If it really WAS a patriarchy, modern feminism couldn't exist in the cultural mainstream here. Female promiscuity would be actively discouraged and stigmatized. Instead, people who try to stigmatize it are stigmatized. Companies wouldn't promote women to avoid Title VII lawsuits (DEI wouldn't exist at all) and workplaces would still be mostly male, especially at the higher levels. Important social institutions (hospitals, universities, law schools, film studios) would be heavily skewed towards men.
But it seems that the less patriarchal we become, the more we hear of "patriarchy."
I had a similar conversation with a friend who was complaining about the treatment of women in America recently. I asked her to clarify whether we were falling short compared to other countries or compared to our own ideals. The answer was mostly the latter. I think falling short of one's own ideals is a valid cause of suffering, but I acknowledge it is a different problem than the sort of situation you describe where we objectively do some things better than some other countries do.
It’s always interesting to see this country through Anuradha’s eyes, since I simply grew up in America while taking it for granted and not seeing how radical our mainstream cultural assumption are.
Not to be That Person because this is such a cliche rhetorical move, but it seems to me that like many things, patriarchy is easily a spectrum. America is absolutely less patriarchal than India, for sure, and much less patriarchal than previous decades.
But I would argue that America exhibits aspects of both patriarchy and matriarchy. Both toxic and positive one, even; and while I’d happily eradicate the toxic ones, Buddhism offers us a pretty profound observation that the only true eradication of this toxic karma comes from within.
Feminism’s big mistake, like all utopian ideologies (including my own most hopeful ones at times!), is imagining that some utopian end state can ever be achieved. It can’t. For those who believe, of course (IE not trying to be preachy), Buddhism still offers us the path to escaping the suffering caused by that lack of utopia.
I'm sure your aware that your applying an ontologically narrow criteria for classifying hierarchical or otherwise social organization systems. As such i'm sure you also know that if we have applied a personalized definition for something, it's because the something's ontology did not align with the concepts we were trying to apply them to. The predominant organization system a society results in is not solely determined by which party or sex constrains the choices of the other.
If a social organization were determined entirely by choice constraint, it would be an unstable tyranny. Enduring social systems require cooperation and legitimacy.
Certainly the are differences in cultural and ideological societal norms and customs.
Your personal experience seems to be one that identifies the differences as significant and meaningful. But the differences in how that is perceived to have impacted you and your life is not indicative of something that requires reclassifying in the greater general systems.
Your personalized definition of patriarchy can only extent so far. Your personalized experience.
i don't know about the standard being falsifiable, especially given the subject matter, but there certainly is a standard definition - which encompasses yours. but it's also much broader.
if by falsifiability you simply mean conceptual falsifiability and not like in the scientific methodological experimental sense (which is what I was assuming but doesn't seem like what you meant) than its falsifiable once men are no longer predominantly occupying the societies power structural roles.
also once again, I did say this initially but to reiterate, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with your narrow definition in the context you use it. prior to modern liberal democracy and huge scaled societies, the determinant was a lot more locally, socially and culturally determined.
part of the problem here is probably that 'patriarchy' doesn't just have one or two potential definitions. almost every field, every subsect of critical theory and different eras have all applied at times distinct definitions.
conceptual frameworks for understanding complex social organization requires falsifiability? in what sense?
how can your criteria of compulsion as the basis for determining the classification of social organization be falsified?
just for the sake of not trying to come off as evasive, the kind of hierarchy a social system is using is typically understood as being determined by who holds the power and authorized force monopoly.
1. "Not all Indians refuse to assimilate as my parents did, but I suspect it tracks class and educational attainment."
I am a a cat and not Desi, but in my experience, Indian-Americans assimilate to the extent convenient at the moment, or don't, to the extent necessary to keep the aunties reasonably mollified.
2. "Freedom requires bounds, like society requires norms."
In a traditional society, for better or worse, your rights and obligations are set for you by society.
This makes sense in such a society. In India, for better or worse, there is not much of a social safety net other than your family, community and caste. At the same time, your group cannot tolerate someone who deviates too much from group norms, because that person is the equivalent of a loose cannon, someone who may create obligations that the rest of the group may have to make good on.
"I gotta be me!" doesn't come into it. Individualism is, at best selfish.
This is not a good or a bad thing, but a set of tradeoffs, presumably more suited to the Indian social and economic context than, say Palo Alto.
It's not a patriarchy, but I dunno... maybe it need to be if it is to survive.
Liberal democratic design from the founders of this great country rely on a balance between individual sovereignty (that requires individual agency) and the collective common good... but with the nod going to the individual... as long as not causing material harm to others.
Frankly, this design fits best with human nature... a nature where the human animal pursues its psychological needs up a ladder that lands on the final need for constant self-actualization.
But it rewards a certain type of productive behavior... and some people are either not wired for it, or otherwise cannot get there. More people that do it well contributes to a more successful country. Fewer people that do it well spells doom for the country.
We want more. We always want more. We get more and then soon we want even more that that. It is unnatural to block people from that pursuit. Collectivist authoritarianism preferred by the female hive always fails for this reason. It destroys individual agency in many people. The pursuit of more fairness by hobbling those that exhibit productive behavior so that everyone is more equal by comparison, is a death sentence for the system. For those that cannot resit to seek more, it creates black markets where even more enforcement is required to thwart that behavior. Eventually the system runs out of other people's money.
The correct model is libertarian paternalism... it is what the founders really indented. This is where the individual that is self-determined and self-sufficient should be kept free and unencumbered by government until and unless their actions cause material harm to others. But those that cannot make their way in life need government control for their own good, and for the good of society at large that would be harmed if they were not controlled.
That is a system that would not look fair at all on the surface. It would be highly differentiated to lay control on those that need it, and to stop bothering those that don't. In many ways our system has gone the other direction under the control of more females in position of power and influence. More control over those that do well on their own, and fewer rules and enforcement of those that require the most.
The female hive mindset isn't compatible with this tilt toward the individual. It is highly attracted to prioritize the collective common good... and without much care about the harm to individual sovereignty. They are highly attracted to "fairness", egalitarianism and empathy... to a point that they ignore harmful logical consequences.
To the female hive, everyone is a child that they must care for. The problems created by this motivation are exacerbated by the fact that females in general tend to be more infantile in their behavior and views. It is almost like they are still playing with dolls.
I cannot help but to consider that the cost of the 19th Amendment, the morally right thing to do, might end up being too high... it might be the reason for the downfall of all of western civilization.
> Gen Z women in particular are going to have a low marriage rate, I predict, because of the general social anxiety crisis caused by the internet, not simply social media.
On this, literally every single generation of women opts out of marriage at greater and greater rates than prior ones:
Moreover, these opt outs happen at the medians and below. The top quintile of men by SES still has ~90% marriage rates. The bottom quintile is ~20%, and ~66% of women are cumulatively opting out at the medians and below.
I have a personal thesis that this is because marriage is ACTUALLY a luxury good. Yes, divorce rates are high, but the picture is actually materially worse than that - if you look at GSS data, over 20 years only ~18% of marriages will be non-divorced and non-dead-bedroom.
So each generation of women opting out more and more is approaching the *actually* correct solution, it's an iterated "wisdom of crowds" style search that's approaching the right answer with each subsequent generation of women - and that answer is that marriage is a bad idea for the vast majority of couples, and only top quintile people with high conscientiousness and good conflict resolution styles can actually pull it off.
I wrote a whole post about this, "Against 'more marriage' as a solution to the fertility crisis," which I will refrain from linking unless asked. I just thought that some folk here might be interested in those factoids and background.
Ana, what you are describing is simply that the West is not Hindu/Buddhist. This is a GREAT thing. It is Greco-Roman/Christian/Scientific. Here again, the "patriarchy" thing really is irrelevant. There is Patriarchy all over, and it can grow. Because it is Western, it will not legitimately, at least, transgress the intrinsic human dignity of anyone, women included. So, Patriarchy is good if it is Western. Matriarchy, a subsidiary maternal sphere of influence, is a resultant good of it. And, late modern aberrations of traditional Western order are insane, especially feminism, and have not delivered on a single promise they have made. I think of feminism as Sex Communism, fwiw. I must say, with respect, that I rather fear the growing Indian population in North America because I do not think that they "get" what we have been doing over here for the last millennium and a half. They seem to want to reduplicate their ethno-tribalism. They can do it under the shield of anti-discrimination laws that were not even intended for their use. And under the DEI umbrella. I hope this does not offend you or anyone else. I am speaking of a cultural divide of growing consequence. And yes, the basis is a difference of religion, because Christianity is not like anything else in the world. Or, should I say, nothing in the world is like the revealed faith of the Christian Church. It is just that important. I should add that I have many Christian, Indian friends. Including a dear theology professor from my college days. They "get it." Again, with respect and appreciation for your thoughtful postings.
If it really WAS a patriarchy, modern feminism couldn't exist in the cultural mainstream here. Female promiscuity would be actively discouraged and stigmatized. Instead, people who try to stigmatize it are stigmatized. Companies wouldn't promote women to avoid Title VII lawsuits (DEI wouldn't exist at all) and workplaces would still be mostly male, especially at the higher levels. Important social institutions (hospitals, universities, law schools, film studios) would be heavily skewed towards men.
But it seems that the less patriarchal we become, the more we hear of "patriarchy."
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/gynocracy
I had a similar conversation with a friend who was complaining about the treatment of women in America recently. I asked her to clarify whether we were falling short compared to other countries or compared to our own ideals. The answer was mostly the latter. I think falling short of one's own ideals is a valid cause of suffering, but I acknowledge it is a different problem than the sort of situation you describe where we objectively do some things better than some other countries do.
So ask htf are we 'falling short' of our own ideals? Wtf are these supposed 'ideals'? Ffs...some ppl are just incredibly adolescent, perpetually.
It’s always interesting to see this country through Anuradha’s eyes, since I simply grew up in America while taking it for granted and not seeing how radical our mainstream cultural assumption are.
Not to be That Person because this is such a cliche rhetorical move, but it seems to me that like many things, patriarchy is easily a spectrum. America is absolutely less patriarchal than India, for sure, and much less patriarchal than previous decades.
But I would argue that America exhibits aspects of both patriarchy and matriarchy. Both toxic and positive one, even; and while I’d happily eradicate the toxic ones, Buddhism offers us a pretty profound observation that the only true eradication of this toxic karma comes from within.
Feminism’s big mistake, like all utopian ideologies (including my own most hopeful ones at times!), is imagining that some utopian end state can ever be achieved. It can’t. For those who believe, of course (IE not trying to be preachy), Buddhism still offers us the path to escaping the suffering caused by that lack of utopia.
I'm sure your aware that your applying an ontologically narrow criteria for classifying hierarchical or otherwise social organization systems. As such i'm sure you also know that if we have applied a personalized definition for something, it's because the something's ontology did not align with the concepts we were trying to apply them to. The predominant organization system a society results in is not solely determined by which party or sex constrains the choices of the other.
If a social organization were determined entirely by choice constraint, it would be an unstable tyranny. Enduring social systems require cooperation and legitimacy.
Certainly the are differences in cultural and ideological societal norms and customs.
Your personal experience seems to be one that identifies the differences as significant and meaningful. But the differences in how that is perceived to have impacted you and your life is not indicative of something that requires reclassifying in the greater general systems.
Your personalized definition of patriarchy can only extent so far. Your personalized experience.
So tell me, what are the falsifiable criteria to determine whether a society is patriarchal?
i don't know about the standard being falsifiable, especially given the subject matter, but there certainly is a standard definition - which encompasses yours. but it's also much broader.
What a great evasion. This requires falsifiability. If you don’t have one, don’t waste my time.
if by falsifiability you simply mean conceptual falsifiability and not like in the scientific methodological experimental sense (which is what I was assuming but doesn't seem like what you meant) than its falsifiable once men are no longer predominantly occupying the societies power structural roles.
also once again, I did say this initially but to reiterate, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with your narrow definition in the context you use it. prior to modern liberal democracy and huge scaled societies, the determinant was a lot more locally, socially and culturally determined.
part of the problem here is probably that 'patriarchy' doesn't just have one or two potential definitions. almost every field, every subsect of critical theory and different eras have all applied at times distinct definitions.
conceptual frameworks for understanding complex social organization requires falsifiability? in what sense?
how can your criteria of compulsion as the basis for determining the classification of social organization be falsified?
just for the sake of not trying to come off as evasive, the kind of hierarchy a social system is using is typically understood as being determined by who holds the power and authorized force monopoly.
1. "Not all Indians refuse to assimilate as my parents did, but I suspect it tracks class and educational attainment."
I am a a cat and not Desi, but in my experience, Indian-Americans assimilate to the extent convenient at the moment, or don't, to the extent necessary to keep the aunties reasonably mollified.
2. "Freedom requires bounds, like society requires norms."
In a traditional society, for better or worse, your rights and obligations are set for you by society.
This makes sense in such a society. In India, for better or worse, there is not much of a social safety net other than your family, community and caste. At the same time, your group cannot tolerate someone who deviates too much from group norms, because that person is the equivalent of a loose cannon, someone who may create obligations that the rest of the group may have to make good on.
"I gotta be me!" doesn't come into it. Individualism is, at best selfish.
This is not a good or a bad thing, but a set of tradeoffs, presumably more suited to the Indian social and economic context than, say Palo Alto.
It's not a patriarchy, but I dunno... maybe it need to be if it is to survive.
Liberal democratic design from the founders of this great country rely on a balance between individual sovereignty (that requires individual agency) and the collective common good... but with the nod going to the individual... as long as not causing material harm to others.
Frankly, this design fits best with human nature... a nature where the human animal pursues its psychological needs up a ladder that lands on the final need for constant self-actualization.
But it rewards a certain type of productive behavior... and some people are either not wired for it, or otherwise cannot get there. More people that do it well contributes to a more successful country. Fewer people that do it well spells doom for the country.
We want more. We always want more. We get more and then soon we want even more that that. It is unnatural to block people from that pursuit. Collectivist authoritarianism preferred by the female hive always fails for this reason. It destroys individual agency in many people. The pursuit of more fairness by hobbling those that exhibit productive behavior so that everyone is more equal by comparison, is a death sentence for the system. For those that cannot resit to seek more, it creates black markets where even more enforcement is required to thwart that behavior. Eventually the system runs out of other people's money.
The correct model is libertarian paternalism... it is what the founders really indented. This is where the individual that is self-determined and self-sufficient should be kept free and unencumbered by government until and unless their actions cause material harm to others. But those that cannot make their way in life need government control for their own good, and for the good of society at large that would be harmed if they were not controlled.
That is a system that would not look fair at all on the surface. It would be highly differentiated to lay control on those that need it, and to stop bothering those that don't. In many ways our system has gone the other direction under the control of more females in position of power and influence. More control over those that do well on their own, and fewer rules and enforcement of those that require the most.
The female hive mindset isn't compatible with this tilt toward the individual. It is highly attracted to prioritize the collective common good... and without much care about the harm to individual sovereignty. They are highly attracted to "fairness", egalitarianism and empathy... to a point that they ignore harmful logical consequences.
To the female hive, everyone is a child that they must care for. The problems created by this motivation are exacerbated by the fact that females in general tend to be more infantile in their behavior and views. It is almost like they are still playing with dolls.
I cannot help but to consider that the cost of the 19th Amendment, the morally right thing to do, might end up being too high... it might be the reason for the downfall of all of western civilization.
> Gen Z women in particular are going to have a low marriage rate, I predict, because of the general social anxiety crisis caused by the internet, not simply social media.
On this, literally every single generation of women opts out of marriage at greater and greater rates than prior ones:
https://imgur.com/cV2Sbdv (Zennials are the black line)
Moreover, these opt outs happen at the medians and below. The top quintile of men by SES still has ~90% marriage rates. The bottom quintile is ~20%, and ~66% of women are cumulatively opting out at the medians and below.
I have a personal thesis that this is because marriage is ACTUALLY a luxury good. Yes, divorce rates are high, but the picture is actually materially worse than that - if you look at GSS data, over 20 years only ~18% of marriages will be non-divorced and non-dead-bedroom.
So each generation of women opting out more and more is approaching the *actually* correct solution, it's an iterated "wisdom of crowds" style search that's approaching the right answer with each subsequent generation of women - and that answer is that marriage is a bad idea for the vast majority of couples, and only top quintile people with high conscientiousness and good conflict resolution styles can actually pull it off.
I wrote a whole post about this, "Against 'more marriage' as a solution to the fertility crisis," which I will refrain from linking unless asked. I just thought that some folk here might be interested in those factoids and background.
Ana, what you are describing is simply that the West is not Hindu/Buddhist. This is a GREAT thing. It is Greco-Roman/Christian/Scientific. Here again, the "patriarchy" thing really is irrelevant. There is Patriarchy all over, and it can grow. Because it is Western, it will not legitimately, at least, transgress the intrinsic human dignity of anyone, women included. So, Patriarchy is good if it is Western. Matriarchy, a subsidiary maternal sphere of influence, is a resultant good of it. And, late modern aberrations of traditional Western order are insane, especially feminism, and have not delivered on a single promise they have made. I think of feminism as Sex Communism, fwiw. I must say, with respect, that I rather fear the growing Indian population in North America because I do not think that they "get" what we have been doing over here for the last millennium and a half. They seem to want to reduplicate their ethno-tribalism. They can do it under the shield of anti-discrimination laws that were not even intended for their use. And under the DEI umbrella. I hope this does not offend you or anyone else. I am speaking of a cultural divide of growing consequence. And yes, the basis is a difference of religion, because Christianity is not like anything else in the world. Or, should I say, nothing in the world is like the revealed faith of the Christian Church. It is just that important. I should add that I have many Christian, Indian friends. Including a dear theology professor from my college days. They "get it." Again, with respect and appreciation for your thoughtful postings.