When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

There are 31 references listed, on topics ranging from "Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis" to "Gender inequality, violence against women and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women."

There's plenty there for you to explore.

 

[trophy33]

There are 31 references listed, on topics ranging from "Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis" to "Gender inequality, violence against women and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women."

There's plenty there for you to explore.

It seems to me your source is just about interpretation. If written by a Roman Catholic, the conclusion would be different than when written by some gender studies graduate. Solution to any problem is always ideological in some way or inside some cultural framework, because thats how people will think.

So I will ask another way: Do you have a specific reference that you suppose is proving your point that the world is better without patriarchy?

Not just proving that patriarchy has some weak spots or problems to work on (any system has). But that some other system (or no system) is proved to be better for the society as a whole. For children, for families, for safety, for freedoms, for majority, for women and yes, also for men.

And as a side note - would such system be natural for people or would it need to be "taught from the top down" and policed extensively by government? If it will not be natural "from the bottom up", it will not be sustainable and people will rebel against tyranny, sooner or later. Or it will explode in other problems, while the few ones the gov will focus on, will be (maybe) better.

 

[Paidiske]

So I will ask another way: Do you have a specific reference that you suppose is proving your point that the world is better without patriarchy?

Other than that women have basic rights, opportunities, and protections from injustice and exploitation now that we didn't have before? (I take it that basic rights, opportunities and protections from injustice and exploitation are self-evidently good things).

And as a side note - would such system be natural for people or would it need to be "taught from the top down" and policed extensively by government?

Any system is taught, and policed, whether by government or less formally. Patriarchal systems as much as any other.

 

[trophy33]

Other than that women have basic rights, opportunities, and protections from injustice and exploitation now that we didn't have before? (I take it that basic rights, opportunities and protections from injustice and exploitation are self-evidently good things).

All people have basic rights, opportunities and protections that we did not have before. It has nothing to do with patriarchy, but with social democracy, technology and economy.

Any system is taught, and policed, whether by government or less formally. Patriarchal systems as much as any other.

To say that both natural and unnatural systems need the same level of policing is obviously wrong. If, for example, you want the same percentage of women working in technical fields like in social fields, you will have to force them.

 

[Paidiske]

All people have basic rights, opportunities and protections that we did not have before. It has nothing to do with patriarchy, but with social democracy and economy.

No, women specifically were excluded from full participation in democracy, and in the economy. It was in my lifetime that a woman couldn't get a loan without a male guarantor, no matter her own income, for example. That's patriarchy.

To say that both natural and unnatural systems need the same level of policing is obviously wrong.

I'm saying that there's no such thing as "natural" social structures. They're all cultural products.

 

[trophy33]

It was in my lifetime that a woman couldn't get a loan without a male guarantor, no matter her own income, for example. That's patriarchy.

I do not understand this Australian context, but I would be surprised if it had nothing to do with money (i.e. economical status), instead of biological sex.

I'm saying that there's no such thing as "natural" social structures. They're all cultural products.

You can say whatever you want. But its not true.

But back to my question - what system (or no system?) is generally better than patriarchy?

 

[Paidiske]

I do not understand this Australian context, but I would be surprised if it had nothing to do with money (i.e. economical status), instead of biological sex.

Then you would be surprised.

You can say whatever you want. But its not true.

Citation needed.

 

[trophy33]

Then you would be surprised.

Then its not what I mean by patriarchy. By patriarchy I do not mean that a woman cannot get a bank loan.

Citation needed.

Not more than yours.

But back to my question - what system (or no system?) is generally better than patriarchy?

 

[Paidiske]

Then its not what I mean by patriarchy.

Lol.

Not more than yours.

I gave you some. You've given me nothing so far.

But back to my question - what system (or no system?) is generally better than patriarchy?

One in which people aren't systematically denied rights and opportunities based on their gender (or any other attribute, either).

 

[trophy33]

Lol.

Cool.

I gave you some. You've given me nothing so far.

For example a simple logic - why would independent cultures all over the world create similar gender roles and structures, if it was not based in our natural abilities and gifts.

And I suppose that you do not accept the Bible, though you are in a religious suit, on your photo.

One in which people aren't systematically denied rights and opportunities based on their gender (or any other attribute, either).

Specifically which one?

 

[Paidiske]

Specifically which one?

An egalitarian one.

 

[trophy33]

An egalitarian one.

What countries are the most egalitarian one, according to you?

 

[Paidiske]

Iceland usually tops the lists.

 

[Paidiske]

And I suppose that you do not accept the Bible, though you are in a religious suit, on your photo.

I accept the Bible, and I don't see anything there that says "patriarchy is natural." Quite to the contrary.

 

[trophy33]

Iceland usually tops the lists.

Very promiscuous and a very high intake of antidepressants. Not many people want to move to Iceland to live their dream.

"A new report released by the OECD has shown that Iceland is the world’s biggest consumer of anti-depressants per capita. One in ten Icelander now take medicine to cope with mental health anxieties"

Iceland hooked on anti-depressants | IceNews - Daily News

A new report released by the OECD has shown that Iceland is the world’s biggest consumer of anti-depressants per capita. One in ten Icelander now take...

www.icenews.is

The highest obesity in Europe:

From Iceland — Obesity Rate In Iceland Highest In Europe, Says OECD

A bar chart that the OECD posted on their Facebook page shows that the obesity rate in Iceland is the...

grapevine.is

Skyrocketing homicide rate from 0.3 to 1.37 in last ten years:

Iceland: murder rate 2022| Statista

The murder rate in Iceland fluctuated between 2010 and 2022, and peaked in 2020.

www.statista.com

And regarding domestic/sexual violence, its also not great in any way.

"Sexual violence seems to be somewhat of an epidemic in Iceland."

From Iceland — Sex Crimes In Iceland

Sexual violence seems to be somewhat of an epidemic in Iceland. The fact of the matter is that, aside from...

grapevine.is

So far, the correlation "the more feminism/egalitarianism, the better society" does not seem to work, if this country "tops" your list.

The most safe and happy countries seem to be the ones with traditional systems, but with various tweaks and safe guards regarding the weak spots of the traditional structures.

 

[trophy33]

I accept the Bible, and I don't see anything there that says "patriarchy is natural." Quite to the contrary.

You do not think that the God's order is natural? What do you mean by natural, then... based purely on animal instincts?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would say, that we're shifting our social categories from being based solely on biological reality to being more flexible.

That's a nice way of saying...

"We're moving away from biological reality to include people who have dealing with problems with biological reality."

Even when those things are taken into account, there's a wage gap, the "adjusted" wage gap.

Those things weren't taken into account.

But even then, it doesn't take into account things like underemployment of women (where women have access to fewer hours than men), and so on.

Underemployment of women....is that when lots of women try to get a job but can't? Or one of those jobs where women don't apply?

I imagine it's probably because there is relatively robust data on it, compared to other possible measures.

It's an imaginaty concept that you can't actually measure....so that attempt was made up.

However, although somewhere like North Korea is ruled by the men of one family, the rate at which men kill women across the country is probably not a bad proxy for other forms of male domination of women in a society at large.

I don't think N Korea records it's murders. Here's the real question though...

Do any of those nations have more women murdered per year than men per year?




Pop l

There's an oft-cited statistic that in Australia, a woman is killed by her male partner or former partner every nine days. (Another area where there's unfinished work for the feminist movement).

Fascinating. A quick check reveals 69-70% of Australian murder victims are men.

This goes to show how absurd your research into the patriarchy is. If patriarchy isn't just about who is in charge, but who is privileged and who benefits and who is oppressed....then why wouldn't we call this a matriarchy? What exactly is the privilege or benefit to being murdered more than women?

Answer- there is none. This is a group of ideologues who somehow got money to waste on a theory that's more about hating men than reality.

 

[Paidiske]

Very promiscuous and a very high intake of antidepressants. Not many people want to move to Iceland to live their dream.

It's very cold in Iceland.

That said, I didn't say Iceland had no problems. I said it usually tops the list for most egalitarian society. If you want to argue that the high rate of depression in Iceland is linked to being egalitarian, you have some evidence to find...

Here's an interesting study: The role of women's traditional gender beliefs in depression, intimate partner violence and stress: insights from a Spanish abbreviated multicultural measure - BMC Women's Health

"we found that traditional gender beliefs were associated with increased severity of stress, depressive symptoms and reciprocal verbal aggression."

You do not think that the God's order is natural? What do you mean by natural, then... based purely on animal instincts?

I think patriarchy is a result of the fall, and human sinfulness; not what God intended.

Underemployment of women....is that when lots of women try to get a job but can't? Or one of those jobs where women don't apply?

No, it's things like when you want to work full time but can only get part time work.

If patriarchy isn't just about who is in charge, but who is privileged and who benefits and who is oppressed....then why wouldn't we call this a matriarchy?

The question is: who commits those murders? Overwhelmingly, men. Men kill men, and men kill women. Specifically, men kill women who are or have been their partners. That's a very particular issue to work on.

This is not about hating men. It's about changing these statistics:

"Prevalence

According to the 2016 Personal Safety Survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, since the age of 15:

• 1 in 2 women has experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime.
• 1 in 3 women has experienced violence by a partner, other known person or a stranger since the age of 15.
• 1 in 4 Australian women has experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15.
• 1 in 4 Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner since the age of 15.
• 1 in 5 Australian women had experienced sexual violence since the age of 15.
• 1 in 6 women and 1 in 9 men experienced physical and/or sexual abuse before the age of 15.

Women are most likely to experience physical and sexual violence in their home, at the hands of a male current or ex-partner (ABS PSS 2016). Of women who had children in their care when they experienced violence from an ex partner, 68 per cent reported that the children had seen or heard the violence (ABS PSS 2016).

Additionally, 23 per cent of women in Australia have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime including childhood sexual abuse and/or sexual assault since the age of 15 (ABS PSS 2016). However, the true prevalence of sexual violence is likely to be higher as we know that many incidents of sexual violence go unreported. According to the 2022 ABS Sexual assault – Perpetrators release, 97 per cent of sexual assault offenders are male."

 

[trophy33]

It's very cold in Iceland.

That said, I didn't say Iceland had no problems. I said it usually tops the list for most egalitarian society. If you want to argue that the high rate of depression in Iceland is linked to being egalitarian, you have some evidence to find...

Have you read the updated post? Iceland has many problems you expect to be better solved by egalitarianism than by traditional structures.

Something is not working in Iceland (the country is getting rampantly worse) and its not the cold. Cold was always there.

Here's an interesting study: The role of women's traditional gender beliefs in depression, intimate partner violence and stress: insights from a Spanish abbreviated multicultural measure - BMC Women's Health

I will check it.

I think patriarchy is a result of the fall, and human sinfulness; not what God intended.

Where does the Bible say so?

 

[Paidiske]

Have you read the updated post? Iceland has many problems you expect to be better solved by egalitarianism than by traditional structures.

But what it doesn't have (to the same extent as other countries), is the problem of gender inequality.

Where does the Bible say so?

When you read Genesis 3:16, God is telling Eve the consequences of the fall; suffering in childbearing, and so forth; and her husband ruling over her is part of that new, fallen, reality. At no point before that in the narrative is this the way of things.