Is the patriarchy a good thing?

[opop]

It is true that human nature seems to be made in a way that males tend take the lead in general. And there is no problem with that per se. However, in Genesis 3, 16 we read:

“Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”

God sais that to Eve when he explains to her what the consequences of the original sin will be for her (and for women in genral). So it seems true that we live in a world where patriarchy is partially flawed (as the human nature itself) because of sin and as such the leading role of men is in many cases downgraded into and abusive domination over women. So I think that “feminism” (in its broadest definition) has a point when it says that women suffered many societal injustices in history. One example is how they were prohibited from going to universities. So although modern feminism is full of falsehood, I think that it was based, at least in its origin, on a legitimate concern. Let’s remember that St. Edith Stein herself took part in some those feminist developments and concerns of her day. But of course, we are talking here about a kind a christian “feminism” from the beginning of the XXth century, so litttle to do with today’s feminism.
In conclusion, let’s keep those two complementary truths: on one hand patriarchy (i.e. the leading role of men in society) is in itself good, but on the other hand it is easly misused and has been misused many times in history.

 

[Edmundus1581]

And a happy Feast of St Joseph the Worker to you, Mr Gov! Wishing many blessings on your work, your fatherhood and your family!

 

[Edmundus1581]

In conclusion, let’s keep those two complementary truths: on one hand patriarchy (i.e. the leading role of men in society) is in itself good, but on the other hand it is easly misused and has been misused many times in history.

Agreed, but also let’s not forget that patriarchy also came at a cost to men, and a great practical benefit to women. It was men who had to fight wars, do the dirty and dangerous jobs, suffer ignonomy if poor and unemployed (where women could get charity without shame), etc. I’m just making this point that “patriarchy” is much more than about “power” and social structures mostly occupied by men. Real power has always been held by women in the home, and in the assumption that husbands had to provide for them.

As many have noted in this thread, this was the system which built all the comforts, safety and freedoms we enjoy.

 

[Lea101]

Agreed, but also let’s not forget that patriarchy also came at a cost to men, and a great practical benefit to women. It was men who had to fight wars, do the dirty and dangerous jobs, suffer ignonomy if poor and unemployed (where women could get charity without shame), etc. I’m just making this point that “patriarchy” is much more than about “power” and social structures mostly occupied by men. Real power was also held by women in the assumption that husbands had to provide for them.

As many have noted in this thread, this was the system which built all the comforts, safety and freedoms we enjoy.

While it did benefit women in some areas (there’s a female comedian who used to do a bit where she says she hates feminists because now she can’t sit around all day and eat snacks anymore, lol), that kind of patriarchy becomes less and less necessary as our society develops.

E.g. Our job market is extremely different now compared to 1870s. Women can effectively hold down a lot of jobs that men have, with the exception of jobs that require physical labour. Women can even serve in the military now in many roles that do not require physical strength. Yet their contributions are immensely useful.

I’m saying this because I think there’s a lot of men (and women) who seem to be looking back wistfully. Our technological advancements won’t let that happen. They would have to create a new form of patriarchy, or simply accept the idea of equal opportunities/meritocracy imo

 

[Lea101]

So it seems true that we live in a world where patriarchy is partially flawed (as the human nature itself) because of sin and as such the leading role of men is in many cases downgraded into and abusive domination over women

Good point. Patriarchy was hardly ever ideal because we basically suck.

A couple of arguments I’ve seen has reminded be about arguments communists/socialists tend to throw out: it wasn’t implemented properly/it’s the fault of the people, not the system itself. Before anyone yells at me, I’m not saying these systems are similar. I’m just saying the structure of their responses are.

Ultimately we can have a set of standards individuals can hold themselves to. E.g. To help the poor. In this case it would be for men to lead effectively in their families, communities.

But once you start to enforce it as a system (e.g. Only allowing men to hold office), it becomes corrupt and there’s no point in being shocked about it.

 

[LateranBasilica]

Men and women were slowly reprogrammed by feminist radicals.

OH please, Its a big wide world. There is nothing new in it. Your premise that men learned how to be irresponsible and were not irresponsible down through the centuries of history, but were taught by women who were radical feminists to be irresponsible is such a straw man.

 

[LateranBasilica]

Actually it doesn’t, sexual sin has been going on for centuries.

Are you serious right now? You are sitting in front of a computer, I imagine in a place that has some level of freedom and security and is not currently war torn. You can’t be so enthralled in feminism that you are that ungrateful! This is the disdain to which I referred earlier.

I won’t even attempt to list every successful and thriving society in history because you clearly have an agenda that won’t be thwarted by logic, reason and facts.

Flagged as attacking the person and not addressing the question.
Good day to you. Ignored.

 

[LateranBasilica]

Thankyou for proving my point, Divorce has been ongoing for centuries in all cultures.

Literally every single European country and many of their former colonies. Also, China, Japan, Russia, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, turkey, and India. Just off the top of my head.

And what is your definition of ‘successful’

At this point I am imagining a colony, ruled by a monarchy, with numerous female heads.

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

Patriarchy is a bad thing.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If men are given power, it will corrupt them. Sharing power equally among men & women limits both’s power, thus limiting corruption of both.

Look at patriarchal societies past & present & see how awful they were/are.
Feminism is the only reason why women in the west are treated better than women in the Middle East.
Even the Church took no initiative to criminalise marital rape or to remove laws requiring rape survivors to marry their rapist, it was feminists who took initiative to remove these things.
It was under patriarchal societies that wars were fought, that prostitution grew, that the poor were oppressed, that slavery grew.

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

do the dirty and dangerous jobs, suffer ignonomy if poor and unemployed (where women could get charity without shame)

This is what someone from the 1500s said a good wife did:

. . . Milk the cows, brew & bake, send corn to mill, make butter & cheese, tend the swine, shear corn, help husband fill dung cart, drive plough, load hay. . .

Medieval peasant women made clothes, but sometimes hired to thatch, shear sheep, weed, mow,.
Of course, women were always paid, if at all, less than men, in fact, one 13th century source suggests hiring women as labourers because they could be paid less.
Unwed mothers were refused charity.

 

[Neithan]

I agree, patriarchy and matriarchy are both primitive and uncivilized. With his teaching on marriage (“in the beginning it was not so”) Jesus revealed that God’s plan is not that men dominate and have a dozen wives, or that women control and have a series of weak husbands; but that the family should be a balance of one man and one woman sharing responsibility. St. Paul said that women should submit; but men should sacrifice. It’s about sharing power, not dominating or controlling one over the other.

One of the reasons the Roman Empire was so incredibly successful was their culture based on the “pater familias” in monogamous marriage. That made men industrious and loyal, whereas in many cultures around them, men didn’t know who their children were (matriarchal) or had so many wives/concubines they didn’t feel particularly attached to them (patriarchal). Although we don’t really have examples of polygamy as much now we can see some of the effects of dissipated fatherhood with the culture of fornication.

The “pater familias” works; and we shouldn’t abandon something that led to western civilization. Now men have finally recognized though, over the past century at least, that women have the right to choose this relationship and not have male power imposed on them. Many don’t choose it, and I’d argue we can see the effects, but it’s not forced on them like it was before, which is good and I think that’s as God intended — free will. Ironically, blaming men and misandry makes less sense now than ever before, but it’s more prevalent. There was a lot of good in the original feminism. It’s just gone rotten now, but that’s no surprise. Adam blamed Eve, and Eve resented Adam.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Men and women were slowly reprogrammed by feminist radicals. Men and women did not even have a species relationship. Have people forgotten the radical feminist lie: My body my choice"? Where was the man in all this? She didn’t get pregnant by herself. So men “learned” how to be irresponsible. They were told to just enjoy the sex. They were free and clear.

From my own reading on history and social history, it was men who championed Free Love, convinced the women to this way of thinking, and it has snowballed to Where We Are Now.

Yet another example of “it seemed like a good idea at the time”,
or
“This totally worked on paper”
haha
:crazy_face:

 

[angel12]

Employers are hiring less women now

Funny, the unemployment statistics don’t seem to bear that out. Perhaps you’d share your source.

 

[Aquinas11]

So you’re for sexualizing the workplace? What’s the purpose of makeup in workplace?

 

[Aquinas11]

avoid wearing it.

Well I’m glad we agree makeup shouldn’t be worn in workplace given current climate of harassment. We don’t need more factors adding to sexualizing of workplace

 

[Lea101]

I’m asking you for your honest stance on makeup in the workplace. Don’t try to divert!

 

[angel12]

The purpose of make-up worn in the workplace for most women usually involves covering up less than perfect skin, dark circles, and blemishes. It’s something they do to promote a professional and well-groomed appearance, far more so than to sexualize your workplace.

But of course, those who want to blame the victims of harassment won’t believe you. There is still a subset of people who choose to believe that men are never at fault for their own actions.

 

[on_the_hill]

That’s not the point at all, and you know it. I hope.
I heard the other day that Obama offered to buy Joe Biden out of his mortgage because Biden was on the verge of having to sell his house to help pay for his son’s cancer treatments.

If Joe Biden is put in that position, what hope is there for anyone else?

But that would derail the thread.

edwest211:

Men and women were slowly reprogrammed by feminist radicals. Men and women did not even have a species relationship. Have people forgotten the radical feminist lie: My body my choice"? Where was the man in all this? She didn’t get pregnant by herself. So men “learned” how to be irresponsible. They were told to just enjoy the sex. They were free and clear.

From my own reading on history and social history, it was men who championed Free Love, convinced the women to this way of thinking, and it has snowballed to Where We Are Now.

Yet another example of “it seemed like a good idea at the time”,
or
“This totally worked on paper”
haha
:crazy_face:

Or “It’s your fault that I had impure thoughts that led me to impure actions. Well…maybe not your fault personally, but the fault of those women, and you’re a woman.”

 

[on_the_hill]

I categorically dispute this and deny it’s validity. It is wrong. Both men and women have held their families together since the beginning of humanity.

 

[Lea101]

The purpose of make-up worn in the workplace for most women usually involves covering up less than perfect skin, dark circles, and blemishes. It’s something they do to promote a professional and well-groomed appearance, far more so than to sexualize your workplace. Picture on left for each woman is no make-up whatsoever. Picture on right for each woman is natural-tone make-up. Being in the workplace with blotchy skin, dark circles, and blemishes can give the appearance of being sloppy or even ill.

There’s also more to this. For example, while blush mimicks the flushed cheeks during arousal, women who wear it aren’t doing so to seduce.

Men who see it are not aroused as well. It may make them look ‘prettier’, but this does not mean it is arousing.

But all of this is irrelevant. He’s just throwing out a really tired Jordan Peterson response to the same subject matter.

Hence why I asked if he was really against makeup in the workplace (and in church, and in shopping malls etc) because I highly doubt he is against it. Rather, he’s trying to prove a point which he isn’t making.