Patriarchy - Merits and Laments

[Timothy17]

Hello my fellow Canadians,

I wish to begin a general discussion of the modern concept or thinking in regards to what is known as, or thought to be, patriarchy. What does it mean to you?

Since the cultural upheavals of the 1960's, we have seen what I think can fairly be called the demonization of "patriarchy," so much so that its topic is almost taboo, and few - if anyone - even know what that term entails or actually describes, at least as witnessed in my own personal experience. I, like I am sure others like me, who were raised and schooled secularly, originally associated patriarchy with a perverse male sexism that excluded entirely women and children from any benefit of law, and most benefits of society or civilization in general.

However...

My modern, adult experience of the effects of this belief in practice (namely, the demonization of patriarchy, which has filtered down to a near demonization of all men, especially in their capacities as fathers or husbands)has had radical effects on the modern family and social experience ; namely, in the enormous and rampant rise of children growing up virtually fatherless, of rampant and easy divorce and re-marriage (constituting a new family, the "extended family"), and, finally, in a built-in legal bias towards women, especially as it regards children/custody.

I am going to throw my neck out there by stating unequivocally that I have now developed a strong bias and support of patriarchy, as I understand it ; naturally, no one would support the demonized version of what is called "patriarchy," so I hope my self-nomination as a patriarch, or pro-patriarchy Canadian will cause a little scandal and lead you, dear reader, to wonder how I could possibly don such a universally despised mantle as it is currently understood, and risk exposure to so much animosity and hatred.

The Merits of Patriarchy

First and foremost, patriarchy is the sole system of social organization that actually actively encourages - and yes, even protects - the male role and involvement in the family. It accomplishes this in three ways, by establishing him as :

i) Head of the household,

ii) Sole-father ; sole-husband, and

iii) Protector and provider.

The other side of patriarchy is matriarchy, which is also patriarchy's antithesis, and repudiates the aforementioned involvement, at least in one or more points, and virtually expels, as it were, the male from the home or makes him hopelessly dependent upon the favor of the mother (that is, in its fullest, his fall from her favour disqualifies him from membership in the family ; that is, in the home, and makes him highly and easily replaceable, as is evident from all martiarchical societies, even today).

Patriarchy, by its systematic inclusion of men as essential and necessary members of the family, uses social props, specifically legal props, to protect his otherwise precarious attachment to the family unit. I say precarious because the man, for the most part, has absolutely no power or control over the begetting of a family itself : this privilege nature has betowed upon women as in a monopoly. She can never doubt who her children are ; he, however, has no such certainty, outside of the patriarchical organization of society and its social, specifically legal, props, which support his position as an inalienable member of his family, and condemns the kind of promiscuity that might endanger his certainty of what constitutes "his" family.

Now, it comes time to debate whether the inclusion of the male as an inalienable member of the family produces "good" or "bad" fruits ; that is, to debate its merits for society : for men, women, children, and possibly the state, individually or as a whole. It would appear that the law is heavily leaning away from patriarchy, and is virtually establishing a matriarchy by default, wherein the woman has, naturally, her biological monopoly on one hand, and further is also given a litany of social and legal props that aggrandize her position, and her power, in society, especially as it regards society's basic and fundamental unit, the family, which is -by legal default- undeniably not only by nature, but also by law, chiefly "hers."

At this point, I welcome questions, criticisms, objections, etc., as I hope to get a lay of the land, as it were, on the modern Canadian's understanding of patriarchy.

Thank you for your help,

Tim

Edited October 6, 2010 by Timothy17

[M.Dancer]

Been there, done that, wore out the t-shirt.

[bloodyminded]

Hello my fellow Canadians,

I wish to begin a general discussion of the modern concept or thinking in regards to what is known as, or thought to be, patriarchy. What does it mean to you?

Since the cultural upheavals of the 1960's, we have seen what I think can fairly be called the demonization of "patriarchy," so much so that its topic is almost taboo, and few - if anyone - even know what that term entails or actually describes, at least as witnessed in my own personal experience. I, like I am sure others like me, who were raised and schooled secularly, originally associated patriarchy with a perverse male sexism that excluded entirely women and children from any benefit of law, and most benefits of society or civilization in general.

However...

My modern, adult experience of the effects of this belief in practice (namely, the demonization of patriarchy, which has filtered down to a near demonization of all men, especially in their capacities as fathers or husbands)has had radical effects on the modern family and social experience ; namely, in the enormous and rampant rise of children growing up virtually fatherless, of rampant and easy divorce and re-marriage (constituting a new family, the "extended family"), and, finally, in a built-in legal bias towards women, especially as it regards children/custody.

I am going to throw my neck out there by stating unequivocally that I have now developed a strong bias and support of patriarchy, as I understand it ; naturally, no one would support the demonized version of what is called "patriarchy," so I hope my self-nomination as a patriarch, or pro-patriarchy Canadian will cause a little scandal and lead you, dear reader, to wonder how I could possibly don such a universally despised mantle as it is currently understood, and risk exposure to so much animosity and hatred.

The Merits of Patriarchy

First and foremost, patriarchy is the sole system of social organization that actually actively encourages - and yes, even protects - the male role and involvement in the family. It accomplishes this in three ways, by establishing him as :

i) Head of the household,

ii) Sole-father ; sole-husband, and

iii) Protector and provider.

The other side of patriarchy is matriarchy, which is also patriarchy's antithesis, and repudiates the aforementioned involvement, at least in one or more points, and virtually expels, as it were, the male from the home or makes him hopelessly dependent upon the favor of the mother (that is, in its fullest, his fall from her favour disqualifies him from membership in the family ; that is, in the home, and makes him highly and easily replaceable, as is evident from all martiarchical societies, even today).

Patriarchy, by its systematic inclusion of men as essential and necessary members of the family, uses social props, specifically legal props, to protect his otherwise precarious attachment to the family unit. I say precarious because the man, for the most part, has absolutely no power or control over the begetting of a family itself : this privilege nature has betowed upon women as in a monopoly. She can never doubt who her children are ; he, however, has no such certainty, outside of the patriarchical organization of society and its social, specifically legal, props, which support his position as an inalienable member of his family, and condemns the kind of promiscuity that might endanger his certainty of what constitutes "his" family.

Now, it comes time to debate whether the inclusion of the male as an inalienable member of the family produces "good" or "bad" fruits ; that is, to debate its merits for society : for men, women, children, and possibly the state, individually or as a whole. It would appear that the law is heavily leaning away from patriarchy, and is virtually establishing a matriarchy by default, wherein the woman has, naturally, her biological monopoly on one hand, and further is also given a litany of social and legal props that aggrandize her position, and her power, in society, especially as it regards society's basic and fundamental unit, the family, which is -by legal default- undeniably not only by nature, but also by law, chiefly "hers."

At this point, I welcome questions, criticisms, objections, etc., as I hope to get a lay of the land, as it were, on the modern Canadian's understanding of patriarchy.

Thank you for your help,

Tim

Not to go into a point-by-point rebuttal (and an occasional, if partial, agreement, as in custody issues); but why must the man be "the head of the family"?

[Melanie_]

Interesting topic, Tim, and one that I'm sure will generate a lot of really good discussion. My initial response to your post, though, is to ask why patriarchy should be given these extra supports? You've explained how men have a precarious position in the family, but have also stated that they should be seen as head of the family. These seem like contradictory ideas - how do you reconcile them?

[Timothy17]

Been there, done that, wore out the t-shirt.

Lol, well, I appreciate your candidness ; however, I am not sure exactly what it's supposed to mean. I am going to presume that you mean patriarchy has been tried before ("been there, done that"), and this experiment somehow got boring ("wore out the t-shirt")?

[M.Dancer]

Lol, well, I appreciate your candidness ; however, I am not sure exactly what it's supposed to mean. I am going to presume that you mean patriarchy has been tried before ("been there, done that"), and this experiment somehow got boring ("wore out the t-shirt")?

Got boring and found wanting. Women should never be seen as the 2IC. They aren't and I pity the dame who thinks she is.

[Timothy17]

Not to go into a point-by-point rebuttal (and an occasional, if partial, agreement, as in custody issues); but why must the man be "the head of the family"?

That is an important question, and an assumption even I appear to have carried over without due care ! I believe, however, the "head of the family," is not meant purely in terms of family decision making, but specifically "head" in law ; i.e., its representative, spokes-person or manifestation, as in court dealing with other members of the family ; that is, he is entirely and inalienably responsible for his family, whether this acquires him blame or praise. This is a legal, not a social, prop, that forces him to take responsibility for the social, and legal, props he enjoys by virtue of law in a patriarchal society.

That is my opinion and very maleable thinking on the "head of the family" stipulation which I also found as being deemed "necessary" in the little pro-patriarchy apologetic literature I have been able to find.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Timothy17

[Timothy17]

Got boring and found wanting. Women should never be seen as the 2IC. They aren't and I pity the dame who thinks she is.

I must confess I know not what a 2IC is.

[M.Dancer]

I must confess I know not what a 2IC is.

second in command

[bloodyminded]

That is an important question, and an assumption even I appear to have carried over without due care ! I believe, however, the "head of the family," is not meant purely in terms of family decision making, but specifically "head" in law ; i.e., its representative, spokes-person or manifestation, as in court dealing with other members of the family ; that is, he is entirely and inalienably responsible for his family, whether this acquires him blame or praise. This is a legal, not a social, prop, that forces him to take responsibility for the social, and legal, props he enjoys by virtue of law in a patriarchal society.

That is my opinion and very maleable thinking on the "head of the family" stipulation which I also found as being deemed "necessary" in the little pro-patriarchy apologetic literature I have been able to find.

But people love power. Men do not take leadership over their women because it's "the right thing to do," even if they delude themselves.

While no doubt conservative Muslims, sectors of the Latter Day Saints, and so on, really feel they're doing the "right" thing...I put it to you that without the lust for power over other human beings, such "patriarchal theories" would quite magically dissolve. That's no coincidence.

[Timothy17]

Interesting topic, Tim, and one that I'm sure will generate a lot of really good discussion. My initial response to your post, though, is to ask why patriarchy should be given these extra supports? You've explained how men have a precarious position in the family, but have also stated that they should be seen as head of the family. These seem like contradictory ideas - how do you reconcile them?

I have to confess, as in my previous post, that this point was stressed by others in my studying, and readily admit its culpability to controversy. Near as I can tell, it is another - specifically legal - prop to counter-balance the naturally lacking biological prop ; further, in the event of a divorce, the headship would by default be utterly repudiated (divorce literally means the complete dissolution and repudiation of the marriage, as if it never even happened) ; however, in our current legal system this is obviously denied : the male is still expected to be a provider, but not a protector, of his family, particularly in alimony (to the woman) and especially in child-support payments, for at least as long as the children are deemed to be "children," in the eyes of the law. Now, I imagine that eventually this broad discussion will have to make recourse to discussions of divorce and the particular rational therefore, but right now I am speaking broadly of what can be called the "patriarchical ideal," wherein divorce would be a very rare event, and legal seperation more likely.

[Timothy17]

But people love power. Men do not take leadership over their women because it's "the right thing to do," even if they delude themselves.

While no doubt conservative Muslims, sectors of the Latter Day Saints, and so on, really feel they're doing the "right" thing...I put it to you that without the lust for power over other human beings, such "patriarchal theories" would quite magically dissolve. That's no coincidence.

I am inclined to agree in part ; however, I would stress that the patriarchical model is not a stress of power as in a desire for despotic control over other human beings, as the mandatory monogamy and exclusiveness of patriarchical marriage would thus become an incumberment (sp?) to your proposed thesis ; namely, "the lust for power over other human beings," but a counter-balance of power so as to necessarily permit the male involvement in the family context.

I readily admit your concern as absolutely valid in the examples you have given, and concede that the patriarchical model can, has been and is abused so as to satisfy an unnatural and excessive love of power, and love of self, whereas it ought to have the opposite effect, wherein "power" is begotten by a loving, even mandatory service, as in our democratic models wherein authority is vested and gotten through service ; hence, all of our elected officials are also, by necessity, public servants. In all my reading, one of the inalienable rights of the woman in a patriachical marriage is the right to be loved by her husband, and this is unconditional.

Tim

Edited October 6, 2010 by Timothy17

[ToadBrother]

In all my reading, one of the inalienable rights of the woman in a patriachical marriage is the right to be loved by her husband, and this is unconditional.

A lovely sentiment, but one an unguaranteeable one. No system ever invented can actually guarantee a wife this.

I look at this way. Patriarchal societies are incompatible with our Western notions of liberty. Period.

[Timothy17]

A lovely sentiment, but one an unguaranteeable one. No system ever invented can actually guarantee a wife this.

I whole-heartedly agree. If it were possible, then every nation on earth would pass a single, simple law : love one another, but as authentic love is impossible to coerce or manufacture, it is generally admonished by example or as advice instead.

I look at this way. Patriarchal societies are incompatible with our Western notions of liberty. Period.

I am forced to first object, and then disagree.

Objection :

You said, "Patriarchal societies are incompatible with our Western notions of liberty." This I must refuse to accept, owing as it is that the philosophical liberalism that is the mainstay of our Western notion of liberty originates with men who were raised in, and themselves engaged in, a Patriarchal organization of society. They had plenty of opportunity to repudiate this, and never did. What might be more accurate is to say instead,

"Patriarchal societies are incompatible with our [recent, modern] Western notions of liberty."

Patriarchy is a very Western system of social organization. Matriarchy was simply unheard of, as no societies were discovered until the Age of Exploration that actually existed formally or purely along matrilineal lines.

Finally, I am forced to disagree outright as there are, indeed, strong social incentives in Patriarchal societies to engage in the patriarchal system, but there is no possible way to force someone to say, "I will," and "I do," as such coercion or force would necessarily repudiate the vow or oath then being taken, and annul the whole deal. That latter stipulation, that marriage is always and by necessity must be freely entered into by both parties, without hesitation or even objection from a witness, guarantees the bedrock notions of Western liberty.

Tim

Edited October 6, 2010 by Timothy17

[Melanie_]

I have to confess, as in my previous post, that this point was stressed by others in my studying, and readily admit its culpability to controversy. Near as I can tell, it is another - specifically legal - prop to counter-balance the naturally lacking biological prop ; further, in the event of a divorce, the headship would by default be utterly repudiated (divorce literally means the complete dissolution and repudiation of the marriage, as if it never even happened) ; however, in our current legal system this is obviously denied : the male is still expected to be a provider, but not a protector, of his family, particularly in alimony (to the woman) and especially in child-support payments, for at least as long as the children are deemed to be "children," in the eyes of the law. Now, I imagine that eventually this broad discussion will have to make recourse to discussions of divorce and the particular rational therefore, but right now I am speaking broadly of what can be called the "patriarchical ideal," wherein divorce would be a very rare event, and legal seperation more likely.

Ok, lets leave divorce aside for now. It does have a place in this discussion, but not just yet.

As bloodyminded said, this patriarchical ideal seems to hinge on male power in a relationship; your interpretation of how that can be enacted is very rarely the norm.

You've talked about the counterbalance of power, because women have the certain knowledge of the source of their children, but counterbalance implies equal power, rather than the male being the head of the household. What is the benefit of the patriarchal system, as opposed to a full and equal partnership within a marriage?

Edited October 6, 2010 by Melanie_

[Michael Hardner]

I like the idea of having a discussion based on our opinions alone... it's kind of liberating.

I dispute that the decline in patriarchy has led to our current social environment, and in fact I'd say that social evolution itself led to the decline in patriarchy.

What drives social evolution ? The economy, technology, and large forces such as that I suppose.

Being male just isn't an advantage any more - you don't need to be physically stronger, or have a strategic brain, or knowledge guarded by monks. Anyhow, it's better this way. The patriarchy (at least of the 20th century) included a rigid set of social protocols that I wouldn't care to live by, and a less dynamic society.

[bloodyminded]

I am inclined to agree in part ; however, I would stress that the patriarchical model is not a stress of power as in a desire for despotic control over other human beings, as the mandatory monogamy and exclusiveness of patriarchical marriage would thus become an incumberment (sp?) to your proposed thesis ; namely, "the lust for power over other human beings," but a counter-balance of power so as to necessarily permit the male involvement in the family context.

I readily admit your concern as absolutely valid in the examples you have given, and concede that the patriarchical model can, has been and is abused so as to satisfy an unnatural and excessive love of power, and love of self, whereas it ought to have the opposite effect, wherein "power" is begotten by a loving, even mandatory service, as in our democratic models wherein authority is vested and gotten through service ; hence, all of our elected officials are also, by necessity, public servants. In all my reading, one of the inalienable rights of the woman in a patriachical marriage is the right to be loved by her husband, and this is unconditional.

Tim

I understand the potential precarious nature of the male in the family environment, not least as it relates to parental rights (and even to the question of genetic fatherhood).

However, I don't believe re-instituting the male as "head" of the household is the answer. And honestly, I can't quite buy into the notion of his assuming leadership for the sake of "service"; nor do I agree with the analogy (oft-mentioned in Evangelical religious discussions on the family, as well) to democratic leadership in the political sphere.

Polygamists make the same argument; but as every single woman who becomes estranged from such families says, it is virtually always about power and sex.

Bbut ok, not exactly the same, so back to monogamy:

The fact that one sexual partner has a "leadership role" over the other is so fraught with bad potential that I think the abuses you mention are more normal, more usual, than you seem to suggest.

In fact, they may well be unconscious, institutionalized, under such an imposed system.

And yes, it is complicated, true enough, by the fact that the lust for power is diminished by the very marriage vows that makes this particular type of power possible. Human relationships are profoundly complex, and I'm not suggesting power-mad Evil Men exerting control for the sake of itself. But I think there is a driving impulse to the desire that is far from noble.

Edited October 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Timothy17]

Ok, lets leave divorce aside for now. It does have a place in this discussion, but not just yet.

As bloodyminded said, this patriarchical ideal seems to hinge on male power in a relationship; your interpretation of how that can be enacted is very rarely the norm.

You've talked about the counterbalance of power, because women have the certain knowledge of the source of their children, but counterbalance implies equal power, rather than the male being the head of the household. What is the benefit of the patriarchal system, as opposed to a full and equal partnership within a marriage?

Thank you Melanie for your input, I will wrack my brain and flush out my thinking :

The benefit is, principally and chiefly, for the children, and especially for their socialization, as having the sure presence of both Mom and Dad, representing the dignity of both the male and masculine principles. I therefore propose that a Patriarchal marriage is not, and cannot be, "equal partnership," in the context of "power-sharing," because ultimately, and in effect, the parents, each and both, are made to serve their children, which begets the reciprocal right to be obeyed or respected by their children. Arguably, a woman in a Partiarchal marriage could be granted "head of household" status under the law, wherein she becomes responsible before the courts for the behaviour of her husband and children in the one sense, or, in another, in the ultimate or final decision making of the family, as in where to live, where to educate the children, etc. ; however, a truly "equal" partnership in that regard becomes an impossibility, as it would require and assume consent by both parties (husband and wife) in each and every decision, even when those decisions are not active, but reactive, wherein a decision must be made or needless consequences are suffered. In each instance of any disagreement, in a theoretically "equal" partnership, there would be, for all intents and purposes, a divorce in practice, which would make each marriage a long string of perpetual "divorces" whenever a consensus agreement could not be reached ; therefore, the stipulation that there at least be a head of the household to ensure the unity and solidarity of the family, and prevent its breaking up, becomes logical and practical. I concede, however, that there is no obvious reason why the male should enjoy this perogative always and by default, but I think it owing largely to Christian discipline and teaching that the male be the head of the household, and so where there was doubt (who ought lead the household?) the Christian Scriptures were consulted as the definitive in formulating the social organization of the West.

Tim

[Timothy17]

I understand the potential precarious nature of the male in the family environment, not least as it relates to parental rights (and even to the question of genetic fatherhood).

However, I don't believe re-instituting the male as "head" of the household is the answer. And honestly, I can't quite buy into the notion of his assuming leadership for the sake of "service"; nor do I agree with the analogy (oft-mentioned in Evangelical religious discussions on the family, as well) to democratic leadership in the political sphere.

I agree with you, though I don't know about the envangelical comment, and will have to take it for granted ! What I am insinuating is the Western ideal that authority be granted through service, as in the ancient Greek / Homeric saying, "He who serves his country best, serves me [i.e., the king] most." There is a tendency that the responsible person, demonstrated by actually caring, merits the leadership role in any situation, and the one who produces this "actually caring," that is, being responsible and rendering the services needed, begets the authority to do so. We generally have the same belief, for example, in the workplace, where the hardest working and most competent persons, and those who have served longest, are generally seen to be entitled to any advancement or promotion that may become available, and promoting along these lines diminishes any potential dispute. If it works in the workplace, it ought to work in the family, too.

Polygamists make the same argument; but as every single woman who becomes estranged from such families says, it is virtually always about power and sex.

Please don't expect me to make an apology for polygamy : I concede that polygamy today has no other justification than a pursuit of power and necessarily requires an obnoxious and overly aggrandized notion of self-importance.

The fact that one sexual partner has a "leadership role" over the other is so fraught with bad potential that I think the abuses you mention are more normal, more usual, than you seem to suggest.

I agree, which is exactly why it becomes necessary and binding, as a discipline, so as to produce effective and competent leadership ; the only thing more likely to be wrought with problems is an, as I have said, absolute "equal partnership," wherein the family breaks at each and every instance of disagreement.

And yes, it is complicated, true enough, by the fact that the lust for power is diminished by the very marriage vows that makes this particular type of power possible. Human relationships are profoundly complex, and I'm not suggesting power-mad Evil Men exerting control for the sake of itself. But I think there is a driving impulse to the desire that is far from noble.

And again, I agree in principle, which is why the Western Patriarchy system demanded exclusivity and was indissoluble - even if the woman was incapable of bearing children. The showdown with King Henry VIII demonstrates this historically in my opinion. The default societal belief was that he was bound to his wife regardless and independent of the fact she did not produce for him any male heirs. His lust for power - even the King of England's - was not sufficient grounds for undermining the Western notion of what constituted the Patriarchal organization of society.

Tim

[bloodyminded]

I agree with you, though I don't know about the envangelical comment, and will have to take it for granted ! What I am insinuating is the Western ideal that authority be granted through service, as in the ancient Greek / Homeric saying, "He who serves his country best, serves me [i.e., the king] most." There is a tendency that the responsible person, demonstrated by actually caring, merits the leadership role in any situation, and the one who produces this "actually caring," that is, being responsible and rendering the services needed, begets the authority to do so. We generally have the same belief, for example, in the workplace, where the hardest working and most competent persons, and those who have served longest, are generally seen to be entitled to any advancement or promotion that may become available, and promoting along these lines diminishes any potential dispute. If it works in the workplace, it ought to work in the family, too.

For what an anecdote is worth (and to be fair, often not very much), I worked at WalMart, and "hardest working" and "longest serving" are not important distinctions to the company, a few empty uttered platitudes to the contrary.

Then again, thankfully, not every workplace is like WalMart.

But here you seem to be suggesting (or perhaps I'm misreading you) that a man will be more likely to merit his leadership position, through his caring and responsibility.

Please don't expect me to make an apology for polygamy : I concede that polygamy today has no other justification than a pursuit of power and necessarily requires an obnoxious and overly aggrandized notion of self-importance.

I agree, and it was a pointless sidetrack; it was meant to lead to a greater point, which I then forgot. I blame years of alcohol and a natively-short attention span.

I agree, which is exactly why it becomes necessary and binding, as a discipline, so as to produce effective and competent leadership ; the only thing more likely to be wrought with problems is an, as I have said, absolute "equal partnership," wherein the family breaks at each and every instance of disagreement.

Inevitable disagreements and sometimes unpleasant power negotiations aside, such things don't always have to form a break; compromise is essential; so is (for both parties) sometimes admitting error, and also sometimes letting more minor issues go, as they're not worth a fight.

If we're to say we can avoid this by placing final decision-making, ultimate power, on one individual....there will be just as many mistakes. Why wouldn't there be?

So an equal (or attempted equal) partnership will result, I would assume, in the same number of bad decisions as will an unequal one. At most.

So how does the inequality fix that? It seems to add another issue, without eliminating any.

And again, I agree in principle, which is why the Western Patriarchy system demanded exclusivity and was indissoluble - even if the woman was incapable of bearing children. The showdown with King Henry VIII demonstrates this historically in my opinion. The default societal belief was that he was bound to his wife regardless and independent of the fact she did not produce for him any male heirs. His lust for power - even the King of England's - was not sufficient grounds for undermining the Western notion of what constituted the Patriarchal organization of society.

There was a lot of religious and political controversy over the issue, that's true. But also executions and pretty questionable and devious machinations for divorce and annulment. Henry had several wives.

But I don't know that this is relevant. While I don't adhere to some straight-line theory of rising historical progressivism--as if all that is new is better than all that was old--I do think the contemporary Western convention of "equal partnerships" is far prerferable to innate male authority over their wives. I think it's a no-brainer.

[Melanie_]

Thank you Melanie for your input, I will wrack my brain and flush out my thinking :

The benefit is, principally and chiefly, for the children, and especially for their socialization, as having the sure presence of both Mom and Dad, representing the dignity of both the male and masculine principles. I therefore propose that a Patriarchal marriage is not, and cannot be, "equal partnership," in the context of "power-sharing," because ultimately, and in effect, the parents, each and both, are made to serve their children, which begets the reciprocal right to be obeyed or respected by their children. Arguably, a woman in a Partiarchal marriage could be granted "head of household" status under the law, wherein she becomes responsible before the courts for the behaviour of her husband and children in the one sense, or, in another, in the ultimate or final decision making of the family, as in where to live, where to educate the children, etc. ; however, a truly "equal" partnership in that regard becomes an impossibility, as it would require and assume consent by both parties (husband and wife) in each and every decision, even when those decisions are not active, but reactive, wherein a decision must be made or needless consequences are suffered. In each instance of any disagreement, in a theoretically "equal" partnership, there would be, for all intents and purposes, a divorce in practice, which would make each marriage a long string of perpetual "divorces" whenever a consensus agreement could not be reached ; therefore, the stipulation that there at least be a head of the household to ensure the unity and solidarity of the family, and prevent its breaking up, becomes logical and practical. I concede, however, that there is no obvious reason why the male should enjoy this perogative always and by default, but I think it owing largely to Christian discipline and teaching that the male be the head of the household, and so where there was doubt (who ought lead the household?) the Christian Scriptures were consulted as the definitive in formulating the social organization of the West.

Tim

I still am unconvinced that the patriarchal marriage, as you've described it, is a better model than one of equal power sharing. Can there truly be unity and solidarity of a household if one partner's views are not equally valued? It seems to me that there might be surface unity, but this would be a facade. Also, if one partner is in charge of ensuring that the family doesn't break up, or sees themselves responsible for the actions of the other, does the other partner truly have personal freedom? This promotes a dependant relationship, and puts the wife on the same footing as her children, which undermines her authority (despite your assertion that both parents have the right to be obeyed and respected by their children). It also makes me wonder, how will the partner in charge monitor the partner they are responsible for? What is the limit of the authority granted to the power partner in a patriarchal marriage?

[ToadBrother]

Finally, I am forced to disagree outright as there are, indeed, strong social incentives in Patriarchal societies to engage in the patriarchal system, but there is no possible way to force someone to say, "I will," and "I do," as such coercion or force would necessarily repudiate the vow or oath then being taken, and annul the whole deal. That latter stipulation, that marriage is always and by necessity must be freely entered into by both parties, without hesitation or even objection from a witness, guarantees the bedrock notions of Western liberty.

Tim

What guarantees the bedrock of Western liberty is that each person is afforded as much freedom as reasonably be guaranteed. In other words, you don't have the right to dominate any other person, and patriarchies are all about dominance.

[Timothy17]

I like the idea of having a discussion based on our opinions alone... it's kind of liberating.

I dispute that the decline in patriarchy has led to our current social environment, and in fact I'd say that social evolution itself led to the decline in patriarchy.

What drives social evolution ? The economy, technology, and large forces such as that I suppose.

I think I know where you are coming from ; however, I feel I cannot engage on these grounds, as it seems to be begging a chicken and the egg argument. Patriarchy was the default staple from which modern society sprouted, so it is difficult for me to assume that less patriarchy = more society, technology or economy : society, or rather civilization, was advancing even under Patriarchal rudiments, and it did this, in my opinion, with more social cohesion and stability than the present societal construct is affording us.

Being male just isn't an advantage any more - you don't need to be physically stronger, or have a strategic brain, or knowledge guarded by monks. Anyhow, it's better this way. The patriarchy (at least of the 20th century) included a rigid set of social protocols that I wouldn't care to live by, and a less dynamic society.

Obviously I will have to disagree that with the evidence you cited comes the conclusion that it is necessarily better this way. If economic growth and technological advancement were not possible under a Patriarchy, then there simply would be no society or civilization for the past so many centuries, if not millenia.

Take, for example, the Romans, considered to be pioneers and forerunners of all things civilized, though borrowing heavily from a Greek foundation and infuence. The Romans had an interesting society from the point of view of our debate/discussion, because in it we witness the birth of a new social class, the Patricians, quite literally, patriarchal families, as opposed to the general population, the plebeians. The disctinction is evidenced in their respective names ; the former were characterized by their Patri-ness (literally, father-ness, which is the root for our word patriot, for example), the latter, as being people (pleb). Admittedly, they gained this distinction also due to their participation as being "fathers" of the Republic ; nonetheless, the tales surrounding the myth of the birth of their Republic clearly demonstrate the cause of the Republic was due to patriarchal incentives : namely, the protection of the chastity of someone's daughter. We can conclude from this that the key distinguishing characteristic between these two social classes was the strictly patriarchal organization of the Senate-class, a class that lead Rome to world power, but a division that constantly wracked the Roman Republic with internal problems, especially between the Patrician and Plebian classes, resulting in numerous civil upheavals. The example of the patricians eventually fused its way down and into Roman society, and before long the monopoly of the patricians became purely oligarchal and aristocratic, as the one custom that distinguished them from the greater body of citizens evaporated. This custom of the patricians was principally a patrilineal system of descent and wealth transference, which protected the property of that class and ensured its passing on to future generations, which provided a legal prop to earn (or at least acquire) wealth. Like any society, the question became how to properly earn that wealth in a manner that kept the peace and benefit society as a whole. Later, the patricians would, by becoming members of the Senate, actually be disbarred from traditional means of earning wealth, and encouraged to improve their education and general learning and to occupy themselves entirely with statesmanship, so as to provide a final reason (or excuse) for their cherished perogative to be the sole governing class.

While hardly a perfect example, I believe this demonstrates that a patriarchal organization of society is by no means a hindrance to its "social evolution," but rather a prop and spur for its development and growth, principally by ensuring and protecting the participation of males in the family, which by virtue of that fact connects them to their past, places them in the immediate needs of the present, and also gives them cause to be concerned for tomorrow, and for the future, via their certain prodigy.

Tim

Edited October 6, 2010 by Timothy17

[M.Dancer]

.... and patriarchies are all about dominance.

And they make same sex marriages so darned difficult...

[Timothy17]

What guarantees the bedrock of Western liberty is that each person is afforded as much freedom as reasonably be guaranteed. In other words, you don't have the right to dominate any other person, and patriarchies are all about dominance.

You said,

"Western liberty is that each person is afforded as much freedom as reasonably be guaranteed." What I am proposing to debate here is the reasonableness of guaranteeing a matriarchy, by comparing the merits of the two systems. Seeing as patriarchy is the system under question at present, it would logically follow that we convict the system in court before we kill it, which I believe is a very reasonable freedom to grant it in accordance with Western notions of liberty

In other, previous posts, I have noted that Western Patriarchy cannot possibly be entirely about dominance, though conceeded that much like anything, it can be abused by those who desire dominance ; in fact, Patriarchy actually limits dominance due to its exclusivity principle : one man cannot marry every single woman, and thus shut-out all the other men, while dominating all the women.

Furthermore, I would assert that Patriarchy recognizes the right of children to have access to their fathers, as much as can be reasonably guaranteed, and also permits what nature has not ; namely, the inalienable inclusion of a man in and with his family. I assert my belief, presently held, that without social and legal props this position of the man is precarious, and without it the man is deprived of a litany of natural incentives to be a competent, responsible, and beneficial member of society, if only for the sake of his children. If there is one consensus I have heard from working, married men about why they bother with all the stresses of work and family life, it is exactly because of their families. Family men more often than not work for their families, and single men often work, study, etc., for the sake of, and hope for, a family. The Patriarchal system thereby provides an incentive for males to be competent and active members of society. Arguably they can, by education and indoctrination, be conditioned to have that mentality, but the very real and present needs of a living family can hardly compare to a whimsical, ideological notion, especially as a means to justify any kind of suffering or social limits.

Tim