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)?

[PolytheistWitch]

Both men and women are often forced to accept roles in society they don't want to due to patriarchy. Men are still held to lesser standards than women on issues where morality and work/ parenting are concerned. Women have been expected to raise kids, keep a home and be virgin whores for men while all they have to do is work a job that pays bills. Like that is some kind of equal split. Especially now many women work. And it's assumed that a woman can run a home, use her husband's pay to take care of expenses, save money when possible, satisfy him sexually but can't run a business or country because those attributes at home can't be applied elsewhere? And that's not even addressing the bigotry men experience when trying to raise kids and seek assistance due to the idea men aren't caregivers.

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

Good points!

The definition of patriarchy I'm using involves males being in charge in some area. I've mentioned in previous posts that if patriarchy is the wrong word then I'm willing to use the terms "traditional gender roles" instead.

The standard I'm using to determine if it's right or wrong is to see if there's any harm to women. If men can be in charge without harming women, then that is a good type of patriarchy. Another problem is in deciding on what's nature and what's nurture (or a product of socialization) when it comes to gender roles. If we had those answers then that could inform us on the debate topic. For instance, are women naturally better at caring for children than men? If so, then does that justify men being the main providers while the woman takes care of the kids? What does the world of non-human animals show us? I know male lions are terrible with their offspring, whereas female lions do most of the caring for their young. Then again, the female lions hunt, as well.

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

Ah I see. So you draw a distinction between masculinity and patriarchy. I would also say that some patriarchal standards are good, as well.

[Purple Knight]

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

No. The Kzinti come to mind. Their females aren't sapient. They are animals, basically. I can't ask someone in this position to give animals in cages an equal share of running their world because they happen to be the same species. In the reverse situation the males would be in cages and having them there would be equally necessary.

On an equally bizarre alien planet, that I just made up, the haploid and diploid forms of their species are equals, and they experience shock and disgust that we subjugate our eggs and sperm and relegate them to reproductive implements, giving them no lives, no rights, and no voice in our society. But I will defend us and our diplarchy (you know, diploids > haploids). I'll defend it because we're just doing what makes sense. If you're just doing what makes sense you don't come up with a nasty word for it, but that doesn't stop it from happening where it doesn't make sense and people coming up with nasty words for it, stop doing it, and then come attack us because they've been taught that this thing is universally wrong.

The extreme science-fiction examples don't describe reality. They just describe the possible. And they only prove patriarchy is possibly necessary. Now it's an interesting question whether the necessary can still be morally wrong, but let's assume no for now. Let's assume we're not really required to take every egg and sperm that exists, lift it up as much as we can, treat it as a person, seek its consent before combining it into a diploid, and give it a voice in our society.

That leaves us with the uncomfortable conclusion that treating women as equals rests on them actually being equals. If they were haploids, with only the functionality of one oocyte, never able to think or feel, then they would not be grandfathered-in partners in our society.

But what if they're just, let's say, half a percent worse? What if the female average IQ was one measly point less than the male average? Does that justify treating them as only the oocytes they contain, useful only for reproduction? If it's moral to treat the oocyte that way, because it is lesser, then why does it matter how much lesser? The only way this comes out fairly is if you make it a practical statement about letting people do what they can, and not what they can't. A gamete doesn't get to help run society because it can't. Male elephants don't get to help run their society because they can't; their hormonal nature would ruin the herds. If you say human females are like elephant males, well, prove it, and I'll say they should lose the vote.

[mms20102]

The standard I'm using to determine if it's right or wrong is to see if there's any harm to women.

This is a fluid standard since what can harm one woman can be totally fine for another.
The standard should be something that no one can disagree upon and everyone can openly say that this standard can't be objected upon, from a logical prespective not from personal view.

Another problem is in deciding on what's nature and what's nurture (or a product of socialization) when it comes to gender roles.

Gender Roles is totally diffrent from patriarchy in fact we can say that patriarchy is the abuse of gender roles.

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

What does the world of non-human animals show us? I know male lions are terrible with their offspring, whereas female lions do most of the caring for their young. Then again, the female lions hunt, as well.

We don't need the animal world to tell us what to do, otherwise we would go around fighting each other just to marry a woman we are far superior to the animal world.

I would also say that some patriarchal standards are good, as well.

I will show you an example from Islam

And indeed, We once made a covenant with Adam, but he forgot, and ˹so˺ We did not find determination in him.

https://quran.com/20?startingVerse=115

In this verse Eve wasn't mentioned while the covenant is made for both Adam and Eve and the reason will come

So We cautioned, “O Adam! This is surely an enemy to you and to your wife. So do not let him drive you both out of Paradise, for you ˹O Adam˺ would then suffer ˹hardship˺.

Here the enemy is pointed at both and the going out is pointed at both but the hardship is pointed at Adam only!

Here it is guaranteed that you will never go hungry or unclothed,nor will you ˹ever˺ suffer from thirst or ˹the sun’s˺ heat.”

Here you is singular not plural for the very simple reason "Adam If you go out you will have to provide food and clothes and shelter" = "Hardship".

You can't find Eve in the conversation because she is not responsible of all this.

But Satan whispered to him, saying, “O Adam! Shall I show you the Tree of Immortality and a kingdom that does not fade away?”

You see even when satan wanted to tempt Eve he didn't go to her directly because he knew if he did Adam will direct her to the right way and it will not workout he knew that head of the house is the one to be attacked then the whole house will fall apart.

So they both ate from the tree and then their nakedness was exposed to them, prompting them to cover themselves with leaves from Paradise. So Adam disobeyed his Lord, and ˹so˺ lost his way.

"So Adam disobeyed his Lord" But they both ate! Yes but he is the one responsible for the house and he is the one that was supposed to protect the house but after leading his wife to disobey he was the one to be blamed not his wife

Then his Lord chose him ˹for His grace˺, accepted his repentance, and guided him ˹rightly˺.

So some people will say what about Eve and the answer she did what her husband said the head of the house and she is not the one to blame.

Allah said, “Descend, both of you, from here together ˹with Satan˺ as enemies to each other. Then when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance will neither go astray ˹in this life˺ nor suffer ˹in the next˺.

Here both were mentioned because it's not a punishment it's an order and I will not go deep to the story because this is not the place to explain but let's see conclusion

Adam is one that was ordered to take responsibily and since he has responsibility he has also authority.
Authority doesn't mean patriarchy It means responibility.
Adam was the one to blame and the one to ask for forgivness and the one to face hardships
Eve role was nothing but to eat sleep and enjoy life
Eve wasn't blamed for anything happened although she did wrong just like Adam
Are women like men no .
Are women equal to men this question is like saying is the mouse equal to the keyboard? they both made out of plastic but both can't achieve the same purpose that's why both have different roles.

[Wyn Morrigan]

To answer your stated question directly, yes - patriarchy is inherently wrong, not only for reasons of marginalization, but because it's necessarily sub-optimal.

But I do acknowledge your later restatement:

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.

Patriarchy and traditional gender roles certainly aren't the same. A patriarchy is a system or society where men hold the power and women are largely or entirely excluded from positions of power.
Traditional gender roles taken to an extreme do represent similar, but in the way that you are using them certainly are not synonymous, as your below example demonstrates:

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.

Here you are looking at a traditional gender role in a specific situation, or a patriarchal standard, but that is distinct from a patriarchy itself. The distinction being that it is possible for a system as a whole to be inherently wrong, yet produce examples of individual practices which are not.

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.

(bolding in the quote mine)
This is trivially easy to do, and not only would it be harmful to women, but it would be harmful to men, too.
I am a software engineer and a woman. I work on a small team with one other individual in which I am the leader of the team. The other individual on the team is a man.
I am a substantially more capable and experienced software engineer and designer than the other member of the team. Given the available pool of individuals we have on the team, if we held to a strictly patriarchal standard where only men can hold leadership positions, he would be placed in charge, and our team would be substantially less effective, which would harm both of us.


To generalize this and take it back to your above example of a couple being robbed (aside from the fact that there exist couple of homogenous sex, like my wife and I, which are problematic at best, for a strictly patriarchy/traditional gender role system) - what if the man in the relationship is physically disabled? or what if the woman in the relationship is a professional MMA fighter, and the man an aging physics professor?
Surely you would not argue that in these cases, the woman should stand back and let the man defend them?


On a final note

The standard I'm using to determine if it's right or wrong is to see if there's any harm to women. If men can be in charge without harming women, then that is a good type of patriarchy.

This is a somewhat telling standard, isn't it?

It is a good patriarchy (or gender role) if men can be in charge without harming women?
In order to establish that a patriarchy is good, even using the limited standard of harm to women, you would have to demonstrate that not only does it not harm women, but that it is actively more beneficial to women than the alternative. That is, you would have to establish that both men being in charge is not harmful to women, and also that women being in charge is harmful to women, otherwise, the patriarchy is neutral at best.

[Wyn Morrigan]

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.

[mms20102]

[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 ?!

[PolytheistWitch]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #17]

What is confusing you?

[mms20102]

[Replying to PolytheistWitch in post #18]

Nothing is confusing me have you seen in any of my posts I said I'm confused?! Or is the main post speaking about me being confused ?!

I asked a simple question and I hope you have an answer.

[PolytheistWitch]

The only reason to ask one to define what a woman is is you're confused about it. And you're confusion about who you may or may not be attracted to is not women's fault.