What's new

Why Is Patriarchy Seen As A Bad Thing?

sweep_shot

Test Captain
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Runs
47,104
I do not understand the opposition to patriarchy. A lot of modern day liberals seem to have an issue with it.

Why though?

I think patriarchy is efficient provided it is not toxic/unfair. Benevolent patriarchy is vital to a society's growth.

Thoughts?
 
First of all i dont understand to make a topic why you have to go after liberals. This nonsense of making everything a conspriacy of liberals is tiresome.


As for the topic,

You have to live in a toxic patriarchial system to understand the problems of it. If you havent lived under one, understanding it will be hard.

First you need to understand that patriarchy came into being when men and women decided during hunter gathering times that men will go out gather food and women would be the home makers. This was due to the biological advantage men had when it came to hunting food. Thus, as they were the earners they got to be the head of the household.

Modern day society is shifting away from it now, because rols and jobs in the society have changed. Females are just enuff equiped and skillful to work as men do.

Whether your household is patriarchial or matriarchial is not the issue. Issue is when the male dominance leads to placing restrictions on the life of the women and children in the household.

My late grandfather didnt allow my grand mother to drive, didnt let one of my uncles to move abroad so that he kept serving him. He had such a hold that he would meddle in the affairs of my uncles wives health..

His kids learned that behavior, and now my aunts married to those uncles dont drive and are confined to their household. They cant even go out alone to the store 50 meters away to buy bread due to this patriarchy. They wait for the husband to come home to bring it for them.

I know many females that dont work because of such reasons.

Than another thing that comes with patriarhy is than in toxic households where the men is earning and deals with mental pressure outside, he takes out his anger on his wife or kids..

Its one of the reasons why women dont develop self confidence and than they end up facing challenges as they grow up because they are used to being shielded in a confined household.

Basically todays patriarchy is, if your sex organs dangle, you get to be the head of the house and show your dominance.

Jobs have changed, its no more the men working, women can also perform the same jobs. You have females driving trucks in North America.
 
I do not understand the opposition to patriarchy. A lot of modern day liberals seem to have an issue with it.

Why though?

I think patriarchy is efficient provided it is not toxic/unfair. Benevolent patriarchy is vital to a society's growth.

Thoughts?

Because it makes half the human race second class citizens. Simple as that.
 
Patriarchy itself believes in women being subordinate to men. I do not support either of them. Both men and women need their own independence(financial and career) to have a healthy relationship.

Patriarchy worked when both Men and Women had set responsibilities back in medieval and hunter gatherer times. We do not need such ideals in this day and age. Opportunities are there for both men and women to create their own career paths. It is now just a weapon to oppress women and keep them under control. Such societies will never prosper.
 
Patriarchy itself believes in women being subordinate to men. I do not support either of them. Both men and women need their own independence(financial and career) to have a healthy relationship.

Patriarchy worked when both Men and Women had set responsibilities back in medieval and hunter gatherer times. We do not need such ideals in this day and age. Opportunities are there for both men and women to create their own career paths. It is now just a weapon to oppress women and keep them under control. Such societies will never prosper.

Gulf states are patriarchic and they are prospering just fine.

I don't think prosperity has much relation to patriarchy.
 
Don't get me wrong. I do not support oppressive patriarchy. That's not what I was referring to.

I was referring to patriarchy done in the right spirit; like it was meant to be. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Men and women are like apples and oranges. They compliment each other and both have different strengths and weaknesses. Opposing patriarchy shouldn't mean denying what is natural.
 
The same reason why feudalism is bad or corporate greed is devastating. It always come back to the rights of the most vulnerable in the society.
 
Don't get me wrong. I do not support oppressive patriarchy. That's not what I was referring to.

I was referring to patriarchy done in the right spirit; like it was meant to be. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Men and women are like apples and oranges. They compliment each other and both have different strengths and weaknesses. Opposing patriarchy shouldn't mean denying what is natural.

What do you mean by meant to be?

Society has evolved, men dont hunt for food anymore. Infact, women have developed skills and in the 21st century and are also working in different fields.

Even LGBQT couples have shown that biological men can take care of a child.

When it comes to earning money, both are same, you may bring up one odd field where men are required, but you have to understand from where patriarchy came from and than think whether society is still like hunter gatherer or not.

Men and women are like apple and oranges when we look at them through a biological lens and we create this biasness. Women doing house chores is something we have been conditioned to think that thats her job.

Look at them through a lens where you dont know whether their sexual reproduction organs dangle or not
 
I can’t believe this is even a question in this day and age.
 
Gulf states are patriarchic and they are prospering just fine.

I don't think prosperity has much relation to patriarchy.

uptil MBS came along, women couldn't drive. How are gulf states doing any better.

In Pakistan, women often find trouble getting loans or assets if they self buy and dont have a husband or father to sign papers for them.
 
Gulf states are patriarchic and they are prospering just fine.

I don't think prosperity has much relation to patriarchy.

What? What have they made? Their entire prosperity is built on western nations scientific mind and labor from South Asia.
 
Men and women are like apple and oranges when we look at them through a biological lens and we create this biasness. Women doing house chores is something we have been conditioned to think that thats her job.

Look at them through a lens where you dont know whether their sexual reproduction organs dangle or not

What do you mean by "we create this biasness"? Are you denying biological reality? Are you saying nature is biased?

Men and women can work and raise children together. That is possible even under patriarchy.

Literal definition of patriarchy --> "A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."

Is there anything wrong with this? What's wrong if father is the head of the family?
 
What do you mean by "we create this biasness"? Are you denying biological reality? Are you saying nature is biased?

Men and women can work and raise children together. That is possible even under patriarchy.

Literal definition of patriarchy --> "A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."

Is there anything wrong with this? What's wrong if father is the head of the family?

Why should women follow decisions based on Man’s wishes? Are you saying women cannot be good leaders?
 
First of all i dont understand to make a topic why you have to go after liberals. This nonsense of making everything a conspriacy of liberals is tiresome.


As for the topic,

You have to live in a toxic patriarchial system to understand the problems of it. If you havent lived under one, understanding it will be hard.

First you need to understand that patriarchy came into being when men and women decided during hunter gathering times that men will go out gather food and women would be the home makers. This was due to the biological advantage men had when it came to hunting food. Thus, as they were the earners they got to be the head of the household.

Modern day society is shifting away from it now, because rols and jobs in the society have changed. Females are just enuff equiped and skillful to work as men do.

Whether your household is patriarchial or matriarchial is not the issue. Issue is when the male dominance leads to placing restrictions on the life of the women and children in the household.

My late grandfather didnt allow my grand mother to drive, didnt let one of my uncles to move abroad so that he kept serving him. He had such a hold that he would meddle in the affairs of my uncles wives health..

His kids learned that behavior, and now my aunts married to those uncles dont drive and are confined to their household. They cant even go out alone to the store 50 meters away to buy bread due to this patriarchy. They wait for the husband to come home to bring it for them.

I know many females that dont work because of such reasons.

Than another thing that comes with patriarhy is than in toxic households where the men is earning and deals with mental pressure outside, he takes out his anger on his wife or kids..

Its one of the reasons why women dont develop self confidence and than they end up facing challenges as they grow up because they are used to being shielded in a confined household.

Basically todays patriarchy is, if your sex organs dangle, you get to be the head of the house and show your dominance.

Jobs have changed, its no more the men working, women can also perform the same jobs. You have females driving trucks in North America.



That's just downright oppression. A lot of Muslim countries do seem to stifle their own society by obsessive sex segregation. It just makes for a dismal atmosphere on the streets, and not to mention restriction from driving means mothers can't pick up or drop off kids to school.

On the other hand, I still believe patriarchy works best if it's applied sensibly. Women going to work is fine, but when it comes to family, then it still works best when mum is home to look after the little ones. Yes it's necessary to share workloads if you live in the west, but that doesn't mean you are better off. Women quite often end up working during the day, then looking after household chores when they come home in reality. Two incomes doesn't necessarily make a society better off, it just means you end up paying twice as much for your home.
 
uptil MBS came along, women couldn't drive. How are gulf states doing any better.

In Pakistan, women often find trouble getting loans or assets if they self buy and dont have a husband or father to sign papers for them.

Gulf states look like futuristic countries. Have you seen their buildings and infrastructures? They make US and UK look like third world countries.


What? What have they made? Their entire prosperity is built on western nations scientific mind and labor from South Asia.

It doesn't matter how they did it. But, they did it despite being patriarchic.

You are making it sound like people worked there for free. Those laborers are paid; they earn and send money back home.
 
I do not understand the opposition to patriarchy. A lot of modern day liberals seem to have an issue with it.

Why though?

I think patriarchy is efficient provided it is not toxic/unfair. Benevolent patriarchy is vital to a society's growth.

Thoughts?

Cant believe i am reading this in this age & time. What the effing is a benovelent patriarchy anyway? Keeping 50 percent of our population uneducated, unemployed, under the thumb of male members?
And what happens if the male members die/not able to take care of the females? Where do they go then?
Women have so much skills to contribute to everything- deliberately dumbing them down & keeping them restricted to the kitchen is basically criminal!
 
Why should women follow decisions based on Man’s wishes? Are you saying women cannot be good leaders?

If the man is qualified, why can't women follow decisions of that man?

Are you saying women shouldn't listen to a man just because he is a man? That's sexism right there.
 
What do you mean by "we create this biasness"? Are you denying biological reality? Are you saying nature is biased?

Men and women can work and raise children together. That is possible even under patriarchy.

Literal definition of patriarchy --> "A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."

Is there anything wrong with this? What's wrong if father is the head of the family?

Biological reality exists, but gender has been made by us.

When we associate pink with girls or give them toys such as dolls we do that not biological
 
Cant believe i am reading this in this age & time. What the effing is a benovelent patriarchy anyway? Keeping 50 percent of our population uneducated, unemployed, under the thumb of male members?
And what happens if the male members die/not able to take care of the females? Where do they go then?
Women have so much skills to contribute to everything- deliberately dumbing them down & keeping them restricted to the kitchen is basically criminal!

Why are you assuming patriarchy results in uneducated and unemployed women? That's a faulty assumption right there.

If it causes unemployment and lack of education, it is the fault of that particular culture. Not patriarchy itself.

Nobody talked about keeping them to kitchens. They can be successful in a patriarchic society. That's all I am saying.
 
Last edited:
Biological reality exists, but gender has been made by us.

When we associate pink with girls or give them toys such as dolls we do that not biological

What do you mean by "gender has been made by us"? Man is man and woman is woman.

Please read this article:

The long-held notion that girls prefer pink while boys prefer blue may hold some truth, suggests a new study. And moreover, there might be a biological basis for why women prefer pink – or at least more reddish colours than men, say researchers.

The authors of the new study say their findings support the theory that colour vision evolved in humans in part to help females spot ripe fruit such as red berries.

Both sexes find blues more appealing than other shades of the rainbow according to previous research, says Anya Hurlbert at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, who led the study. However, scientists have lacked good evidence as to whether women and men really differ in terms of the shades they like best.

Hurlbert and her colleagues tested colour preferences in 171 British adults and 37 recent immigrants to the UK from mainland China, with almost equal numbers of men and women.

The idea of testing the two groups was to separate out whether culture or biology might influence gender preferences for colour. Each participant viewed about 750 different pairs of colours spanning the entire rainbow, and in each case had to indicate which of the two shades they preferred.

Feminine preference
As expected from previous work, both sexes rated blues as best. But analysis of all the colour comparisons revealed that the women had a significantly higher preference for blues with “pinkish” undertones – such as lilac – whereas men tend to lean towards purer blues.

Hurlbert thinks that women might prefer pinker shades because – in cultures where pink represents girlishness and femininity – they have learned to identify with it.

But she adds that the Chinese women in her study, who grew up without commercial toys such as Barbie that promote pink to girls, showed an even greater liking for pinkish hues than their British female counterparts. So Hurlbert believes that women’s attraction towards pinkish colours is innate.

She acknowledges, however, that there might be other cultural influences on colour preference beyond toys that explain why Chinese women prefer pinkish hues, too.

The study might provide insight into why humans evolved colour vision in the first place, say the researchers. Although many mammals are thought to lack sophisticated colour perception, humans and several other primates, such as gorillas, possess advanced colour vision thanks to specialised receptors in the eye that can pick up on three different ranges of light waves.

Fruit gatherers
Some biologists have proposed that our primate ancestors developed this advanced form of colour vision because it made it easier to pick out reddish, ripe fruit against a background of green vegetation.

Hurlbert believes her finding that women show a greater liking for redder hues supports this theory because females are thought to have done most of the fruit gathering.

She admits, though, that just because women prefer pinkish colours does not mean they spot them faster than men do.

Hurlbert speculates there may also be evolutionary arguments for both sexes’ preference for blue. “Going back to our ‘savannah’ days, we would have a natural preference for a clear blue sky, because it signalled good weather. Clear blue also signals a good water source.”

Journal reference: Current Biology (vol 17, No 16 R623)

Source: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ver, there might be,fruit such as red berries..
 
That's just downright oppression. A lot of Muslim countries do seem to stifle their own society by obsessive sex segregation. It just makes for a dismal atmosphere on the streets, and not to mention restriction from driving means mothers can't pick up or drop off kids to school.

On the other hand, I still believe patriarchy works best if it's applied sensibly. Women going to work is fine, but when it comes to family, then it still works best when mum is home to look after the little ones. Yes it's necessary to share workloads if you live in the west, but that doesn't mean you are better off. Women quite often end up working during the day, then looking after household chores when they come home in reality. Two incomes doesn't necessarily make a society better off, it just means you end up paying twice as much for your home.

But patriarchy isnt only about women taking of children. Even in matriarchal households women take care off the children.

The issue is the oppression which is part of patriarchy.
 
But patriarchy isnt only about women taking of children. Even in matriarchal households women take care off the children.

The issue is the oppression which is part of patriarchy.

Yes that would be an issue. As I said in that post, oppression makes for a more miserable society for everyone, I don't even see how it benefits men in the long run.
 
If the man is qualified, why can't women follow decisions of that man?

Are you saying women shouldn't listen to a man just because he is a man? That's sexism right there.

No I’m saying whoever is more qualified can be the leader lol you are the one saying patriarchy isn’t bad, so you are ok with women being head if she is more qualified? Am i right?
 
But patriarchy isnt only about women taking of children. Even in matriarchal households women take care off the children.

The issue is the oppression which is part of patriarchy.

Isn't it faulty to assume matriarchy will not have oppression?

I don't think the issue of oppression lies with matriarchy or patriarchy. A female leader can be oppressive too. For example, Sheikh Hasina.

I think it is an inaccurate stereotype to associate oppression to patriarchy. It is not black and white.
 
Last edited:
Gulf states are patriarchic and they are prospering just fine.

I don't think prosperity has much relation to patriarchy.

They are just oil rich. They have nothing to offer the world other than the oil that they are sitting on. Without it, they will be on par with Afghanistan.
 
Why are you assuming patriarchy results in uneducated and unemployed women? That's a faulty assumption right there.

If it causes unemployment and lack of education, it is the fault of that particular culture. Not patriarchy itself.

Nobody talked about keeping them to kitchens. They can be successful in a patriarchic society. That's all I am saying.

Looks like you are confused. You have to define what Patriarchy means to you.
 
Looks like you are confused. You have to define what Patriarchy means to you.

I am not confused at all.

Literal definition of patriarchy --> "A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."

Now, tell me. Is there anything wrong with this? What's wrong if father is the head of the family?
 
I am not confused at all.

Literal definition of patriarchy --> "A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."

Now, tell me. Is there anything wrong with this? What's wrong if father is the head of the family?

If a woman is more qualified can she be the head of the family?
 
No I’m saying whoever is more qualified can be the leader lol you are the one saying patriarchy isn’t bad, so you are ok with women being head if she is more qualified? Am i right?

I am okay with it. Yes.

However, in human history, males have traditionally done better than females in leadership positions.

How many successful female leaders can you think of in the past 500 years? Even in modern times, vast majority of the leaders/CEOs are men. I don't think there is any real sexism here; it is just statistics.
 
Last edited:
I am not confused at all.

Literal definition of patriarchy --> "A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."

Now, tell me. Is there anything wrong with this? What's wrong if father is the head of the family?

Anyone with a balanced head and Earning capabilities should be able to lead the family. Gender must be irrelevant.
Why should a male clown lead a family when the female in the house is a lot smarter then him and earns much more than him?
 
Don't get me wrong. I do not support oppressive patriarchy. That's not what I was referring to.

I was referring to patriarchy done in the right spirit; like it was meant to be. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Men and women are like apples and oranges. They compliment each other and both have different strengths and weaknesses. Opposing patriarchy shouldn't mean denying what is natural.

It wasn't meant to be. It is an idea which has grown out of Abrahamism. The first god-forms in Europe were female and some existed in the ME too (Inanna, Ishtar, Astarte, Cybele) , but the Yahweh cult (war god / patriarchal) started destroying every other cult and that's why the cultures that derived from them are so warlike. If god is a stern judging strongman, you have to be too...
 
Isn't it faulty to assume matriarchy will not have oppression?

I don't think the issue of oppression lies with matriarchy or patriarchy. A female leader can be oppressive too. For example, Sheikh Hasina.

true, matriarchal households do also have issues aswell.

In Pakistan and India, matriarchy is acheived when one of the women of the household who under partriarchy lives long enough to become the senior most member of the household.

The issues that happen in matriarchy is the head grand motehr deciding who you marry or not marry. Yes issues are there, but patriarhy issues are more.

Its like 80;20 ratio for patriarchy.

This is why households should be based on equity rather than matri or patriarhy
 
Anyone with a balanced head and Earning capabilities should be able to lead the family. Gender must be irrelevant.
Why should a male clown lead a family when the female in the house is a lot smarter then him and earns much more than him?

The problem is you are automatically assuming the father is a clown while giving a free pass to the mother.

That's the issue right there. This is what modern day liberals represent; women generally get a free pass whether they are guilty or not.

This is why societies worldwide are declining. They are radically trying to change nature and societies. That's why they are ending up with diseases and various problems.
 
Anyone with a balanced head and Earning capabilities should be able to lead the family. Gender must be irrelevant.
Why should a male clown lead a family when the female in the house is a lot smarter then him and earns much more than him?

Do Hindus still distribute celebratory mithai on the birth of a son? Nothing is a bigger perpetuator of patriarchy than that rancid tradition.
 
It wasn't meant to be. It is an idea which has grown out of Abrahamism. The first god-forms in Europe were female and some existed in the ME too (Inanna, Ishtar, Astarte, Cybele) , but the Yahweh cult (war god / patriarchal) started destroying every other cult and that's why the cultures that derived from them are so warlike. If god is a stern judging strongman, you have to be too...

So, what was meant to be? Are you in favor of matriarchy or any other specific system?
 
Do Hindus still distribute celebratory mithai on the birth of a son? Nothing is a bigger perpetuator of patriarchy than that rancid tradition.

It is a rancid tradition to celebrate male child and moan the female child. That is why India is slowly moving away from it. Today a lot of women are in the work force and their literacy is also increasing.

Its a crime to have half of the population be treated as second class citizens and restrict them to kitchens and kids.
 
I am okay with it. Yes.

However, in human history, males have traditionally done better than females in leadership positions.

How many successful female leaders can you think of in the past 500 years? Even in modern times, vast majority of the leaders/CEOs are men. I don't think there is any real sexism here; it is just statistics.

How many women were given a chance? Now when they are given chances they are doing well, so you have no issues with qualified women being leaders then there is no issues here.

If a woman is qualified she should be able to head any corporation family country etc, so we are on the same page with that.
 
How many women were given a chance? Now when they are given chances they are doing well, so you have no issues with qualified women being leaders then there is no issues here.

If a woman is qualified she should be able to head any corporation family country etc, so we are on the same page with that.

Yes. The issue is many women get promoted due to their genders and not due to their qualifications. They are celebrated despite being average or below-average.

My beef is not with qualified women. My beef is with radical aspect of modern day feminism.
 
How many successful female leaders can you think of in the past 500 years? Even in modern times, vast majority of the leaders/CEOs are men. I don't think there is any real sexism here; it is just statistics.

Women don't often get promoted to CEO positions because of an expectation that they will eventually have babies and leave. The statistics are skewed because of patriarchy.

But seeing as you ask:

Queen Elizabeth I - raised up England from a Hapsburg province and put it on the road to Empire.

Catherine de Medici

Catherine the Great of the Russian Empire

Queen-Empress Victoria

Golda Meir

Indira Gandhi

Margaret Thatcher

Angela Merkel

Nancy Pelosi

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Ursula von der Leyen

Kamala Harris

Jacinta Ardern

...that's without thinking about it.
 
Yes. The issue is many women get promoted due to their genders and not due to their qualifications. They are celebrated despite being average or below-average.

My beef is not with qualified women. My beef is with radical aspect of modern day feminism.

I don't believe that. Nobody would take the business risk.
 
Women don't often get promoted to CEO positions because of an expectation that they will eventually have babies and leave. The statistics are skewed because of patriarchy.

But seeing as you ask:

Queen Elizabeth I - raised up England from a Hapsburg province and put it on the road to Empire.

Catherine de Medici

Catherine the Great of the Russian Empire

Queen-Empress Victoria

Golda Meir

Indira Gandhi

Margaret Thatcher

Angela Merkel

Nancy Pelosi

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Ursula von der Leyen

Kamala Harris

Jacinta Ardern

...that's without thinking about it.

Only Jacinda and Merkel are worth mentioning. Rest are poster children of feminism/other agendas.
 
I don't believe that. Nobody would take the business risk.

Are you sure about that?

There are many female commentators in cricket who are there mostly due to gender quotas.

They are having Isa Guha over Geoff Boycott. Seriously?
 
Are you sure about that?

There are many female commentators in cricket who are there mostly due to gender quotas.

They are having Isa Guha over Geoff Boycott. Seriously?

Yes I am sure. People - men and women - sometime get promoted above their competence level, but soon get found out.

Sir Geoffrey is 81 and should retire.

Isa played for England, and communicates well so she is competent to commentate.
 
Only Jacinda and Merkel are worth mentioning. Rest are poster children of feminism/other agendas.

Why, because they are the two you have heard of? Margaret Thatcher the poster child for feminism indeed :))

I suggest you open a history book and learn about some of these remarkable women.
 
If the man is qualified, why can't women follow decisions of that man?

Flip side - If a woman is qualified, why can't men follow decision of that woman?

Clearly, it works both ways. There is no need to have patriarchy or matriarchy. You simply let the best person to take the role, be it man or women. Entire civilization will be better off if the best person is doing the job.
 
Well if we're are talking about the best person for the job then a mother is the best to look after a child. Mothers have a natural instinct for love, and nurture, this is why females make the best nurses, carers, and teachers.

Don't give me this mumbo jumbo about a father can feed and tell bed time stories to kids too, its different to a mothers love.
 
Well if we're are talking about the best person for the job then a mother is the best to look after a child. Mothers have a natural instinct for love, and nurture, this is why females make the best nurses, carers, and teachers.

Don't give me this mumbo jumbo about a father can feed and tell bed time stories to kids too, its different to a mothers love.

how is this mumbo jumbo?

Gender roles have been defined by us. You are claiming that a father doesnt have a natural instinct for love and nurture? I know fathers who cook and clean their child

Parents roles have also been gendered.

If ones parents are to be divorced, your saying that the child should automatically go to the mother no matter what?
 
Why, because they are the two you have heard of? Margaret Thatcher the poster child for feminism indeed :))

I suggest you open a history book and learn about some of these remarkable women.

I think you have insulted Angela and Jacinda by adding them with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Nancy Pelosi.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents what is wrong with present day United States. She actually wanted to defund the police and supports illegal immigration. Can't believe you listed her.
 
Liberals are going mad because they do not understand the very basic pillar of a Patriarchal system - chain of command. This notion that a women is demeaned because a man puts the food on the table and a roof over the head is complete utter baqwas.

One of the most studied and respected family structures in the West is none other than the Mafia, 100% lead by men.

Men and Women are equal in the eyes of God (creation), but have different responsibilities. If a women could be a prophet/messenger, then God would have ordained so.

Go ask any chav why they are wondering the streets at night, committing crime, cos mother ain't at home.

The idea of liberalism these days is that in the West you have a choice, money or raise your children.

In fact, there are studies and polls among women who prefer to stay at home, build their homes, raise their children, and spend their husbands money! The trend is shifting back towards the norm.

Educate a man you educate a women, educate a woman and you educate a family.

Remember, a Patriarchal system has worked since the dawn of mankind, and only West have tried to deviate from this system recently because liberalism doesn't see or acknowledge any difference between man and woman, and we can see the results.
 
Last edited:
The Godfather has now become research film for sociological issues :facepalm:
 
Liberals are going mad because they do not understand the very basic pillar of a Patriarchal system - chain of command. This notion that a women is demeaned because a man puts the food on the table and a roof over the head is complete utter baqwas.

One of the most studied and respected family structures in the West is none other than the Mafia, 100% lead by men.

Men and Women are equal in the eyes of God (creation), but have different responsibilities. If a women could be a prophet/messenger, then God would have ordained so.

Go ask any chav why they are wondering the streets at night, committing crime, cos mother ain't at home.

The idea of liberalism these days is that in the West you have a choice, money or raise your children.

In fact, there are studies and polls among women who prefer to stay at home, build their homes, raise their children, and spend their husbands money! The trend is shifting back towards the norm.

Educate a man you educate a women, educate a woman and you educate a family.

Remember, a Patriarchal system has worked since the dawn of mankind, and only West have tried to deviate from this system recently because liberalism doesn't see or acknowledge any difference between man and woman, and we can see the results.

Brilliantly said.

This post accurately describes what I was trying to say. It is not about oppression of women; it is about accepting biological realities.

Patriarchy doesn't necessarily prevent a woman from getting education or employment. That was my argument.
 
Brilliantly said.

This post accurately describes what I was trying to say. It is not about oppression of women; it is about accepting biological realities.

Patriarchy doesn't necessarily prevent a woman from getting education or employment. That was my argument.

bro, have lived or seen a proper patriarchal family in Bangladesh? Patriarchy exactly does prevent women from getting a job and education.

You are confusing biological with what has been genderize by society.
 
If its misogynist to state a women gives birth to a child, nurtures the child, educates the child, because a women is naturally designed to care for the flesh and sentinel being she have given birth to, then is sums up what is wrong with liberalism.

Liberals never see the bigger picture, a female is responsible for the future of mankind, men simply provide.

This is the order of humanity.
 
There are biological differences and they were enhanced during hunter gatherer or Medieval times. But in this day and age, Most of the jobs that men perform can also be performed by women.

This idea of men putting bread on the table and roof over the head is again a medieval and pre-modern concept. Now anyone can do that with enough skills and a intelligent brain.

Why should a man lead a family? How about any elder in the house can lead the family irrespective of gender?
 
bro, have lived or seen a proper patriarchal family in Bangladesh? Patriarchy exactly does prevent women from getting a job and education.

You are confusing biological with what has been genderize by society.

My comment was a general comment. West used to have patriarchy and they flourished. Decline started once they abandoned it (along with other things).

Places like Bangladesh and Pakistan have different obstacles. Poverty and corruption are the two main culprits. I don't think patriarchy is the main culprit there.
 
you are making the same point that Indians make when an issue on human rights is made and they will claim that your country has it worst so dont talk about it.

that way, no topic can get discussed.

Even if patriarchy happens within ones family, cant he not speak against it?

Is anyone stopping you from talking about it? I see you didn't answer my question either, but don't worry I already know the answer, which is why I made the point in the first place. It's nice to talk the talk, but reality is usually different.
 
Brilliantly said.

This post accurately describes what I was trying to say. It is not about oppression of women; it is about accepting biological realities.

Patriarchy doesn't necessarily prevent a woman from getting education or employment. That was my argument.

Correct, Liberalism distorts the reality and truth. Patriarchy actually favours and is more beneficial for women. Women are way more happier when men provide for the family.

As I mentioned above, the Mafia is the most studied family structure in the West, not because they were criminal masterminds, but because of how successful, honourable, and respectful they were, in particular towards family values.

But now we are beyond the madness of Liberalism, our kids are being forced to accept there is neither biological nor social difference between a man and a women. Society in the West has gone mad, and then the West wonders why it has been in steady decline for 50 odd years.
 
In the most patriarchal way, I have deleted posts from kids who don't know how to talk or argue with each other without throwing insults.
 
My comment was a general comment. West used to have patriarchy and they flourished. Decline started once they abandoned it (along with other things).

Places like Bangladesh and Pakistan have different obstacles. Poverty and corruption are the two main culprits. I don't think patriarchy is the main culprit there.

patriarchy is an issue at the social level. The husband coming home taking his stress off by beating his wife. Throwing daughters in the grave isn't something that came from West, it was from our side. Even now a daughter being born is frowned upon. This is becuase we have genderized the roles.

West moved away from patriarchy due to the the three waves of feminism. They were given the right of vote, after which when world war started, the women showed that they can replace the men at work. You are saying that West was flourishing before the World war?

Gender Studies is a great subject of study. If you havent seen the problems women have faced, this suubject helps you in understanding them. It even lays out what LGQBT is and how Gender and Sex are two different things. Feminism is also defined properly, what we read and discussed amongst ourselves about feminism is not even correct.
 
Last edited:
Gender Studies is a great subject of study. If you havent seen the problems women have faced, this suubject helps you in understanding them. It even lays out what LGQBT is and how Gender and Sex are two different things. Feminism is also defined properly, what we read and discussed amongst ourselves about feminism is not even correct.

I personally do not consider gender studies to be a practical major. It is like reading a blog.

You can probably learn four years worth of gender studies contents in a day or two.

The problems women face can be fixed with right process. You don't need gender studies for that.
 
Last edited:
I think you have insulted Angela and Jacinda by adding them with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Nancy Pelosi.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents what is wrong with present day United States. She actually wanted to defund the police and supports illegal immigration. Can't believe you listed her.

Pelosi is the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House. AOC had the potential to be anything she chooses. First female POTUS even.

I am going to go out on a limb here and opine that the reason you like patriarchy is that you are basically afraid of girls. That’s fine. Girls are scary. But we can face them as equals
 
Pelosi is the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House. AOC had the potential to be anything she chooses. First female POTUS even.

I am going to go out on a limb here and opine that the reason you like patriarchy is that you are basically afraid of girls. That’s fine. Girls are scary. But we can face them as equals

She (AOC) wanted to defund the police. Do you think it is a good idea to do that?

How can she be listed along with Jacinda and Merkel when she supports things like this?

Also, we have seen evidence of Pelosi's intelligence when she decided to visit Taiwan. Very irresponsible move.
 
Last edited:
I personally do not consider gender studies to be a practical major. It is like reading a blog.

You can probably learn four years worth of gender studies contents in a day or two.

The problems women face can be fixed with right process. You don't need gender studies for that.

i never said you should study gender studies for a whole degree. I meant you can study it as a subject for a semester. It will really open up your concepts. Trust me, what we read around the net or discuss in our social groups about feminism, isn't even accurate.

I took sociology once in my uni, it was probably one of the best subjects I ever studied as it opened my mind on society. We had daily discussion where such topics on patriarchy were discussed. Sociology and gender studies are very interesting subjects.


To fix the problems that women face, you first need to understand them. By having a very flawed concept of feminism (as if its a conspiracy) is not gonna help.

I came to realize once that our govt didnt charge tax on shaving blades but high taxes were being charged on female sanitary pads, which are very important for female hygiene. So you see, even at the govt level, we dont understand the problems faced by women.
 
She (AOC) wanted to defund the police. Do you think it is a good idea to do that?

How can she be listed along with Jacinda and Merkel when she supports things like this?

Also, we have seen evidence of Pelosi's intelligence when she decided to visit Taiwan. Very irresponsible move.

Do not believe the hype. Pelosi cannot choose to become POTUS, only the electorate or the improbable situation where incumbent President and Vice President are dead; and even if this did happen, Pelosi doesn’t choose, the constitution does.

Amreeka has yet to vote for a female POTUS, and so bad is the misogyny in Amreeka, that the public vote for a Black candidate (Obama), and (Trump) over Clinton.

And to think Racism and Patriotism is rampant in Amreeka!

Maybe the Amreeka electorate are afraid of women? LOL.
 
Last edited:
Wonder what the OP wud have said on this topic if he was born as woman ?

On a different note ideally we need to get women PPers to answer to the OP

If our admins could tag some active women PPers here
 
As a father of 2 girls, this post really pains me - as if my girls are not good enough for anything except work in the kitchen & raise kids. I was a product of working parents; my wife works as well & its hard for me to see how a woman working affects upbringing of kids - if anything it only teaches kids to be independent & value the worth of an educated, independant woman. As parents, it is our duty to raise girls who will not suffer domestic abuse, who can contribute meaningfully to the economy & does not need to be destitute if calamity strikes & this post does nothing but takes us back to the time when women had no equal civil rights in anything - inheritance, political say, reproductive rights & were basically chattels of men.

To equate kids falling into bad company with working mothers is again a big fallacy. More than working moms, i bet that kids fall into bad company because parents are uneducated & they dont have an environment at home that nurtures learning. If working mom was an issue, Brit pakistanis who are in gangs & are over represented in prisons wouldnt be so (bcoz that community has barely any working mothers). Look at the list of hell-holes on earth & most of them are Islamic countries who dont value their women well.

Lastly, to hold only the Gulf as an example of prosperity is stupid to say the least. Scandinavian countries, Australia, Canada always had a comparatively high number of working women & they are some of the most prosperous countries of the world. The Gulf without its oil would have been equivalent to Afghanistan!
 
I would've probably said the same thing.

Doing what is right is gender-neutral.

Its like a white asking if racism is bad

Now wud he say the same if he was born as black man. Of course NOT

Same way. U wont defend patriarchy if u were born as a women. Bcoz u wud know first hand why its a toxic idea
 
As a father of 2 girls, this post really pains me - as if my girls are not good enough for anything except work in the kitchen & raise kids. I was a product of working parents; my wife works as well & its hard for me to see how a woman working affects upbringing of kids - if anything it only teaches kids to be independent & value the worth of an educated, independant woman. As parents, it is our duty to raise girls who will not suffer domestic abuse, who can contribute meaningfully to the economy & does not need to be destitute if calamity strikes & this post does nothing but takes us back to the time when women had no equal civil rights in anything - inheritance, political say, reproductive rights & were basically chattels of men.

To equate kids falling into bad company with working mothers is again a big fallacy. More than working moms, i bet that kids fall into bad company because parents are uneducated & they dont have an environment at home that nurtures learning. If working mom was an issue, Brit pakistanis who are in gangs & are over represented in prisons wouldnt be so (bcoz that community has barely any working mothers). Look at the list of hell-holes on earth & most of them are Islamic countries who dont value their women well.

Lastly, to hold only the Gulf as an example of prosperity is stupid to say the least. Scandinavian countries, Australia, Canada always had a comparatively high number of working women & they are some of the most prosperous countries of the world. The Gulf without its oil would have been equivalent to Afghanistan!

Again, nobody talked about women being in kitchen. That's not what was implied or written.

This thread is more about calling out toxic aspects of present day feminism.

Women should be encouraged to be strong, educated, and sensible (patriarchy or no patriarchy).
 
Last edited:
Its like a white asking if racism is bad

Now wud he say the same if he was born as black man. Of course NOT

Same way. U wont defend patriarchy if u were born as a women. Bcoz u wud know first hand why its a toxic idea

Wait a second.

Are you saying only whites can be racists?

Emphasize is on criticizing radical feminism. How it is using patriarchy as a boogeyman.
 
Last edited:
:)))

The gulf without oil is like the West without loot and debt.

Nordics also is dependent on oil.

I think we should have an online dictionary for many users here, the see the word Patriarchy and equate it to misogyny.

All those who are fathers of daughters, don’t lie, when your daughter will get married you will want her future husband to provide for her, not the other way round.
 
I have finished my education. I have finished my bachelor's.

A person can both focus on work/education and religion. Doesn't have to be one or the other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:)))

The gulf without oil is like the West without loot and debt.

Nordics also is dependent on oil.

I think we should have an online dictionary for many users here, the see the word Patriarchy and equate it to misogyny.

All those who are fathers of daughters, don’t lie, when your daughter will get married you will want her future husband to provide for her, not the other way round.

Right.

Even Canada is dependent on oil. A significant percentage of Canada's revenues comes from oil.

I think a lot of people don't understand well what patriarchy is. They think it means putting women in kitchens (which is not the case).

Also, patriarchy is not a bad thing by default. It is only bad if things are done incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
As a father of 2 girls, this post really pains me - as if my girls are not good enough for anything except work in the kitchen & raise kids. I was a product of working parents; my wife works as well & its hard for me to see how a woman working affects upbringing of kids - if anything it only teaches kids to be independent & value the worth of an educated, independant woman. As parents, it is our duty to raise girls who will not suffer domestic abuse, who can contribute meaningfully to the economy & does not need to be destitute if calamity strikes & this post does nothing but takes us back to the time when women had no equal civil rights in anything - inheritance, political say, reproductive rights & were basically chattels of men.

To equate kids falling into bad company with working mothers is again a big fallacy. More than working moms, i bet that kids fall into bad company because parents are uneducated & they dont have an environment at home that nurtures learning. If working mom was an issue, Brit pakistanis who are in gangs & are over represented in prisons wouldnt be so (bcoz that community has barely any working mothers). Look at the list of hell-holes on earth & most of them are Islamic countries who dont value their women well.

Lastly, to hold only the Gulf as an example of prosperity is stupid to say the least. Scandinavian countries, Australia, Canada always had a comparatively high number of working women & they are some of the most prosperous countries of the world. The Gulf without its oil would have been equivalent to Afghanistan!

Well, it's good that those 2 girls are born in current era. Even 100 years back in US, women were not allowed to vote.

As you can see by posts here itself, we are not where we need to be as society, but progress is a huge one in the last 100 years. I am confident that every decade situation will keep getting better for half of world's population. It needs to. It's better for civilization.
 
Patriarchy means that ‘male’ values such as war, aggression and domination are elevated in culture while ‘female’ values like nurture, caring, holistic solutions are suppressed.
 
:)))

The gulf without oil is like the West without loot and debt.

Nordics also is dependent on oil.

I think we should have an online dictionary for many users here, the see the word Patriarchy and equate it to misogyny.

All those who are fathers of daughters, don’t lie, when your daughter will get married you will want her future husband to provide for her, not the other way round.

They'll keep lying, you can count on it. If they really believed in modern day thought processes, they would declare they had no problem if their daughters married another woman and entered a lesbian partnership. Perhaps they could adopt and really give a boost for matriarchy.
 
Patriarchy means that ‘male’ values such as war, aggression and domination are elevated in culture while ‘female’ values like nurture, caring, holistic solutions are suppressed.

I don't think patriarchy means war, aggression, and domination. Are you saying women don't try to dominate?

Your view regarding patriarchy is way too black and white. It is not in sync with reality.

I have always preferred competent male leadership over female leadership because I believe men are natural leaders. It has been like that for thousands of years. But, if competent male leadership is not possible, nothing wrong with female leadership.
 
Last edited:
Patriarchy means that ‘male’ values such as war, aggression and domination are elevated in culture while ‘female’ values like nurture, caring, holistic solutions are suppressed.

I don't think so to be honest, both are required. In the third world the 'female' values are perhaps undervalued because it's dog eat dog. In the west we do put a lot of emphasis on care and nurture, we spend more money on psychiatrists than other parts of the world. We even have coined terms for it like wellness.
 
Patriarchy means that ‘male’ values such as war, aggression and domination are elevated in culture while ‘female’ values like nurture, caring, holistic solutions are suppressed.

Patriarchy means the Male point of view and perspective dominates over the Female point of view. Hence a man will be the decision maker and he can overrule any other opinion from the opposite sex of the family.
It is Testosterone driven decisions vs Emotional driven decisions. Both can be logical in their own way.
 
I don't think so to be honest, both are required. In the third world the 'female' values are perhaps undervalued because it's dog eat dog. In the west we do put a lot of emphasis on care and nurture, we spend more money on psychiatrists than other parts of the world. We even have coined terms for it like wellness.

These are all part of the feminist response to patriarchy in the West. Since the 1970s the dominator /yang culture has gradually lost ground, as yin values such as cooperation, holistic thinking, mental health care and environmentalism advance.

You would struggle to name a female Western philosopher other than Mary Wollenscroft before 1950 but since then Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedman, Andrea Wolper, bel hooks and many others. Similarly the environmental movement really began with James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis, then Fritjof Capra and a host of others so now Western governments (and forward looking ones like China) are taking human-made climate change seriously and doing something about it.

So while patriarchy still rules - see how few female leaders there are round the world - Western society is starting to tip towards balance between the yang and yin values. This is welcome as war is a patriarchal / yang value which is now viewed very differently in the West, post-Iraq War.
 
Back
Top