as I've described in the first place?

To be sure, that doesn't address the existing situation of sapphic relationships with children in any way, it's also entirely a red herring (not to mention false, of course).

If either of the following are true, then your argument fails:
1) There are women who are exclusively attracted to women (I.e. Lesbians exist)
2) Lesbian relationships are not inherently less happy than heterosexual relationships

Well, let's take a look at number 2, first.
If lesbian marriages are happy, then they are not detrimental to women.
Well, guess what? it looks like lesbian marriages are *happier* than heterosexual marriages!
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... jomf.12582

So it doesn't matter if there are women who are exclusively attracted to women or not, because apparently, if women marry one another, they are happy!


So what about point 1, that lesbians do, in fact, exist.

First of all, I don't even need to go into the specifics of your cited studies, for a couple of reasons.

Every major medical and psychological research and treatment organization in the world agrees that homosexuality is a real, natural phenomenon, and that there are individuals who are attracted only to individuals of the same sex, though I'm not going to waste my time finding lists of all of them. Psychologists used to consider homosexuality a mental disorder - but they don't anymore.

And to be sure, I am not telling you that science is infallible; scientists make mistakes all the time.
But what I am telling you is that international scientific organizations, and large groups of scientists and researchers? Don't like to change their mind on established science. If they do, it will mean that many of them have wasted years or decades of their lives in irrelevant research.
They only reverse themselves on previous established theory when presented with overwhelming mountains of evidence they cannot ignore.

I'm not saying that science is never wrong; what I AM saying is that if large bodies of scientific researchers pull a complete 180? change their minds completely upon a specific point or theory?
It is possible that they are still wrong. But it is an effective certainty that they were wrong.

https://www.idpublications.org/wp-conte ... -Paper.pdf

All the results obtained from this study were tactfully summarized and presented as follows:-
1. Fear of contacting venereal disease can lead to lesbianism.
2. Peer group influence can lead to lesbianism.
3. Poor family upbringing can lead to or cause lesbianism.
4. Fear of becoming pregnant can lead to lesbianism.
5. Disappointment from men can cause or lead to lesbianism.

Really? Have you looked at the study? Are you serious?
Here's the header, after the introduction.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Lesbianism has no doubt, and remains a problem because it affects (the practitioners) both
physiologically and psychologically. Physiologically because they don’t associate with their
opposite sex as was the case in heterosexual relationship. Some of the female adolescent
students found themselves in the dirty act of lesbianism because of poor inter-social
behaviour between them and their opposite counterparts. Psychologically, because they do
not have interest in their opposite sex counterparts which may affect them in future marital
relationships. It makes them to develop deviant behaviours such as inferiority complex
amongst other deviant temperaments. It is a distortion of biological and psychological
component of the body and a threat to ultimate survival of human race, a dehumanizing act,
making mockery of divine image originally made.

Gee, that certainly looks like an unbiased, scientific study, to me! /sarcasm

And then you look at the questions used in the study. They asked 150 random college students to rate how much they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements related to the quesitons you quoted. They did NOT specifically ask lesbians; they asked them to rate whether they agree or disagree with statements such as "Some female students go into lesbianism to avoid venereal diseases.", "Some Female students become lesbians because their roommates lured them into the act.", "A girl from Christian family cannot be a lesbian.", or "Some female students became lesbians because they want to avoid disappointment from men."

Your first link, your top ticket item of evidence to show that lesbianism is a mental disorder, is a survey with blatant anti-LGBT bias written into it's own language, asking 150 random female college students to speculate on statements about what might cause other students to become lesbians?

Do I even need to explain that asking untrained college students to speculate about what causes other students to be lesbians is not scientific research into the causes of homosexuality?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25942288/

We conclude that many variables influence the reported prevalence of child sexual abuse among sexual minorities.

Again, is this supposed to be evidence? This isn't even on topic.
This is not referring to causation of homosexuality. This statement implicitly acknowledges that there is a higher reported prevalence of child sexual abuse among sexual minorities, and says that are a lot of variables which influence that.
You cannot take causality from that.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21247983/

Across all studies, the highest estimates reported were for LSA of LB women (85.0%), CSA of LB women (76.0%), and CSA of GB men (59.2%). With some exceptions, studies using non-probability samples reported higher sexual assault prevalence rates than did population-based or census sample studies. The challenges of assessing sexual assault victimization with GLB populations are discussed, as well as the implications for practice, policy, and future research.

This study is on the prevalence of lifetime sexual assault against LGBT people. Not even childhood sexual assault.
Yes, LGBT people are at far higher risk of being victims of sexual assault, such as so called "corrective rape" of lesbians. That has nothing to do with why LGBT people are LGBT to begin with.

Those are only samples of many studies you can find.

Sure, like this one (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777026/ ) that indicates a biological mechanism in-utero that shows a link with homosexuality.

or this one (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4620281/ ) that shows a higher rate of homosexuality and gender-nonconformity in children of mothers who had thyroid dysfunction during pregnancy.

or this one (https://books.google.com/books?id=zOXwE ... &q&f=false ) discussing other biological factors, such as a 52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins

this one (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693 ) specifically showing links between chromosome 4 and homosexuality in women, specifically.

And I could go on for days.

So if we want to talk science and studies, you've got studies on the lifetime rates of sexual assault among LGBT people, and polls asking students to speculate on the sexuality of others, and I've got endless lists of studies showing exact biological mechanisms linked to homosexuality and gender non-conformity.

But to address your responses directly - you are making an invalid generalization.
It is definitely not the case that all women are better at caring for children than all men(which I recognize you did not explicitly claim), which means that it is entirely plausible (and effectively certain) that there are couple wherein the man would be the better caretaker, and the woman the better provider.

saying that ultimately all men are is wrong assumption since caretaking and providing are two attributes that are more high at men that women and it doesn't mean the worst caretaking woman is better than the best caretaking man but it means worst is better than the worst and best is the better than the best.

I don't think it's quantifiable who in the world would be the "best" caregiver, but even if we assume for the sake of argument that you are correct here, that's irrelevant, because as you agreed, there can be given men who are better caregivers than given women.
So if such a couple gets together, which is an effective certainty to be the case at some level of frequency, there are in fact heterosexual couples where the man is the better caregiver.

Further, your division of roles assumes that the effectiveness of the main provider has no weight on the determination - if the woman has a PHD and makes $150,000 a year, and the man is a high school dropout who works at a gas station, it would be ludicrous to disregard the discrepancy.

This is a really invalid generalization that you have done so instead of sticking to your own words you made wrong generalizations and we can simply say that she made a wrong choice from the start when she chose someone who is less provider than her while the better providers exist. Look at nobel prize and by sex tell me the number of winners.

I wasn't making a generalization there, I was using an example to show the falsity of a generalization.

If we look at chess which is a great game in my opinion "one of the best" you always see a struggle between only two with no other intervention whatsoever we will see that males dominated this game by huge margin despite the huge female efforts of reaching the same level of males and reason is simple by practice females are more vulnerable to struggle than men
looking at polgar which is considered best player ever she was ranked 69 among all players for the same reason.

In any physical sport you can't make a male compete against a female since apparently it's always a lost case. Imagine even straight girls are already suffering from transgender competitors by they can't say a word about it or they will be eliminated why? because it's a forced opinion and no one can challenge inside the USA.

This is, of course, entirely irrelevant to how individual couples can most effectively conduct themselves.

This is the third time to write this post due to site problems logging me out while writing a post so many words are lost in this third time.

I've had that problem before - I'm sorry, it sucks, and it's really demoralizing to have to rewrite something for the third time like that. I've developed a habit of doing a select all and copy of everything I wrote before I click on 'preview' or 'submit', in order to avoid losing what I've written.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Wyn Morrigan in post #28]

I must admit, I was surprised and amused by the incredible level of misogyny; I shouldn't have been, because you're defending the idea that a patriarchy is good, but here we are. I should have known it would turn into this level of Brandolini's law, though.
We'll have to make an effort not to get caught in the weeds of nonsense.

As it seems it's the reverse, Misandry. Few posts ago I said all kinds of patriarchy is form of immature masculine but here we go we are getting caught in the weeds of nonsense. In Arabic we have a nice term that you may translate because I have no proper translation to it
رمتني بدائها وانسلت

This was the funny part. You said that my hypothetical high-earning woman should find a man who can provide even better than she can.
I'm at the 91st percentile for income for my state. Once you cut out all the women, the people who are married or otherwise taken, and the much older men, my market for a..."better" provider for me than myself would be pretty miniscule - I don't even know anyone who would fit that criteria, and all this is completely ignoring compatibility and the the human aspect of relationships.
Perhaps it would have been a better choice for me to remain single until I find such an improbable person within my social circles, or simply die an old maid?

Since that woman on the 91st percintile of income she must search at the same criteria to find a equally coefficient partner.And of course finding a partner at the same level is not an easy task but not impossible. Just like a queen saying I can't find any kings nowadays. But this is not the point since we are ignoring 91% of the population to discuss a specific case. If we are to speak about specific case then it's no appropriate to generalize but find solutions to those specific cases instead.

However, if I could find a...<looks at the rest of your reply>...wealthy, nobel-prize-winning, grandmaster chess-playing, olympic medalist sugar daddy, I could probably roll with that ; but they'd have to be cool with a polycule, because the love I have for my wife inviolate.
The very concept that a relationship with a potential partner could bring my life greater joy than what I have with my wife, based on such sterile, irrelevant, utilitarian criteria as their capacity as a provider - or even the above listed areas of men's supposed excellence - is comically absurd.

Ok you are good at descriping things but where is the criticism to what I said ? And again I'm not and will never speak about you personally because it's non-of-mybusiness what you do. But as for the two women soon they will be 50 running behind one man, maybe we will not see it now but It will be soon.

And to be sure, I recognize that a debate predicated upon my individual circumstance is somewhat immaterial, as anecdotes and subjective reported perception and circumstance are poor evidence upon which to base an argument, but it's difficult for me to leave my personal existence out of the debate when it so wonderfully demonstrates the failure of the system under discussion; such proscriptive systems as you propose are always vulnerable to death by exception.

But to avoid turning this into a debate about my life, perhaps we should attempt to step back and work from some generalizations rather than individual example?

As it seems you forgot that you are the one started speaking about yourself in return I gave some generalizations that maybe wasn't satisfying to your personal prefrence so you decided to ignore them just for the sake of debate. No problem let's see what you got.

The generalization of the argument I was making with my example would be as follows:

- The OP proposed that patriarchy, later amended to patriarchal standards or traditional gender roles, is good because it does not harm women.
- You agreed to the proposition (of traditional gender roles) that women are naturally better caregivers than men, and that in marriages or relationships, that men should therefore be the providers, and women the caregivers for the children.

Agreed?

So to convert my own example into an generalized argument, I would say:

1. There are relationships where both partners in the relationship are women.
2. It is possible for sapphic partners (Women married to women) to have children, via one means or another.
3. In such a situation, traditional gender roles offer no guidance on which partner should take on any given role in the marriage.

Exactly because we were debating a certain case about a married man and woman and we never spoke about Lesbianism.
Traditional gender (by gender here I mean binary male and female) roles doesn't include patriarchy in fact I have a nice video that you might see again because I'm sure you saw it already

Full intreview


You will see even the diffrence in speech while the man used logical argument that woman was focusing on emotional speech and you can do this every time anytime.

Looking over your response, it appears that you believe that...
Such women should break apart a happy marriage and traumatize their children in order to take a long shot in the dating lottery that they can find a man who would be a better provider for them and their children?
And you think this would be less harmful to them and/or their children?

As a Muslim yes they should not use sperm of unknown men to have children that they don't know who is their real father and live in house without a father where they are fully prone to psychological disorders due to the lack of a father.

And you can check those sites here to see what are the risks and again those are few out of many

https://oureverydaylife.com/psychologic ... 41414.html
https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/P ... t-A-Father
https://drprem.com/globalhealthcare/fat ... -on-a-girl
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... her-hunger

Now you will argue as long they are two the child won't feel the difference this child has a different opinion
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/six-da ... u1ue5.html

But who cares about all this as long as you are having fun ?!

Or perhaps your argument is not so extreme, and is merely than lesbians don't actually exist, so there shouldn't be such situations as I've described in the first place?

To be sure, that doesn't address the existing situation of sapphic relationships with children in any way, it's also entirely a red herring (not to mention false, of course).

If either of the following are true, then your argument fails:
1) There are women who are exclusively attracted to women (I.e. Lesbians exist)
2) Lesbian relationships are not inherently less happy than heterosexual relationships

Well, let's take a look at number 2, first.
If lesbian marriages are happy, then they are not detrimental to women.
Well, guess what? it looks like lesbian marriages are *happier* than heterosexual marriages!
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... jomf.12582

So it doesn't matter if there are women who are exclusively attracted to women or not, because apparently, if women marry one another, they are happy!

I didn't deny the existence of lesbianism in case this is what you understood.
So let's see as long as I'm happy it's definitely good! I mean a woman can marry a horse or dog and can be fully happy. It's seems like you are arguing what makes you more happy is the best regardless of the concequences that may come after.

So what about point 1, that lesbians do, in fact, exist.

First of all, I don't even need to go into the specifics of your cited studies, for a couple of reasons.

Every major medical and psychological research and treatment organization in the world agrees that homosexuality is a real, natural phenomenon, and that there are individuals who are attracted only to individuals of the same sex, though I'm not going to waste my time finding lists of all of them. Psychologists used to consider homosexuality a mental disorder - but they don't anymore.

And to be sure, I am not telling you that science is infallible; scientists make mistakes all the time.
But what I am telling you is that international scientific organizations, and large groups of scientists and researchers? Don't like to change their mind on established science. If they do, it will mean that many of them have wasted years or decades of their lives in irrelevant research.
They only reverse themselves on previous established theory when presented with overwhelming mountains of evidence they cannot ignore.

I'm not saying that science is never wrong; what I AM saying is that if large bodies of scientific researchers pull a complete 180? change their minds completely upon a specific point or theory?
It is possible that they are still wrong. But it is an effective certainty that they were wrong.

They call what you just said Bandwagon Fallacy. Where you are basing your argument on the majority of people accepting it other than focusing on the idea itself.
You disagreed with all the overwhelming studies of past but you are only agreeing with current studies only because it fits your personal preference not because it shows real evidence.
Yes organizations and psychologists had to do this because some idiots used wrong methods to identify homosexuality and wrong methods to treat it (Thanks to the church and pastors) and in return we have some psychologists that made a great work for the favor of making homosexuals understand their probem and engage back in hetrosexual relationships.
and I will mention two books that I don't expect you to read but only for the sake telling you that what you think is not the ultimate truth:
1- Battle for Normality by Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg (about gay relationships)
2- The Heart of Female Same-Sex Attraction Janelle Hallman (about lesbian relationships)

Of course not to mention the health problems and risks happened due to out of marriage and same-sex relationships

now do you know that only the attempt of helping homosexual get rid of his feelings is considered as crime ?
Not only homosexuality was forced to be normal for political reasons but also people who seek treatment are ignored and forcedly pushed to stay homosexual.

I'm not here to discuss homosexuality so if you want to discuss it then open another thread since this thread speaks about patriarchy which you avoid speaking about.

Really? Have you looked at the study? Are you serious?
Here's the header, after the introduction.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Lesbianism has no doubt, and remains a problem because it affects (the practitioners) both
physiologically and psychologically. Physiologically because they don’t associate with their
opposite sex as was the case in heterosexual relationship. Some of the female adolescent
students found themselves in the dirty act of lesbianism because of poor inter-social
behaviour between them and their opposite counterparts. Psychologically, because they do
not have interest in their opposite sex counterparts which may affect them in future marital
relationships. It makes them to develop deviant behaviours such as inferiority complex
amongst other deviant temperaments. It is a distortion of biological and psychological
component of the body and a threat to ultimate survival of human race, a dehumanizing act,
making mockery of divine image originally made.
Gee, that certainly looks like an unbiased, scientific study, to me! /sarcasm

Well your standards are not the only standards in the world but with what I just saw I realized where is the main problem yet no I won't reply here.

And then you look at the questions used in the study. They asked 150 random college students to rate how much they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements related to the quesitons you quoted. They did NOT specifically ask lesbians; they asked them to rate whether they agree or disagree with statements such as "Some female students go into lesbianism to avoid venereal diseases.", "Some Female students become lesbians because their roommates lured them into the act.", "A girl from Christian family cannot be a lesbian.", or "Some female students became lesbians because they want to avoid disappointment from men."

same topic so in the appropriate place I will reply

Your first link, your top ticket item of evidence to show that lesbianism is a mental disorder, is a survey with blatant anti-LGBT bias written into it's own language, asking 150 random female college students to speculate on statements about what might cause other students to become lesbians?

Do I even need to explain that asking untrained college students to speculate about what causes other students to be lesbians is not scientific research into the causes of homosexuality?

Again this is not my top evidence about why homosexuality is a mental disorder and I have studies that I will show in the appropriate thread you see sometimes you need to keep your cards to the appropriate time

I don't think it's quantifiable who in the world would be the "best" caregiver, but even if we assume for the sake of argument that you are correct here, that's irrelevant, because as you agreed, there can be given men who are better caregivers than given women.
So if such a couple gets together, which is an effective certainty to be the case at some level of frequency, there are in fact heterosexual couples where the man is the better caregiver.

At last back to topic. in the next posts I will ignore speaking totally about homosexuality and I will stick to speaking about normal Hetrosexual relationships because this topic is speaking about patriarchy which is related to men and women which is not the case in homosexuality.

Now let's see, saying for the sake of argument is now pointless since you are not arguing for anything real but imaginary model that you built to prove your point so for the sake of argument should stop at the point of giving a term of a woman.

making a specific case as generalization is now the specific problem we are having. comparing the numbers of hetrosexuals and homosexuals

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ ... ue#density
https://www.census.gov/popclock/

according to those sites you are asking me to speak about 646,500 and leave 333,660,000 with a percentage of 0.193% so I just don't understand why I should leave 99.8% and speak about 0.2%

Also you are asking me to keep looking at every household and see if the man is a better care giver then I should reverse his role ignoring the fact that most of works of maintenance and construction and infrastructure is made by men why because of physical and cultural differences.
It's like saying we should give up the providing capacity of a man just to let a woman reverse her role because she is unhappy with it.

I wasn't making a generalization there, I was using an example to show the falsity of a generalization.

This is, of course, entirely irrelevant to how individual couples can most effectively conduct themselves.

We are not speaking in this debate about a specific couple with specific case, and we should not since we are debating a concept not persons.
Here you presented your own opinion on the core of the discussion other than giving evidence why you think so. I don't mind if you simply say like I did It's mere opinion other than something to discuss but you didn't say this, so to depend on those words just to say I'm wrong I don'y know you can figure it out.

Apart from all the above I'm enjoying this discussion and I can say you are a well educated person with high degree.

[William]

There is nothing inherently wrong about understanding the concept of GOD in the feminine, or for that matter, in the hermaphrodite, rather than just in the masculine...patriarchy could indeed be inherently incorrect, IF there is any insistence that GOD should be referred to ONLY in the masculine.

GM: Changing of The Guard
In Out and All About
The Way We Feel Unification - The Feminine Face of God...
...GM: Feeling State
The Way We Feel Unification
Recover what was lost
Those who need to complain
Sweet Talk Be grateful to everyone
{SOURCE}