The body of Carol Gilligan's written work is both sizable and intellectually substantial although it apparently is not reaching a large male readership unfortunately. Like Wendy Brown, Susan Faludi and Ellen Meiksins Wood, Gilligan is concerned with explaining the origin and intellectual mechanics of a power structure that immerses society in what remains a largely undiscovered social, economic and cultural matrix. Although the gender dominating this structure is male, the male citizen trapped at the bottom, is generally disabled by it, just the same. Gilligan's most recent contribution to scholarship; The Deepening Darkness (2009), excavates the legal and philosophical anticedents that form the ancient foundation of patrimonial capitalism in our time with special attention to the construction of property law and other claims that authorize executive power that entail the arrogation of both authority and expertise. This from the book," Patriarchy's error lies in wedding us, men and women alike to a false story about human nature and then characterizing our resistance to this story as a sign of pathology or sin.The long-standing divisions of mind from body, thought from emotion and self from relationships enforce a kind of moral slavery in that they erode a resistance grounded in the core self and cause us to lose touch with our experience."
Curia Regis Given, that the material in The Deepening Darkness, concerns the origins of western law much of it co-written by a legal scholar, the book scarcely making any mention of feminism (whatever that means) you would find its references obscure and furthermore the text assumes a familiarity with the canon of modern literature. If feminism sounds funny then you will be disappointed because the caliber of scholarship this book represents is not.
Curia Regis In your own words;" Could I be wrong? Possibly but not hardly." What comes to mind about your response, is how bitter and crass its narcissism sounds. Your understanding of this author is by way of an underlying against what you believe to be her association with feminism. Your post below goes on to demonstrate, the same species of intellectual rigor that makes Rush Limbaugh so appealing. Men presumably, must defend themselves by being prepared to attack books they have not read? Would actually reading Gilligan's work be to risk the security of intellectual segregation and face the more immediate danger of un-manlyness by association? A battle between the sexes still seems to be the chosen battleground for misogynists but refocused on an imaginary conflict between reason and emotion projected onto a struggle to segregate feminists from biological rationalists, lest the femi-nazis emasculate the rest of us. Your case against feminism as a traditional female hysteria, seems to rest on an hysterical premise of its own, similar to that of a crusade against sexual heresy, that real men must either win or face sexual annihilation as a result. Millions must be wondering how great a threat to the reality of sexual dimorphism is the idea of equality in general, considering a new ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of same sex marriage?
I was just thinking the same thing. If this is the definition of patriarchy, it seems like a misnomer. It's like the anecdote about Napolean and Laplace. "Sir, I have no need for that hypothesis".
The fact that this woman has essentially defined patriarchy as "putting all men above mothers and children" (which is broad at best) while completely ignoring "women and children first", which puts men BELOW women and sees them as less important than mothers and children is pretty much the definition of pot kettle hypocrisy.
Mentalidade Logica The existence of patriarchy, or even to some degree, misogyny, doesn't mean that men can't love and respect women. The phrase "In the Dog House", is a term that was established around the early 20th century, when society was even more patriarchal. It's used to describe the state of a man who has done something to anger or upset his wife. But just as most things, it's evolved and can now be applied to anyone in a relationship. Woman, gay man, transgender, anyone who has upset their significant other. If patriarchy doesn't exist, then why do so many men believe that it would be emasculating to be a stay-at-home dad? That it would be an affront to their dominance and expected position as head of the household?
HobbsO Well, I certainly do, including my dad. And he is actually a very good man. But since my personal experience means very little to you, I will give another example. I'm not sure if you're arguing the actual historical existence of patriarchy, or just the current prevalence in western society. Assuming it is the latter: Women also perpetuate the patriarchy. Why do women still predominantly take the man's last name? Why do women change their personal titles depending on their relationship status (e.g. Miss, Ms, Mrs), yet the man's title does not change? Why do women wear engagement rings, but men do not?
The real problem with modern feminism in the Western world is their inability to accept that in a democratic free society the individual has the right to follow or not follow gender roles! If a woman or a man wants to follow a gender role it IS NOT some manifestation of the "Patriarchy". It is the individual pursuing what their own life without interference. If I want to do a masculine thing it IS NOT because of some patriarchy, it is me as an INDIVIDUAL pursuing my life as I choose!
I read a lot of comments here who misunderstand Gillian's concerns. She pointed out that patriarchy is a hierarchy. I would add Ken Wilber's observations that, you have *growth* hierarchies and *dominator* hierarchies. In religion, politics, and families, you also have hierarchies and in all of them you are more likely to have men in control and since they are all too human, they are more likely to abuse their power which turns them into dominators thus giving patriarchy a bad name. We see this with corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle, televangelist falling from grace, and abusive husbands who go so far as to kill himself and his entire family to get back at his ex-wife. This is not to say that women cannot be as dominating as men. They can be, but men are more likely to be more dominating than women
I think feminism is really about hating the divine feminine, both patriarchy and feminism have become ridiculously hijacked by negativity and deviance.
Feminist don't hate men. Only the laws there create that discriminate against men.VAWA,protective orders issued against men without any proof or evidence of violence. Family courts that are highly biased against men. We just created a mandatory joint custody bill in Florida. Who do you think lobbied against this bill that would create equality for fathers? The League of Women Voters and Florida Now. Feminism is a hate movement against men, boys and traditional families. ''Father above wife-kids
That's why im staying single i know i sound selfish as a man but im not a real man i dont deserve to make a child if they kill me its all good. All this dating stuff is getting all crazzy. And who.cares if woman leave you or get a divorce just let them thats why you got a relationship for your have 50/ 50 chance of living a good life. Peace 💘
Men have more testosterone which is associated with dominance, so we would think that men would have more tendency to climb up the masculine hierarchies and ofcourse women choose top status men, as you can see that in animal kingdom as well. How exactly is this dividing us?
Lovely video. Moderate voices on this subject are severely lacking. The problem in regards to feminism being anti-male as I see it comes from within feminism. as a social/political movement it seems that they have always preferred quantity over quality, never taking a stance against the man haters who are inevitably within the movement so as not to alienate these strong voices and to present a united front. Also, on the selfless role of women in relationship, I agree with you, in most cases it is not a truly selfless attitude. Incorporated is a ( understandably ) deep resentment. I was talking to my mother, two aunties and a female cousin the other day about how their emotional needs were never fully met by their husbands and whilst I recognized the difficulties that women face when it comes to emotionally closed off men, I replied that when talking to women about this issue i had never ( or extremely rarely ) heard a women recognize, let alone show empathy for these men who most definitely have an emotion life and emotional needs of their own have been conditioned to minimize this side of themselves and and are effectively devoid of the language needed to engage in this side of life. I shared that these men are effectively trapped with their own feelings, building them up, frustrated, angry, confused and how all these things have a massive impact on their own quality of life, perhaps more so, since women have each other for emotional support if it is lacking at home, whereas men typically have nobody because in a very real way they CAN"T express their needs or respond adequately to those needs or other peoples, men or women, including their partners. I got met with complete bewilderment. these beautiful, intelligent women had literally never given this serious consideration. They had not been able to see past how these traits in men affected them.
I know it's a 10 month old post. Still want to reply. "I replied that when talking to women about this issue i had never ( or extremely rarely ) heard a women recognize, let alone show empathy for these men who most definitely have an emotion life and emotional needs of their own" I want to stop you here. First, yes we do have that emotional inner world. Just as women do. There is VERY little difference inside and it's been measured, in the lab, by psychologists. How we process emotion is different and the source of feminist and your aunties confusion. We are systemic, structural and action based. This is innate and not conditioning, tho there is a very real part of society that ignores male pain and yeah, that much is true (I'm sure that will bewilder your auntie too). It's frustrating. But, for example, when a man comes home and asks his wife if her car is now running properly he's expressing his love for her and his concern for the structure of her life. Most women cannot see it. Certainly feminists do not. This is how the majority of us work and for the most part, we live unseen with our emotional side rejected. Saying that we should express our emotions is a slap in the emotional face of men. It's not who we are or how we process emotion. This is why men help each other. It's why the guy loans his drill to the neighbor while the wife complains that if he was a 'real man' he'd have his own drill and not use yours. Total ignorance of who we are and how we structure our inner and outer life to be in harmony. If you need an example of just how blind people are simply look up male depression symptoms and you will find that it is in fact unseen. All of the answers given never seem address the source of his depression so that he can go change it, only that he has depression and will not express it. They do not try to help him. They blame him and lay expectations on him when he is most in need of answers and insight. It's small wonder the male suicide rate is what it is.
Nothing about our society gives sign to a patriarchy. Who looks at men who have lead our advancements in science, labored at the expense of their physical and mental well-being to provide for their families, died in war to protect their women and offspring, stayed on a sinking ship to let women and children off first, and says they are being malicious? Claiming we live in a patriarchy is completely contradictory to history. The US, being a 1st-world country tolerates the majority of baby boys going into neurogenic shock by being held down screaming in agony as they have their most sensitive parts of the genitals carved off for the sake of aesthetics, but freaks at the thought of doing the exact same damage to a girl in a foreign 3rd-world country, just because we say it prevents disease when done to boys, but is done to keep sexuality at bay in females. We're fine with pushing males into the role of forfeiting their dreams as individuals and signing away their rights in a contract like marriage, where you can do nothing wrong, but still loose everything that is most important, that being your children, your financial well-being, and your emotional well-being, all while preaching to females a false sense of independence by sensationalizing single-motherhood, something they commonly blame the sour outcomes of on black males. Even your own president has done it. And just to throw it out there, to those who think we need to go back to the "good old days", traditionalism is not the solution to feminism, it's just the predecessor of the same job. People are just uncomfortable with change of means to the same awful ends. Saying men run society is like saying jews ran Egypt.
Nice definition. Just as Lenin/Stalin had some nice definitons about Marxism/Socialism/Communism. Adam Smith has some beautiful words to say about Capitalism. And the Roman Catholic Church has plenty of its own self-flattery. We all know that words and deeds are often at variance. Same with feminists. I've met plenty of "Dictionary Feminists" who seem to think that reciting a definition is akin to chanting a magic spell. Just recite it and it magically creates a bubble of infallibility.
Explain rape of boys by adult women then. Debra LaFave et.al. Sexual norms sounds like biology. Are you disputing that? Who said anything about prison? Also, drunk guy and drunk girl agree to have sex. Feminism says this is rape of the girl, by the guy. (double standard). When you feminists give me some actual gender equality, I'll march with you.
"I've met plenty of "Dictionary Feminists" who seem to think that reciting a definition is akin to chanting a magic spell. Just recite it and it magically creates a bubble of infallibility." Haha!
I came here hoping to watch a video from an established academic on something that is very real and prominent, and instead I just get to sift through bullshit comments bashing the feminist movement and spewing outrageous witch-hunt-esque comments about how it's all some anti-male conspiracy. Get a fucking grip, everyone. All I'm reading is straight entitlement and anxiety over losing absolute control. They say that all comments on feminism go to validate it's need, but I'm seeing a lot of people who need to redirect their ignorant and misguided anti-feminist hate against the capitalist systems that put them in such a state of fear. Men aren't losing control and rights to feminists, they're already stripped of them from capitalism, but it's important to realize that women are socially abused in order to allow one group of oppressed to feel stable and superior over another. Stop bashing feminism and actually try to understand it and work together; you'll get a lot farther and will have less superiority anxiety.
Someone who Carol Gilligan is no doubt very familiar with, Shulamith Firestone, has defined "patriarchy" with crystal clarity in the Dialectic of sex and in the Redstockings Manifesto. If patriarchy means anything, then it really must refer to a collective conflict/struggle and oppression by one group of another. It's great to hear that she has changed her mind and recanted her positions. But it would be better if Carol would go on the offensive, rather than the defensive, given her influence.
The problem is when people are forced or disadvantaged because of other's behaviour, so your right to masculine behaviour doesn't include the right to dominate others that do not wish to be dominated. As she says, part of "being a real man" is "being on top" & "being in charge" & "being a real woman" involve self sacrifice, taking a back seat, being passive & allowing the man to "be a man". These attitudes are still with us, they are toxic, & need to go, & they ARE the patriarchy.
the 2147th definition of feminism I've encountered from feminists. The 2359th definition of patriarchy. Everything vague, everything through the lens of women. Selfless my freek'n ass. You betcha. being the ones to go to war, defining domestic violence as what men do to women, this nonsense that patriarchy is what divides and feminism is what unites is absolute blather. This is not only vague, but simplistic to the point of idiocy. I am STILL looking for an intelligent cohesive internally consistent definition of patriarchy and how it works.
As I said there seems to be a bias and mothers seem to routinely get latitudes that the judge wouldn't even consider for the father. And this is neither right nor fair. This is a common perception, but I can't evaluate it, I don't have enough experience. But I do know if clear evidence of abuse is present, then a judge would be a fool to award custody if only to stop it coming back to bite them on the ass.
Not all "masculine" or "feminine" behaviour is destructive, some is, & there is a definite & constant pressure to conform with it. Feminists have given it the name the patriarchy. I don't have a problem with that. I also recognise it causes problems for women to this day. It also causes problems for LGBT people & I have experienced this first hand. It also causes some problems for heterosexual men but as a group they largely benefit from it. Gay men also benefit in so far as they can "be normal"
"It causes causes some problems for heterosexual men but as a group they largely benefit from it " ? Could you elaborate on that, like how? If conforming to gender roles were bad for both sexes then how for women was worse than men? If it was beneficial to men then why wouldn't it be beneficial just as much to women? They gave it the name Patriarchy so they ignorantly or delibrately were misleading.
i haven't met these 'selfless' girls she talk about... huh... dang, i came here for a definition of patriarchy... i love how her attempt to define it sorta points out the smokescreen as she attempts to define it but just sorta fluffs it up and then waters it down. sad. feels contrived. she then continues to use it in her premises while never having even feasibly defined it.... ack! oh well. i'll look elsewhere.
If men are benefited by patriarchy, then why men constitute most of the the bottom 10% of the poor? (70-80% of homeless in USA are men, men are the largest demography to take burnt of the present recession,The percentage of adult American women who are employed climbed from about 37% in 1965 to about 55% in 2008, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Bureau of Economic Research. We hear less concerning the percentage of adult American men who are employed, which fell from about 81% in 1965 to 69% in 2008.) If some men oppress but all men can be father, then why call it patriarchy?(supposedly words are powerful. Remember postmodernism? But naming the supposedly hideous conspiracy that even hurt men after all men... it doesn't hurt. Does it?) If men are always in power, why they choose riskiest of the jobs and die doing it? (93% work fatalities are men, most fatalities in wars are men) Why patriarchy, which is of the men for the men and by the men, constitutes a system where men are underprivileged? (men:women ratio in higher universities overall are so skewed that for any other demography, affirmative action would be there) I guess I am missing something... I think it is called evidence and consistency...
We understand that we have detractors. It is important for us to look at the larger picture. Democracy is primarily concerned for the majority, as you benefit the average person more so when you cater to the majority, and we are similarly concerned primarily for the majority. We are infact a democratic operation. We ensure that our services benefit the majority of any given scope, and that if anyone is excluded from the benefits it is merely because they belong to a minority, and tailoring our services to a minority would be a disservice to the average individual. We do not cator to minorities not because we do not care for individuals that fall into certain minorities, but because we find that benefiting the most requires catering to the average majority within a given scope. We have found that we do tend to benefit men a great deal more than women, but this is an emergent behavior having more to do with life choices of individuals. We at Patriarchy are not at all averse to the idea of women on top, in fact we welcome it. Women are encouraged to make their choices for themselves, and that ultimately whether our services serve them or not is ultimately up to them.
So the standard, " Feminism is just the idea that women are people too" or "Feminism is just about equality" have finally been dropped for the true definition. Thanks.
A side-effect of patriarchy. "Masculinity" (i.e. aggressiveness and avoidance of femininity) is put on a pedestal, and any man that doesn't adhere to the standard is made to feel less than.
Alexis Wood Wow! You briefly made me forget that patriarchy was and is a myth. If not, I have a beef with patriarchy too and that is WHERE ARE MY McBROTHELS? So "MASCULINITY" is a "side effect"? Hum! So if you hit me and I forgo my masculinity to "take it like a man", but instead call the cops on you, you're ok to be convicted and jailed and send your sisterhood to jail too?
Masculinity isn't a side-effect. It is a classification of certain traits that are traditionally thought to exist only, or at least predominately, in males, (though these same traits also naturally exist in females, the same goes for feminine traits). Patriarchy values masculinity over femininity, both socially and authoritatively If I hit you, then I should suffer the appropriate consequence
Alexis Wood "If I hit you, then I should suffer the appropriate consequence" > Nice feminist answer. And we all know what that means nowadays. . "I am going to bruise myself and call the cops on him", scratch that. "I'm just going to call the cops on him", scratch that "I'm going to hit him and call the cops on him". That's what your "...appropriate consequence" means = he *always* goes directly to jail. (100,000+ men in Spain; 3,000,000+ men in India -however India's Supreme Court recently made false accusations a crime, even magistrates can be held responsible too They were using fraudulent feminists stats before then as per RADAR). In the US victims of false accusers can be financially responsible excluding lawyers/judges of course.
Patriarchy is a social system where the male holds a position of power or authority. This occurs in a society, a clan or a family. In a patriarchal system, wives and children are legally dependent on the male figure of husband and father. A matriarchal system involves women holding positions of power. The word patriarchy is derived from the Greek words patria, meaning father, and arches, meaning rule. Whereas previously patriarchy was considered to imply an autocratic form of leadership by males, as head of family or clan, today the term denotes a social system of adult male leadership. This is what i found on the internet. I need to read about it more. But from this video it seems that Caroll Gilligan isnt that offensive or wrong anywhere. She worked with Lawrence Kohlberg defining the stages of moral development. But then she added that women have more care morality than men and men have more justice morality. I really feel she is kind of right here. People writing crap in comments without doing even a little bit of research is really sad. Please come out of your inertia and try to be more an observer rather than being victimized. Everyone is an individual at the first place.
You know how you can easily decide if someone talks bullshit ? You just have to count how many buzzwords they use. The more they use to make their point the more likely they talk rubbish. I think theamazingatheist gave a really good definition of feminism "Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on the issues of one of them"
Last point: What I also hear is a lot of doublespeak: claiming to be against Patriarchy while embracing its worst economic aspects in the forms of exploitative consumerism/Capitalism and an unquestioning careerist devotion to the corporate world. What's so noble about that?
If you listen to most feminists like the one in the video, you'll notice a consistent theme time and time again. The overall consensus is, blame men for all problems, only women can possess moral superiority, men are fundamentally lacking in humanity, women walk on water, men can only be virtuous by rejecting any identity un-oriented towards the feminine. And despite the obvious anti-male orthodoxy characterizing feminism even as she speaks, men are suppose to swallow that fem isn't anti-male.
Gilligan's writing is nuanced and thoughtful, and is certainly worth reading if you find psychology or sociology interesting. The amount of vitriol levelled at her in the comments is truly absurd. I doubt many people would read her writing and conclude that she's intent on bringing down men or any of the other strawman accusations other commenters are making.
For many men like myself, an off-putting aspect of modern feminism is the presumption that exploitation and suffering are the exclusive domains of women. For all their talk against genrered norms, feminists seem quite content with gendered work/working class jobs for men: construction, garbage collector, electrician, delivery, repair, police, fire, rescue, sewage, water treatment, etc. What I see now is "Trickle Down Feminism" in which the most privileged women ignore poorer women and men.
I just took her Ethics in Philosophy of Ethics class and her principles will allow Ancestry sex within a family! I asked about 2 scenarios, if my old son who's old enough to understand wrong from right and is an adult to make a decision had a relationship with my wife, that is his mother-in-law and they have been loving each other for a year and I caught them having sex. 2nd scenario if my two adult kids, male and female had a relationship or had sex and I caught them. The Professor said her ethics says I shouldn't criticize and show care even though I will support them and love them generally but I can't judge their behaviors.?! so I should be selfless...Pathetic weakening ethics that is isn't particular and inclusive enough of things that happen in reality and want us to simply care even if we're being taken advantage of in these scenarios. Ethics of care didn't bring anything new, AlhamdAllah for Islamic Ethics are universal and particular, and it's very inclusive and it aligns with science and the nature of existence for over 1400 years ago. that's been given from the creator of existence If we let ordinary humans like her instead of Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him, their ethics will not be consistent and they won't survive. Her ethics is a product of the flawed ethics of Justice. yet both of them are flawed. I understand how it came by and I understand how fair and good their claims are against particular circumstances but it's still not inclusive and strong to survive and it shouldn't be taught in college because it encourages toxic freedom and is too tolerant.
Mandatory joint custody bill. That is a terrible fucking idea. What if the father is an abusive & toxic piece of shit? How about deciding each case to suite the needs & circumstances & best interests of the children first & the parents second, because the parents are self sufficient & can advocate for themselves whereas the children are not & cannot. Wait. This is the system. But I agree in the limited cases I know of there does seem to be an unwarranted amount of mother knows best bias.
I'm so glad you answered and i now know i am uneducated :). No she does not use the words in appropriate way. She throws them out to support claims without giving any evidence they actually exist. like the dogma of Patriarchy. She makes noting more clear like a scientist explaining things. She just makes the facts fit her dogma. And not being able to distinguish between dogma and facts is normally common among the uneducated. (not that i want to imply something with that )
Feminism is not a science, its a political philosophy. Political philosophies are not objective, but based upon inter-subjective value systems. Furthermore, even in science there is no true objectivity: the data we gain must be observed and measured from a particular position/angle using instruments that do not give 100% accurate readings, and they must be interpreted by scientists in order to draw a conclusion, which is why there is always much debate within scientific communities.
yep, it's what would any Jewish mom would say. they have no say in a family. You know where I agree with you? that vertical business structure is no good. it's a patriarchy. you know what would be really great, just randomly distribute all work, and pay the same to all of us. I am in. how much do you make, oppressed jewish feminist professor?
I appreciate this video - but keep in mind that there are feminists that take things too far. Can't we come up with a new term? Personism? A democracy free oppression from and gender/sex/race divide?
Oh gosh I'd hate for those poor men to have to acknowledge thousands of years of woman's pain... Let's just call it personism and therefore we don't have to offend poor little men egoes... Good job!
The concept of patriarchy ignores the reality that traditional relationships oppress men more than women. After all, who works the long hours, gets the stress and industrial diseases and dies younger? Men have taken longer than women to react to feminism. But they are at last realising that feminist inspired divorce laws remove all responsibility from women, yet still cast men into the traditional worker drone model, regardless of whether or not the woman chooses to break her part of the contract. Women do break the marriage contract, far more often than men, but then why wouldn't they, when divorce is so much in their favour? We are just beginning to see a trickle of high earning women taken to the cleaners by their male ex-partners. This is just as odious, but perhaps we'll finally see something done about it, now that it's happening to women as well. Divorce and, therefore marriage, remains overwhelmingly harmful to men. Unsurprisingly, intelligent, high earning men have been among the first to work this out. That's why we now have millions of middle-class couples co-habiting and frequently not making babies. And don't kid yourself it's 'liberated' women who prefer this state of affairs. Traditional marriage has always served the interests of women. It's men who are rejecting marriage because it's been set up by feminists to destroy them. Another example of men reacting rationally feminism is the surfeit of middle-aged career women asking: "Where have all the good men gone?". They've gone surfing, in between screwing younger women! The middle class movement that is feminism has been especially disastrous for working class women. The removal of status from working class men has caused a co-responding, reduced sense of responsibility among those men. Keep telling someone he's a chump and he'll eventually oblige you by being one. This, combined with feminist inspired state handouts has led to millions of lonely, angry single mothers, married to the state and living in perpetual penury. The upshot of all this is that fewer reliable men are having children, and desperate women are reverting to the second string, that is, absentee, bad provider dads who will sire more of their kind. We have yet to see the full effect of this disaster on society - way to go feminism! There are many women who would like to go back to the traditional model because it was a pretty good deal for them - just ask those single mothers. But more and more men are saying No way! I think we are heading for a completely new model, both in work and relationships. It will be one where we do not demonise men or load the law against them. Nor will it be men going back to the plantation on behalf of indolent female partners. Nor will it be the power and status without responsibility promoted by feminism. Rather, it will require women step up to the plate and take full, equal, adult responsibility in all things. When women do this they will find to their surprise that they don't have to shout for equality, as it will be automatically afforded to them. Some women are already doing this, and they have my respect, but they need to be joined by a lot more of their sex. Those women who fail to meet this standard will increasingly find that they simply won't have worthwhile relationships or careers. Feminism has set profound changes in motion. They're likely to more far-reaching than feminists realise. The chief error of feminism is that it seeks to deal with male/female issues from an exclusively gyno-centric point of view. But guess what? Men have opinions and interests as well. And contrary to the leftist/feminist propaganda constantly pedalled in the media, men are not redundant, either in the usefulness of their work or their capacity to think and act on their own behalf. On the contrary, men run the world from top to bottom. From president to sewer cleaners, and poets to physicists, the world is created by men. In the words of Karen Straughan, "If men went on strike for 3 days, they'd be three years cleaning up the mess". If women went on strike, would anyone notice? I honestly think the unchallenged nature of a lot of feminist invective is a result of men not being arsed to answer back, either because, rightly or wrongly, they don't feel threatened, or because they're busy doing one of those real jobs that make the world go round and, therefore, they know that feminine supremacy is and will always be - bunk! So you see, the feminist fantasy of reducing men to some secondary status was always silly, not to say nasty. Back in reality, we may eventually get true equality, but if we do, it will only happen because men force it onto women.
are you against vertical business structure? if not, I have no idea what patriarchy means. I agree with the jewish professor that equality is very important. that flat business structure is better. that we should make approximately the same money. not like 5 million bonus as CEO in gov subsidizes company or you could go cut trees or work with chemicals and risk your life for 30,000$ a year. what patriarchy? this 500,000$ professor has hard time in society of man working for nothing in dirt?
Well just be sure to tell all the people in science, medicine, engineering and other academic, technical and empirical pursuits to stop using all those "bullshit buzzwords"! The trouble with you is you can't recognise when someone is using narrowly defined terminology in an appropriate fashion in an intellectual discourse and just peppering their speech with incomprehensible buzzwords. This is common amongst the uneducated.
Patriarchy: How it discriminates against women. We have to go back to 1914 the start of WW1 to answer this question. A British women named Emmeline Pankhurst (a political activist) lead a women’s campaign to get the right to vote. When England entered the war, she and her daughters initiated the White Feather movement where all women would hand out a white feather to eligible looking men who were not in uniform to fight for their country. The white feather was seen as a sign of being a coward According to her; it was the men’s duty to protect their country, women and daughters. This also took place in WW11. The movement was supported by the government, known as The Patriarchy. Note that women demanded the vote (which they finely got) not the responsibilities that the men had , like going to war. Note: over 32 million men died in battle in both wars combined.... Yes the patriarchy is an all boys club for men only. When a disaster strikes, like a sinking ship; who gets rescued first? Why it’s women and children. Also today we have government support for all kinds of women’s issues like homes for battered women, incentives for women’s education, pay equity laws, affirmative employment legislation for women, courts that give child custody 80% to women, and less jail time for women for the same crime as men. While men receive none of these considerations from government. One can easily see that patriarchy is the cause of discrimination against women......
Spiritually speaking (gender aside), matriarchal wisdom can begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God). Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle. As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8). Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process. In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary "ego" death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld, her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle. Mary Magdalene's anointing and wiping of Jesus's feet with her hair can then be seen as head to tail (toe) imagery as she descends her matriarchal head to his patriarchal feet, thus reenacting the high understanding of the divine cyclical process. (John 12:3) To carry the Ankh was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle. Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society. A whole temple was dedicated to the ancient Egyptian goddess Hathor, who is the matriarchal "Uterus" personified. th-cam.com/video/J0m0zJSEFK0/w-d-xo.html "See all women as mothers, serve them as your mother. When you see the entire world as the mother, the ego falls away. See everything as Mother and you will know God." - Neem Karoli Baba
To be far this mother bias was an outgrowth of a feminist reaction, and a positive one at that, against the prevailing legal attitudes of the early 20th, where the wife and children were seen somewhat as chattel (property), and if the wife "ran away", which was her right, or was discarded by the husband, then the children, being chattel passed to the husband because the wife was also chattel and therefore had no rights to other chattel.
I mean sure it's against men. By nature of the thing, if you agree that men as group bordly band thogether to controll woman, that this has happend for millienia and that is became deeply engrained in human cultrue, then you have to also argue that men loose something by feminism, they loose power over others and gain for that a better concience and a societiy wear everyones rights are assured.
When men don't have anything to loose anymore when woman have full rights then patriacy to-me would not exist, because patricay to me is men trying to withhold womans rights?
Did you actually listen to the video? Really listen. I am a huge fan of the amazing atheist. But she makes a very valid point. And that is what is called "The Patriarchy" is just the attitudes of men and women that are oppressive to women, and that includes anything that means a woman must always be second to the man. From this it doesn't follow that the woman must be always first.
"(Patriarchy)...it places fathers over mothers and children." I notice you're not wearing a wedding ring. Show of hands: (likes) How many folks grew up in a household where mom got the final say?
Feminism is not anti-men but feminists can very definitely be man haters. That doesn't mean that feminists have to hate men, but neither does it guarantee that feminist policies are sensitive to the rights of men. I do understand that feminism is geared toward getting rid of patriarchy but that doesn't mean that feminists are focused on how patriarchy hurts men. It's a woman's movement first & foremost.
I would rather deal with the ways in which the oppressive demands of gender roles predicated on biological sex effect the lives of people, women and men, without needing to gender it as 'patriarchy', which is such a divisive term with as many meanings as there are people who use it. In other words, as Laplace is purported to have said to Napolean, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis". It doesn't seem to add anything fruitful to the conversation.
Separate democracy from patriarchy ? If it's a patriarchy than why are women even allowed to vote in the first place? And also why are they the majority of those casting votes in many western democracies? Does that sound like a patriarchy to you? If so, perhaps your the ones who should, dare I say, check your privilege
What a twisted confused nonsense. I love my wife who put a career on hold to raise 4 beautiful children. She has a great profession, but her highest good is that of mother and mine father, as sons and daughters of our Father.
![The Wall Song ร้องข้ามกำแพง | EP.215 | พาเวล นเรศ - พูห์ กฤติน | 17 ต.ค. 67 [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IUzrjuf60P4/mqdefault.jpg)
Carol is awesome! I wish I was born in the time she started teaching girls!
I wish too, then you'd be too old to know how to use this.
You can buy her books and read her articles!
The body of Carol Gilligan's written work is both sizable and intellectually substantial although it apparently is not reaching a large male readership unfortunately. Like Wendy Brown, Susan Faludi and Ellen Meiksins Wood, Gilligan is concerned with explaining the origin and intellectual mechanics of a power structure that immerses society in what remains a largely undiscovered social, economic and cultural matrix. Although the gender dominating this structure is male, the male citizen trapped at the bottom, is generally disabled by it, just the same. Gilligan's most recent contribution to scholarship; The Deepening Darkness (2009), excavates the legal and philosophical anticedents that form the ancient foundation of patrimonial capitalism in our time with special attention to the construction of property law and other claims that authorize executive power that entail the arrogation of both authority and expertise. This from the book," Patriarchy's error lies in wedding us, men and women alike to a false story about human nature and then characterizing our resistance to this story as a sign of pathology or sin.The long-standing divisions of mind from body, thought from emotion and self from relationships enforce a kind of moral slavery in that they erode a resistance grounded in the core self and cause us to lose touch with our experience."
Curia Regis Given, that the material in The Deepening Darkness, concerns the origins of western law much of it co-written by a legal scholar, the book scarcely making any mention of feminism (whatever that means) you would find its references obscure and furthermore the text assumes a familiarity with the canon of modern literature. If feminism sounds funny then you will be disappointed because the caliber of scholarship this book represents is not.
Curia Regis In your own words;" Could I be wrong? Possibly but not hardly." What comes to mind about your response, is how bitter and crass its narcissism sounds. Your understanding of this author is by way of an underlying against what you believe to be her association with feminism. Your post below goes on to demonstrate, the same species of intellectual rigor that makes Rush Limbaugh so appealing. Men presumably, must defend themselves by being prepared to attack books they have not read? Would actually reading Gilligan's work be to risk the security of intellectual segregation and face the more immediate danger of un-manlyness by association?
A battle between the sexes still seems to be the chosen battleground for misogynists but refocused on an imaginary conflict between reason and emotion projected onto a struggle to segregate feminists from biological rationalists, lest the femi-nazis emasculate the rest of us. Your case against feminism as a traditional female hysteria, seems to rest on an hysterical premise of its own, similar to that of a crusade against sexual heresy, that real men must either win or face sexual annihilation as a result. Millions must be wondering how great a threat to the reality of sexual dimorphism is the idea of equality in general, considering a new ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of same sex marriage?
A man’s weakness is the facade of his strength while a woman’s strength is the facade of her weakness.
Yes
What if the mother is an abusive & toxic piece of shit?
She still gets custody.
Sounds like you are full of rage.
Must be great being a feminist. Then words like Patriarchy can mean whatever you want them to so you never have to be held to account for anything.
I was just thinking the same thing. If this is the definition of patriarchy, it seems like a misnomer. It's like the anecdote about Napolean and Laplace. "Sir, I have no need for that hypothesis".
I think you need to read a little more to understand what you are talking about instead of defensively lashing out.
I love reading. Have read a lot of feminist writing.
The fact that this woman has essentially defined patriarchy as "putting all men above mothers and children" (which is broad at best) while completely ignoring "women and children first", which puts men BELOW women and sees them as less important than mothers and children is pretty much the definition of pot kettle hypocrisy.
I think she's talking about the patriarchal household, where the husband is unquestionably the leader, even if he happens to be less equipped.
Alexis Wood
Why then is "Doggy Houses" only against males not females?
Mentalidade Logica The existence of patriarchy, or even to some degree, misogyny, doesn't mean that men can't love and respect women. The phrase "In the Dog House", is a term that was established around the early 20th century, when society was even more patriarchal. It's used to describe the state of a man who has done something to anger or upset his wife. But just as most things, it's evolved and can now be applied to anyone in a relationship. Woman, gay man, transgender, anyone who has upset their significant other.
If patriarchy doesn't exist, then why do so many men believe that it would be emasculating to be a stay-at-home dad? That it would be an affront to their dominance and expected position as head of the household?
Alexis Wood
I don't know any men that think that so.....
HobbsO Well, I certainly do, including my dad. And he is actually a very good man. But since my personal experience means very little to you, I will give another example.
I'm not sure if you're arguing the actual historical existence of patriarchy, or just the current prevalence in western society. Assuming it is the latter:
Women also perpetuate the patriarchy.
Why do women still predominantly take the man's last name? Why do women change their personal titles depending on their relationship status (e.g. Miss, Ms, Mrs), yet the man's title does not change? Why do women wear engagement rings, but men do not?
The real problem with modern feminism in the Western world is their inability to accept that in a democratic free society the individual has the right to follow or not follow gender roles! If a woman or a man wants to follow a gender role it IS NOT some manifestation of the "Patriarchy". It is the individual pursuing what their own life without interference. If I want to do a masculine thing it IS NOT because of some patriarchy, it is me as an INDIVIDUAL pursuing my life as I choose!
What a sick, man-hating monster.
She is not a man-hater. You are just a bad listener who feels threatened.
I read a lot of comments here who misunderstand Gillian's concerns. She pointed out that patriarchy is a hierarchy. I would add Ken Wilber's observations that, you have *growth* hierarchies and *dominator* hierarchies. In religion, politics, and families, you also have hierarchies and in all of them you are more likely to have men in control and since they are all too human, they are more likely to abuse their power which turns them into dominators thus giving patriarchy a bad name. We see this with corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle, televangelist falling from grace, and abusive husbands who go so far as to kill himself and his entire family to get back at his ex-wife. This is not to say that women cannot be as dominating as men. They can be, but men are more likely to be more dominating than women
She says feminism is freeing democracy from patriarchy yet only 1/5 people claim to be a Feminist. Isn't that a little undemocratic?
You're being silly
Democracy is a white patriarchal construct, as is brick laying, computer science, and agriculture. Shame on anyone for thinking otherwise
I think feminism is really about hating the divine feminine, both patriarchy and feminism have become ridiculously hijacked by negativity and deviance.
what is "the devine feminine"?
"Women are selfless"....they sat in the life boats and watched their men freeze in the water.....Titanic 1912
Feminist don't hate men. Only the laws there create that discriminate against men.VAWA,protective orders issued against men without any proof or evidence of violence. Family courts that are highly biased against men. We just created a mandatory joint custody bill in Florida. Who do you think lobbied against this bill that would create equality for fathers? The League of Women Voters and Florida Now. Feminism is a hate movement against men, boys and traditional families. ''Father above wife-kids
By suffer, do you mean staying home in relative safety, while the men go off to die in wars and unsafe industrial plants??
she is a powerhouse of liberatory thought. thank you Dr. Gilligan!
That's why im staying single i know i sound selfish as a man but im not a real man i dont deserve to make a child if they kill me its all good. All this dating stuff is getting all crazzy. And who.cares if woman leave you or get a divorce just let them thats why you got a relationship for your have 50/ 50 chance of living a good life. Peace 💘
"Feminism isn't anti Male" Will you please, PLEASE share that wisdom with all the Feminists. They're clearly not aware of this.
Men have more testosterone which is associated with dominance, so we would think that men would have more tendency to climb up the masculine hierarchies and ofcourse women choose top status men, as you can see that in animal kingdom as well.
How exactly is this dividing us?
Lovely video. Moderate voices on this subject are severely lacking. The problem in regards to feminism being anti-male as I see it comes from within feminism. as a social/political movement it seems that they have always preferred quantity over quality, never taking a stance against the man haters who are inevitably within the movement so as not to alienate these strong voices and to present a united front. Also, on the selfless role of women in relationship, I agree with you, in most cases it is not a truly selfless attitude. Incorporated is a ( understandably ) deep resentment.
I was talking to my mother, two aunties and a female cousin the other day about how their emotional needs were never fully met by their husbands and whilst I recognized the difficulties that women face when it comes to emotionally closed off men, I replied that when talking to women about this issue i had never ( or extremely rarely ) heard a women recognize, let alone show empathy for these men who most definitely have an emotion life and emotional needs of their own have been conditioned to minimize this side of themselves and and are effectively devoid of the language needed to engage in this side of life. I shared that these men are effectively trapped with their own feelings, building them up, frustrated, angry, confused and how all these things have a massive impact on their own quality of life, perhaps more so, since women have each other for emotional support if it is lacking at home, whereas men typically have nobody because in a very real way they CAN"T express their needs or respond adequately to those needs or other peoples, men or women, including their partners. I got met with complete bewilderment. these beautiful, intelligent women had literally never given this serious consideration. They had not been able to see past how these traits in men affected them.
I know it's a 10 month old post. Still want to reply.
"I replied that when talking to women about this issue i had never ( or extremely rarely ) heard a women recognize, let alone show empathy for these men who most definitely have an emotion life and emotional needs of their own"
I want to stop you here. First, yes we do have that emotional inner world. Just as women do. There is VERY little difference inside and it's been measured, in the lab, by psychologists. How we process emotion is different and the source of feminist and your aunties confusion. We are systemic, structural and action based. This is innate and not conditioning, tho there is a very real part of society that ignores male pain and yeah, that much is true (I'm sure that will bewilder your auntie too). It's frustrating. But, for example, when a man comes home and asks his wife if her car is now running properly he's expressing his love for her and his concern for the structure of her life. Most women cannot see it. Certainly feminists do not. This is how the majority of us work and for the most part, we live unseen with our emotional side rejected. Saying that we should express our emotions is a slap in the emotional face of men. It's not who we are or how we process emotion. This is why men help each other. It's why the guy loans his drill to the neighbor while the wife complains that if he was a 'real man' he'd have his own drill and not use yours. Total ignorance of who we are and how we structure our inner and outer life to be in harmony.
If you need an example of just how blind people are simply look up male depression symptoms and you will find that it is in fact unseen. All of the answers given never seem address the source of his depression so that he can go change it, only that he has depression and will not express it. They do not try to help him. They blame him and lay expectations on him when he is most in need of answers and insight. It's small wonder the male suicide rate is what it is.
There is not any evidence that patriarchy even exist.
Nothing about our society gives sign to a patriarchy. Who looks at men who have lead our advancements in science, labored at the expense of their physical and mental well-being to provide for their families, died in war to protect their women and offspring, stayed on a sinking ship to let women and children off first, and says they are being malicious? Claiming we live in a patriarchy is completely contradictory to history.
The US, being a 1st-world country tolerates the majority of baby boys going into neurogenic shock by being held down screaming in agony as they have their most sensitive parts of the genitals carved off for the sake of aesthetics, but freaks at the thought of doing the exact same damage to a girl in a foreign 3rd-world country, just because we say it prevents disease when done to boys, but is done to keep sexuality at bay in females.
We're fine with pushing males into the role of forfeiting their dreams as individuals and signing away their rights in a contract like marriage, where you can do nothing wrong, but still loose everything that is most important, that being your children, your financial well-being, and your emotional well-being, all while preaching to females a false sense of independence by sensationalizing single-motherhood, something they commonly blame the sour outcomes of on black males. Even your own president has done it.
And just to throw it out there, to those who think we need to go back to the "good old days", traditionalism is not the solution to feminism, it's just the predecessor of the same job. People are just uncomfortable with change of means to the same awful ends.
Saying men run society is like saying jews ran Egypt.
Thurman Merman z
Nice definition.
Just as Lenin/Stalin had some nice definitons about Marxism/Socialism/Communism. Adam Smith has some beautiful words to say about Capitalism. And the Roman Catholic Church has plenty of its own self-flattery. We all know that words and deeds are often at variance.
Same with feminists. I've met plenty of "Dictionary Feminists" who seem to think that reciting a definition is akin to chanting a magic spell. Just recite it and it magically creates a bubble of infallibility.
Explain rape of boys by adult women then. Debra LaFave et.al.
Sexual norms sounds like biology. Are you disputing that?
Who said anything about prison? Also, drunk guy and drunk girl agree to have sex. Feminism says this is rape of the girl, by the guy. (double standard). When you feminists give me some actual gender equality, I'll march with you.
Couldn't have said it better myself
"I've met plenty of "Dictionary Feminists" who seem to think that reciting a definition is akin to chanting a magic spell. Just recite it and it magically creates a bubble of infallibility."
Haha!
I came here hoping to watch a video from an established academic on something that is very real and prominent, and instead I just get to sift through bullshit comments bashing the feminist movement and spewing outrageous witch-hunt-esque comments about how it's all some anti-male conspiracy. Get a fucking grip, everyone. All I'm reading is straight entitlement and anxiety over losing absolute control. They say that all comments on feminism go to validate it's need, but I'm seeing a lot of people who need to redirect their ignorant and misguided anti-feminist hate against the capitalist systems that put them in such a state of fear. Men aren't losing control and rights to feminists, they're already stripped of them from capitalism, but it's important to realize that women are socially abused in order to allow one group of oppressed to feel stable and superior over another. Stop bashing feminism and actually try to understand it and work together; you'll get a lot farther and will have less superiority anxiety.
Blaming the world problems on supposed patriarchy that was somehow created by men, isn't that anti-male conspiracy?
Someone who Carol Gilligan is no doubt very familiar with, Shulamith Firestone, has defined "patriarchy" with crystal clarity in the Dialectic of sex and in the Redstockings Manifesto. If patriarchy means anything, then it really must refer to a collective conflict/struggle and oppression by one group of another. It's great to hear that she has changed her mind and recanted her positions. But it would be better if Carol would go on the offensive, rather than the defensive, given her influence.
I don't think Men & Women collectively have had overall conflict with each other.
Yes, women ARE less likely to be punished.
/watch?v=xk5b50IEdA4
Follow links in description.
The problem is when people are forced or disadvantaged because of other's behaviour, so your right to masculine behaviour doesn't include the right to dominate others that do not wish to be dominated. As she says, part of "being a real man" is "being on top" & "being in charge" & "being a real woman" involve self sacrifice, taking a back seat, being passive & allowing the man to "be a man". These attitudes are still with us, they are toxic, & need to go, & they ARE the patriarchy.
the 2147th definition of feminism I've encountered from feminists. The 2359th definition of patriarchy. Everything vague, everything through the lens of women. Selfless my freek'n ass. You betcha. being the ones to go to war, defining domestic violence as what men do to women, this nonsense that patriarchy is what divides and feminism is what unites is absolute blather. This is not only vague, but simplistic to the point of idiocy.
I am STILL looking for an intelligent cohesive internally consistent definition of patriarchy and how it works.
You nailed it on the head bro. They can't consistenly define patriarchy that don't even contradict each other.
As I said there seems to be a bias and mothers seem to routinely get latitudes that the judge wouldn't even consider for the father. And this is neither right nor fair. This is a common perception, but I can't evaluate it, I don't have enough experience. But I do know if clear evidence of abuse is present, then a judge would be a fool to award custody if only to stop it coming back to bite them on the ass.
Not all "masculine" or "feminine" behaviour is destructive, some is, & there is a definite & constant pressure to conform with it. Feminists have given it the name the patriarchy. I don't have a problem with that. I also recognise it causes problems for women to this day. It also causes problems for LGBT people & I have experienced this first hand. It also causes some problems for heterosexual men but as a group they largely benefit from it. Gay men also benefit in so far as they can "be normal"
"It causes causes some problems for heterosexual men but as a group they largely benefit from it " ? Could you elaborate on that, like how?
If conforming to gender roles were bad for both sexes then how for women was worse than men?
If it was beneficial to men then why wouldn't it be beneficial just as much to women?
They gave it the name Patriarchy so they ignorantly or delibrately were misleading.
@@hmb8801I posted that in 2014. I have no idea what I meant back then, and couldn't be bothered to go on an archaeological dig to find out 😂
@@MrGoatflakes Alright man😃take care.
i haven't met these 'selfless' girls she talk about... huh...
dang, i came here for a definition of patriarchy... i love how her attempt to define it sorta points out the smokescreen as she attempts to define it but just sorta fluffs it up and then waters it down. sad. feels contrived.
she then continues to use it in her premises while never having even feasibly defined it.... ack! oh well. i'll look elsewhere.
So the one thing that was wrong about my comment was she's not wearing a wedding ring, which she actually isn't. How is that wrong then?
If men are benefited by patriarchy, then why men constitute most of the the bottom 10% of the poor?
(70-80% of homeless in USA are men, men are the largest demography to take burnt of the present recession,The percentage of adult American women who are employed climbed from about 37% in 1965 to about 55% in 2008, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Bureau of Economic Research. We hear less concerning the percentage of adult American men who are employed, which fell from about 81% in 1965 to 69% in 2008.)
If some men oppress but all men can be father, then why call it patriarchy?(supposedly words are powerful. Remember postmodernism? But naming the supposedly hideous conspiracy that even hurt men after all men... it doesn't hurt. Does it?)
If men are always in power, why they choose riskiest of the jobs and die doing it?
(93% work fatalities are men, most fatalities in wars are men)
Why patriarchy, which is of the men for the men and by the men, constitutes a system where men are underprivileged?
(men:women ratio in higher universities overall are so skewed that for any other demography, affirmative action would be there)
I guess I am missing something... I think it is called evidence and consistency...
We understand that we have detractors. It is important for us to look at the larger picture. Democracy is primarily concerned for the majority, as you benefit the average person more so when you cater to the majority, and we are similarly concerned primarily for the majority. We are infact a democratic operation. We ensure that our services benefit the majority of any given scope, and that if anyone is excluded from the benefits it is merely because they belong to a minority, and tailoring our services to a minority would be a disservice to the average individual. We do not cator to minorities not because we do not care for individuals that fall into certain minorities, but because we find that benefiting the most requires catering to the average majority within a given scope. We have found that we do tend to benefit men a great deal more than women, but this is an emergent behavior having more to do with life choices of individuals. We at Patriarchy are not at all averse to the idea of women on top, in fact we welcome it. Women are encouraged to make their choices for themselves, and that ultimately whether our services serve them or not is ultimately up to them.
So the standard, " Feminism is just the idea that women are people too" or "Feminism is just about equality" have finally been dropped for the true definition.
Thanks.
Although dictionary doesn't even say that.
Her doctorate should be taken away.... such stupidity.
I dont think women really understand how difficult is to be a man theses days
A side-effect of patriarchy. "Masculinity" (i.e. aggressiveness and avoidance of femininity) is put on a pedestal, and any man that doesn't adhere to the standard is made to feel less than.
Alexis Wood
Wow! You briefly made me forget that patriarchy was and is a myth.
If not, I have a beef with patriarchy too and that is WHERE ARE MY McBROTHELS?
So "MASCULINITY" is a "side effect"? Hum!
So if you hit me and I forgo my masculinity to "take it like a man", but instead call the cops on you, you're ok to be convicted and jailed and send your sisterhood to jail too?
Masculinity isn't a side-effect. It is a classification of certain traits that are traditionally thought to exist only, or at least predominately, in males, (though these same traits also naturally exist in females, the same goes for feminine traits). Patriarchy values masculinity over femininity, both socially and authoritatively
If I hit you, then I should suffer the appropriate consequence
Alexis Wood
"If I hit you, then I should suffer the appropriate consequence"
> Nice feminist answer. And we all know what that means nowadays.
.
"I am going to bruise myself and call the cops on him", scratch that. "I'm just going to call the cops on him", scratch that "I'm going to hit him and call the cops on him". That's what your "...appropriate consequence" means = he *always* goes directly to jail.
(100,000+ men in Spain; 3,000,000+ men in India -however India's Supreme Court recently made false accusations a crime, even magistrates can be held responsible too They were using fraudulent feminists stats before then as per RADAR). In the US victims of false accusers can be financially responsible excluding lawyers/judges of course.
Alexis Wood And that definition is a FEMINIST construct, that essentially puts "male" in the category of aggressor, exploiter, and abuser.
I agree with equality therfore I do NOT agree with feminism,
Patriarchy is a social system where the male holds a position of power or authority. This occurs in a society, a clan or a family. In a patriarchal system, wives and children are legally dependent on the male figure of husband and father. A matriarchal system involves women holding positions of power. The word patriarchy is derived from the Greek words patria, meaning father, and arches, meaning rule. Whereas previously patriarchy was considered to imply an autocratic form of leadership by males, as head of family or clan, today the term denotes a social system of adult male leadership.
This is what i found on the internet.
I need to read about it more. But from this video it seems that Caroll Gilligan isnt that offensive or wrong anywhere. She worked with Lawrence Kohlberg defining the stages of moral development. But then she added that women have more care morality than men and men have more justice morality. I really feel she is kind of right here. People writing crap in comments without doing even a little bit of research is really sad. Please come out of your inertia and try to be more an observer rather than being victimized. Everyone is an individual at the first place.
Feminism is "The belief that women have the short-hand of a stick", Karen Straughan
While beating everyone with the big end of the stick.
You know how you can easily decide if someone talks bullshit ?
You just have to count how many buzzwords they use. The more they use to make their point the more likely they talk rubbish.
I think theamazingatheist gave a really good definition of feminism
"Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on the issues of one of them"
Last point:
What I also hear is a lot of doublespeak: claiming to be against Patriarchy while embracing its worst economic aspects in the forms of exploitative consumerism/Capitalism and an unquestioning careerist devotion to the corporate world.
What's so noble about that?
If you listen to most feminists like the one in the video, you'll notice a consistent theme time and time again. The overall consensus is, blame men for all problems, only women can possess moral superiority, men are fundamentally lacking in humanity, women walk on water, men can only be virtuous by rejecting any identity un-oriented towards the feminine. And despite the obvious anti-male orthodoxy characterizing feminism even as she speaks, men are suppose to swallow that fem isn't anti-male.
Not wearing a ring doesn't mean much and your wrong - go search Dr. James Gilligan
Gilligan's writing is nuanced and thoughtful, and is certainly worth reading if you find psychology or sociology interesting. The amount of vitriol levelled at her in the comments is truly absurd. I doubt many people would read her writing and conclude that she's intent on bringing down men or any of the other strawman accusations other commenters are making.
I am still quite confused. What the hell is patriarchy? Don't tell me what it's not.
Adam Felcyn when ever a feminist says patriarchy they are arguing against the meritocracy which is what the west is based on.
This just shows how foolish and blind Doctors can be.
For another view? Go to: Evolutionary Psychology. Gender Differences: on Affirmative actions and gender-quota.
For many men like myself, an off-putting aspect of modern feminism is the presumption that exploitation and suffering are the exclusive domains of women. For all their talk against genrered norms, feminists seem quite content with gendered work/working class jobs for men: construction, garbage collector, electrician, delivery, repair, police, fire, rescue, sewage, water treatment, etc.
What I see now is "Trickle Down Feminism" in which the most privileged women ignore poorer women and men.
That’s partly true but I haven’t seen feminists promote the idea that only men should do those jobs.
I just took her Ethics in Philosophy of Ethics class and her principles will allow Ancestry sex within a family! I asked about 2 scenarios, if my old son who's old enough to understand wrong from right and is an adult to make a decision had a relationship with my wife, that is his mother-in-law and they have been loving each other for a year and I caught them having sex. 2nd scenario if my two adult kids, male and female had a relationship or had sex and I caught them. The Professor said her ethics says I shouldn't criticize and show care even though I will support them and love them generally but I can't judge their behaviors.?! so I should be selfless...Pathetic weakening ethics that is isn't particular and inclusive enough of things that happen in reality and want us to simply care even if we're being taken advantage of in these scenarios. Ethics of care didn't bring anything new, AlhamdAllah for Islamic Ethics are universal and particular, and it's very inclusive and it aligns with science and the nature of existence for over 1400 years ago. that's been given from the creator of existence If we let ordinary humans like her instead of Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him, their ethics will not be consistent and they won't survive. Her ethics is a product of the flawed ethics of Justice. yet both of them are flawed. I understand how it came by and I understand how fair and good their claims are against particular circumstances but it's still not inclusive and strong to survive and it shouldn't be taught in college because it encourages toxic freedom and is too tolerant.
If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything. That’s the problem with all these liberals.
Mandatory joint custody bill. That is a terrible fucking idea. What if the father is an abusive & toxic piece of shit? How about deciding each case to suite the needs & circumstances & best interests of the children first & the parents second, because the parents are self sufficient & can advocate for themselves whereas the children are not & cannot. Wait. This is the system. But I agree in the limited cases I know of there does seem to be an unwarranted amount of mother knows best bias.
I'm so glad you answered and i now know i am uneducated :). No she does not use the words in appropriate way. She throws them out to support claims without giving any evidence they actually exist. like the dogma of Patriarchy. She makes noting more clear like a scientist explaining things. She just makes the facts fit her dogma. And not being able to distinguish between dogma and facts is normally common among the uneducated. (not that i want to imply something with that )
Did she just say "MY definition of feminism???" You mean it's not an objective, observable science? So what IS it, exactly? LOL
Feminism is not a science, its a political philosophy. Political philosophies are not objective, but based upon inter-subjective value systems. Furthermore, even in science there is no true objectivity: the data we gain must be observed and measured from a particular position/angle using instruments that do not give 100% accurate readings, and they must be interpreted by scientists in order to draw a conclusion, which is why there is always much debate within scientific communities.
that's healthy. being individualistic about things is healthy.
She never recovered from being dumped by the Donald
yep, it's what would any Jewish mom would say. they have no say in a family.
You know where I agree with you? that vertical business structure is no good.
it's a patriarchy.
you know what would be really great, just randomly distribute all work, and pay the same to all of us.
I am in. how much do you make, oppressed jewish feminist professor?
I appreciate this video - but keep in mind that there are feminists that take things too far. Can't we come up with a new term? Personism? A democracy free oppression from and gender/sex/race divide?
Oh gosh I'd hate for those poor men to have to acknowledge thousands of years of woman's pain... Let's just call it personism and therefore we don't have to offend poor little men egoes... Good job!
not the men here hating on gilligan lmao
The concept of patriarchy ignores the reality that traditional relationships oppress men more than women. After all, who works the long hours, gets the stress and industrial diseases and dies younger? Men have taken longer than women to react to feminism. But they are at last realising that feminist inspired divorce laws remove all responsibility from women, yet still cast men into the traditional worker drone model, regardless of whether or not the woman chooses to break her part of the contract. Women do break the marriage contract, far more often than men, but then why wouldn't they, when divorce is so much in their favour? We are just beginning to see a trickle of high earning women taken to the cleaners by their male ex-partners. This is just as odious, but perhaps we'll finally see something done about it, now that it's happening to women as well.
Divorce and, therefore marriage, remains overwhelmingly harmful to men. Unsurprisingly, intelligent, high earning men have been among the first to work this out. That's why we now have millions of middle-class couples co-habiting and frequently not making babies. And don't kid yourself it's 'liberated' women who prefer this state of affairs. Traditional marriage has always served the interests of women. It's men who are rejecting marriage because it's been set up by feminists to destroy them. Another example of men reacting rationally feminism is the surfeit of middle-aged career women asking: "Where have all the good men gone?". They've gone surfing, in between screwing younger women!
The middle class movement that is feminism has been especially disastrous for working class women. The removal of status from working class men has caused a co-responding, reduced sense of responsibility among those men. Keep telling someone he's a chump and he'll eventually oblige you by being one. This, combined with feminist inspired state handouts has led to millions of lonely, angry single mothers, married to the state and living in perpetual penury. The upshot of all this is that fewer reliable men are having children, and desperate women are reverting to the second string, that is, absentee, bad provider dads who will sire more of their kind. We have yet to see the full effect of this disaster on society - way to go feminism!
There are many women who would like to go back to the traditional model because it was a pretty good deal for them - just ask those single mothers. But more and more men are saying No way! I think we are heading for a completely new model, both in work and relationships. It will be one where we do not demonise men or load the law against them. Nor will it be men going back to the plantation on behalf of indolent female partners. Nor will it be the power and status without responsibility promoted by feminism. Rather, it will require women step up to the plate and take full, equal, adult responsibility in all things. When women do this they will find to their surprise that they don't have to shout for equality, as it will be automatically afforded to them. Some women are already doing this, and they have my respect, but they need to be joined by a lot more of their sex. Those women who fail to meet this standard will increasingly find that they simply won't have worthwhile relationships or careers.
Feminism has set profound changes in motion. They're likely to more far-reaching than feminists realise. The chief error of feminism is that it seeks to deal with male/female issues from an exclusively gyno-centric point of view. But guess what? Men have opinions and interests as well. And contrary to the leftist/feminist propaganda constantly pedalled in the media, men are not redundant, either in the usefulness of their work or their capacity to think and act on their own behalf. On the contrary, men run the world from top to bottom. From president to sewer cleaners, and poets to physicists, the world is created by men. In the words of Karen Straughan, "If men went on strike for 3 days, they'd be three years cleaning up the mess". If women went on strike, would anyone notice? I honestly think the unchallenged nature of a lot of feminist invective is a result of men not being arsed to answer back, either because, rightly or wrongly, they don't feel threatened, or because they're busy doing one of those real jobs that make the world go round and, therefore, they know that feminine supremacy is and will always be - bunk! So you see, the feminist fantasy of reducing men to some secondary status was always silly, not to say nasty. Back in reality, we may eventually get true equality, but if we do, it will only happen because men force it onto women.
are you against vertical business structure?
if not, I have no idea what patriarchy means.
I agree with the jewish professor that equality is very important.
that flat business structure is better. that we should make approximately the same money. not like 5 million bonus as CEO in gov subsidizes company or you could go cut trees or work with chemicals and risk your life for 30,000$ a year.
what patriarchy?
this 500,000$ professor has hard time in society of man working for nothing in dirt?
Well just be sure to tell all the people in science, medicine, engineering and other academic, technical and empirical pursuits to stop using all those "bullshit buzzwords"! The trouble with you is you can't recognise when someone is using narrowly defined terminology in an appropriate fashion in an intellectual discourse and just peppering their speech with incomprehensible buzzwords. This is common amongst the uneducated.
Patriarchy: How it discriminates against women.
We have to go back to 1914 the start of WW1 to answer this question.
A British women named Emmeline Pankhurst (a political activist) lead a women’s campaign to get the right to vote.
When England entered the war, she and her daughters initiated the White Feather movement where all women would hand out a white feather to eligible looking men who were not in uniform to fight for their country. The white feather was seen as a sign of being a coward According to her; it was the men’s duty to protect their country, women and daughters.
This also took place in WW11. The movement was supported by the government, known as
The Patriarchy. Note that women demanded the vote (which they finely got) not the responsibilities that the men had , like going to war. Note: over 32 million men died in battle
in both wars combined....
Yes the patriarchy is an all boys club for men only.
When a disaster strikes, like a sinking ship; who gets rescued first? Why it’s women and children. Also today we have government support for all kinds of women’s issues like homes for battered women, incentives for women’s education, pay equity laws, affirmative employment legislation for women, courts that give child custody 80% to women, and less jail time for women for the same crime as men. While men receive none of these considerations from government.
One can easily see that patriarchy is the cause of discrimination against women......
If women ruled the world there'd be no wars!!! Derppity derp.
Are you saying that a woman withaut a uterus is not a female? You have to think through your definitions.
Spiritually speaking (gender aside), matriarchal wisdom can begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God).
Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle.
As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8).
Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process.
In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary "ego" death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld, her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle.
Mary Magdalene's anointing and wiping of Jesus's feet with her hair can then be seen as head to tail (toe) imagery as she descends her matriarchal head to his patriarchal feet, thus reenacting the high understanding of the divine cyclical process. (John 12:3)
To carry the Ankh was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle.
Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society.
A whole temple was dedicated to the ancient Egyptian goddess Hathor, who is the matriarchal "Uterus" personified. th-cam.com/video/J0m0zJSEFK0/w-d-xo.html
"See all women as mothers, serve them as your mother. When you see the entire world as the mother, the ego falls away. See everything as Mother and you will know God." - Neem Karoli Baba
Sure keep telling yourself that.
Google: Female heads of state.
Well she obviously doesn't live in Oregon bc if you say anything in opposition to the patriarchy people look at you like heathens
Actually no, I was clicking reply but missed because I was blinded by your idiocy.
Thank you! keep supporting feminism!
To be far this mother bias was an outgrowth of a feminist reaction, and a positive one at that, against the prevailing legal attitudes of the early 20th, where the wife and children were seen somewhat as chattel (property), and if the wife "ran away", which was her right, or was discarded by the husband, then the children, being chattel passed to the husband because the wife was also chattel and therefore had no rights to other chattel.
Ok, bored now. Humanism is the entity you described.
I mean sure it's against men. By nature of the thing, if you agree that men as group bordly band thogether to controll woman, that this has happend for millienia and that is became deeply engrained in human cultrue, then you have to also argue that men loose something by feminism, they loose power over others and gain for that a better concience and a societiy wear everyones rights are assured.
But men definetly do loose something. That's like the point, that they hold power over woman and to undo that.
When men don't have anything to loose anymore when woman have full rights then patriacy to-me would not exist, because patricay to me is men trying to withhold womans rights?
Did you actually listen to the video? Really listen. I am a huge fan of the amazing atheist. But she makes a very valid point. And that is what is called "The Patriarchy" is just the attitudes of men and women that are oppressive to women, and that includes anything that means a woman must always be second to the man. From this it doesn't follow that the woman must be always first.
"(Patriarchy)...it places fathers over mothers and children."
I notice you're not wearing a wedding ring.
Show of hands: (likes) How many folks grew up in a household where mom got the final say?
irrelevant.
Feminism is not anti-men but feminists can very definitely be man haters. That doesn't mean that feminists have to hate men, but neither does it guarantee that feminist policies are sensitive to the rights of men. I do understand that feminism is geared toward getting rid of patriarchy but that doesn't mean that feminists are focused on how patriarchy hurts men. It's a woman's movement first & foremost.
Yo boi
My response video (not accepted {surprise}) is here:
/watch?v=WIYeEcCtasg
LOL
I would rather deal with the ways in which the oppressive demands of gender roles predicated on biological sex effect the lives of people, women and men, without needing to gender it as 'patriarchy', which is such a divisive term with as many meanings as there are people who use it. In other words, as Laplace is purported to have said to Napolean, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis". It doesn't seem to add anything fruitful to the conversation.
Lollllllll…………………
Re tu jaaa re baba mere ko nahi sunna and neend aaa rhia aaa
yeah, she really didn't explain anything.
Maybe if you listen more carefully, you will see that what she is saying is that patriarchy is a value system.
Patriarchy was - and remains - humanity's only route to civilization.
Separate democracy from patriarchy ?
If it's a patriarchy than why are women even allowed to vote in the first place?
And also why are they the majority of those casting votes in many western democracies?
Does that sound like a patriarchy to you? If so, perhaps your the ones who should, dare I say, check your privilege
Women ☕️
Women☕️
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo
No.
Wow... that was... disappointing.
Is this a parody?
So......how is your housekeeper doing? Looks like matriarchal slavery to me.
She seems naive
What a twisted confused nonsense. I love my wife who put a career on hold to raise 4 beautiful children. She has a great profession, but her highest good is that of mother and mine father, as sons and daughters of our Father.