Is the patriarchy a good thing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There have been several successful matriarchal societies in history. I suggest researching the subject. However moving away from patriarchy does not mean we’re heading toward matriarchy. Rather the goal is to have a co-equal society where neither men nor women exert control but both share leadership.
 
There have been several successful matriarchal societies in history. I suggest researching the subject. However moving away from patriarchy does not mean we’re heading toward matriarchy. Rather the goal is to have a co-equal society where neither men nor women exert control but both share leadership.
Click to expand...
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
1 Timothy 2:11-14

I still think God wants men to be in a position of authority
 
Edmundus1581 said:
Feminists like to boost anti-male rhetoric by cherry picking female “victims” in other cultures, taking them completely out of context and it is very hard to answer them because we are simply unaware of the whole picture - and deliberately so.
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing. When we women from these other cultures actually talk about our experiences, anti feminists step in and cherry pick a bunch of women as proof of their own view.

I believe we had a similar conversation in the past, when I tried to tell you about the hostile and violent sexism in India. I’m obviously not trying to rehash it nor am I holding a grudge, but you immediately started talking about how there are men there who are oppressed.

There were women in the past were also unhappy with certain issues, yet they’re currently being painted as happy little housewives.

Obviously nuance is important because it’s not as if every man benefits, and every woman suffers. As you’ve pointed out. We should be aware that a patriarchy does not mean that all men are in a position of privilege. But we would be talking about a general culture of sexism.

So when the only people who are “willing” to listen to these women are leftists, can you blame them for latching onto them and eventually being radicalised?
 
Everything. You don’t have to buy the book. It does confirm the devastation I’ve seen which was inflicted by total strangers over a period of decades.
 
Saint Paul wanted it maybe… And only in the context of religious instruction that the quotation was cherry picked from.
 
Last edited:
Padres1969 said:
There have been several successful matriarchal societies in history. I suggest researching the subject. However moving away from patriarchy does not mean we’re heading toward matriarchy. Rather the goal is to have a co-equal society where neither men nor women exert control but both share leadership.
Click to expand...
Matrilineal, yes. Matriarchal? Name some?

The problem I see is that “men” and “women” aren’t monoliths such that one can assume that a government with some proportion of people who belong to the definitions of this group or that will be a government that understands the people they govern.

No matter who is in charge, they run the risk of lording their authority over others, trying to pass their privilege on to their children and spread it mostly among their social circle and in doing so becoming an insulated elite ruling class.

That is why Our Lord said that a Christian leader needed to be a servant, someone who still gets down on his or her knees and personally sees to the needs of others and lives among the people he or she leads. When those who have gained importance lose touch with those they govern, it doesn’t matter who they are or why they were motivated to seek a leadership position. They’re going to get out of touch. That isn’t a gender thing or a race thing. That is human nature.

If a patriarchy runs the way Our Lord instructed, there isn’t a problem with it. It is going to be fine. Actually being in a leadership position and holding authority the way Our Lord instructed, though, requires rising above our natural inclinations and accepting a lot of grace, no matter who we are.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Everything. You don’t have to buy the book. It does confirm the devastation I’ve seen which was inflicted by total strangers over a period of decades.
Click to expand...
Again, I have no idea what kind of devastation on stay-at-home moms you are talking about, let alone how it was inflicted by “anarchists” and “sexual perverts.” On the surface, that sounds like a real stretch, so you need to be a bit more specific about what you mean.

In other words, I’m not saying that immoral things haven’t been normalized using marketing tactics first developed to get everyone to believe they need consumer products they do not need. I just don’t know what that has to do with specifically destroying the community of stay-at-home mothers.
 
edwest211 said:
Please don’t blame what you call social conservatives for this. Who prevented partners from visiting other partners in hospitals? Their families. Did they not have that right? They were blood relatives and the partners were not. Two men or two women getting a marriage license is, by definition, not the same as a man and woman getting a marriage license. I liked all the gay and bisexual people I’ve known.
Click to expand...
The very fact that a family had the power to block a same-sex partner from seeing their dying partner is an injustice, and it was an injustice among many that persisted for many years even after the decriminalization of homosexuality. The fact that conservative forces so clearly wanted not even in a minimal kind of recognition of these relationships was more a means for them to continue to marginalize homosexuals, and it was only when they were losing that aspect of the culture wars that suddenly they saw the light and saw the wisdom of offering gay couples some of the rights and privileges afforded heterosexual couples.
 
During the 1970s, the primary target of the sexual revolutionaries was stay at home moms. That pig you were married to is going to kick you to the curb once he sees a more attractive woman. You will get stuck with the kids. Get a job so you’ll have that to fall back on. How did they know that? They didn’t. To them being a stay at home mom was the worst possible thing a woman could. So they painted men - all men - as male chauvenist pigs. That was 100% wrong.
 
edwest211 said:
During the 1970s, the primary target of the sexual revolutionaries was stay at home moms. That pig you were married to is going to kick you to the curb once he sees a more attractive woman. You will get stuck with the kids. Get a job so you’ll have that to fall back on. How did they know that? They didn’t. To them being a stay at home mom was the worst possible thing a woman could. So they painted men - all men - as male chauvenist pigs. That was 100% wrong.
Click to expand...
And yet I look here and the attitudes that women “have a different purpose”, not to mention language that seems to suggest some inherent weakness in females, still persists. You seem to want to demonize feminism in its entirety, and not deal with the fact that there was, and still is to some extent, a patriarchy that views women as second class citizens, invoking carefully crafted language about how men and women are, for lack of a better phrase, “separate but equal”.

I know many stay-at-home moms, or at least moms that only have part time and casual work. My ex-wife stayed at home to raise our daughters, and it was a costly but right decision for my family. But every family is different, and the idea that a women’s fundamental purpose is to either be a walking womb or a nun is anachronistic. Women are human beings, with the same rights as men, and the right to be paid the same wage for the same job, and not to be discriminated against or treated like they’re simpering children. And there were a lot of men in the 1970s, and still are some today, who feel exactly that, and those men should be made to feel shame.

Of course some strains of feminism went completely off the mark. It’s no different than any other movement. But if I were to, say, treat Christianity with the same sweeping generalizations, picking out the fringe lunatics as somehow being representative, then I could go around declaring all Christians Christian Identity types.

That’s my problem with your whole line of rhetoric. A rejection that there was injustice and inequality, and an attempt to undermine a very large and diverse movement based upon the lunatic fringe.

Women are equal to men. Full stop. Women deserve the same political and social rights as men. Full stop. Women have the right to determine their own course in life (and by extension to accept the consequences of those decisions). Full stop. They have the right not to be treated like hysterical children that need protecting by men. Full stop.
 
Speaking generally, it seems that all people want is power. The power to force people - total strangers - to do whatever they want. In New York, right now, there is a law that can get a person in trouble for calling a man who now resembles a woman, by the incorrect pronoun. You have to use fake words. Sie, which in German, means you. Hir, which in German, is close to hier, meaning yesterday. There appear to be no lines they won’t cross to get their way.

As far as it being an injustice for families to do what they did, the argument should be posed to each particular family, not to a poorly defined group like social conservatives.
 
Last edited:
Not Catholic? The Church is the Church and she sets the rules, not people who crave power - speaking generally.
 
Yes, all those rotten abolitionists and suffragettes wanted POWER! Oh, the humanity, that a group treated poorly and as second class citizens might want the power that they had never had before.
 
edwest211 said:
Not Catholic? The Church is the Church and she sets the rules, not people who crave power - speaking generally.
Click to expand...
And so far as I can tell, the Church’s stand on equality is that women are of equal dignity to men, and deserve to be treated with equality in the work place and in society in general.
 
All men are male chauvenist pigs. Full stop. Have you read anything from ‘women’s studies’ or any feminist literature? I am not about talking points. I belong to no political groups. I do not engage in rhetoric. Your talking about the “lunatic fringe” does not reflect reality. Contraception in the 1960s, followed by abortion in 1973, followed by No-Fault Divorce a little later. You’re an intelligent person, do you see a pattern here? A plan? When so-called Adult Bookstores started popping up everywhere in the 1970s, ask your yourself: Who paid the rent? Who paid the employees? The printing? For distribution? Catholics wanted this? People needed this?
 
Last edited:
The Church always had it right, especially about sexual morality.
 
I’m in full favor of no fault divorce. There were enough women stuck in horrible marriages because of the difficulties achieving divorce, and for other couples, it basically meant having to lie about the nature of the marital breakdown just get divorced. I also think every women has the right to contraception, regardless of Church teaching, because, guess what, most people in North America and Britain aren’t Catholics. As to abortion, well I’m not going down that road, other than to say it’s not my place to tell other people what to do about their own medical choices, and again, most people in the English-speaking world aren’t Catholics, and there is some variety on views on abortion even among Christians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top