Wikipedia, Patriarchy, Proof and Pudding

2008-06-04T17:27:00.001-07:00

Mystr Sal goes ALL the Way
Longer than usual - can you take ALL the medicine?

Notes

Nail Polish can Hurt!!!

detail of hears why

ARTIST INFORMATION FORM
FRESH MEAT IN THE GALLERY 2008: RIOTS AND REVELATIONS
Name: Cayann, Queen Sal of Lesbesquet
Name for shipping purposes: MamaMade Farm
Mailing address: not
Phone number(s):gone
Email (please print clearly): insf
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION:
The following information is for funding purposes – and helps us understand who we’re reaching. Filling out the following information is optional and will be kept confidential and not be used in the exhibition in any way.
5 3 1953

Race/ethnicity: Everyone is African. My color: PINK

Gender: MetaGendered, and Y can tell you it's fabulous
Sexual orientation: North, South, East, West, Sky, Earth
Where did you hear about Fresh Meat in the Gallery? Y blame MY Online Buddy
ARTIST BIO: (:-))
Big. Pink. Different
Music is MY Medicine. Thinking is MY Sport. Nature is MY Faith.
Ask or Tell ME Anything.
Y'm Crazy. Not stupid.

ARTIST STATEMENT:
Spelling does not apply to ME.

HOW DOES THIS WORK RELATE TO OUR ‘RIOTS AND REVELATIONS’ THEME:
Worked with toxic chemicals like nail polish, and Y will not let it kill me or even make me sick.
The frame is inside, freeing me from any external control.
Most of what Y would write is evident in the piece.
Made it special for you, since you called for art. There is more to this work than can be seen here. Not every one can see everything about this work. We who hang it on the wall can see a lot of the hidden stuff. Maybe not all, though.
PIECE #9 = H'ears WhY
Title (if any): Queen
Year made: today
Medium: mixed
Dimensions: as big as a house. ha ha.

American Footbinding
detail of photo below ( from art business )

They do it becuse of the huge incomes, or so we were told.

sculpture by Maxx Sizeler that we didn't see at changing landscapes even though wearing foot deformers will change one's experience of every landscape.

Any book written by a self proclaimed pornographer for adults about children having sex is child pornography. Even if it's about lesbian little girls, because lesbians are people too! :-)

Eye shadow is attractive even on old hags.

FAQ is the same as fa-q is the same as fuck you

b-f is the same as butt-fuck

WE HAVE MOVED

2007-05-24T11:09:00.000-07:00

to patriarchy...
see ya there...

2006-12-11T12:12:00.000-08:00

Now; a musical interlude....

God's Joint

2006-12-11T10:11:00.000-08:00

Rintrah believes:
"obviously marriage is tool of the matriarchy to secure obedience from husbands. That's obvious, isn't it? Why do you think women make the most fuss over weddings?"

He didn't believe me when Y said:
"Most often it is the mother and older women of a group who are charged with training girls for and submitting them to these procedures. Girls and women are valued primarily as vessels for the production and suckling of men's progeny..."

The Origin, Nature and Sanctity of Marriage :
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Our Lord, in His answer to the Pharisees concerning divorce, refers to this passage in Genesis and confirms its special application to marriage. "Have ye not read," He said, ‘that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."'

Points to note:

Actually, man created god in man's image.
Men are unable to create human beings.
Given the biology of the embryo, we do not know if male and female have always existed on Earth.
God (man- see point 1) created marriage.

Hindu Social Practices
"Dowry (Dahej/Hunda) as we all know is paid in cash or kind by the bride's family to the groom' s family alongwith the giving away of the bride (Kanya-dana). The ritual of Kanya-dana is an essential aspect in Hindu marital rites: Kanya = daughter, dana = gift. A reason for the origin of dowry could perhaps be that the groom and his family had to take up the 'onerous' responsibility of supporting the bride for the rest of her life. "

The above does not sound like something women came up with, to me. Neither does this:

"Prehistoric - Marriage basically turns strangers into relatives, decreasing tribal tensions.

3,000 B.C. - Marriage first becomes the way the upper classes conclude business deals and peace treaties, cementing socio-political alliances. Ancient societies experiment with polygamy - and in the case of Egyptian royalty, incest among siblings - to forge strong bonds of civilization.

500 B.C. - Short-lived experiment in democracy in ancient Greece actually worsens the status of women. Love is honored - but among men only. In marriage, inheritance is more important than emotional bonds: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative, even if she has to divorce her husband first.

Circa A.D. 550 - Emperor Justinian tries to enact a requirement for a wedding license, but the unpopular measure is revoked. (He, meanwhile, managed to get a law passed that allowed him to marry a "penitent" former actress, Theodora ).

A.D. 800 - Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne outlaws polygamy. Germanic warlords, even baptized Christians, still acquire wives for strategic reasons.900 - The Roman Catholic Church tries to require people to obtain the church's blessing of sexual unions, but is reluctant to thereby create millions of "illegitimate" children whose parents don't obey the edict. The church, however, wins a battle by denying royalty the right to divorce on a whim.

1000 - Catholic clergy are no longer allowed to marry. Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.

1200 - Common folk in Europe now need a marriage license to wed. Ordinary people can't choose whom to marry, either. The lord of one manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants - including the widowed - must marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner must pay a fee.

1500-1600 - Protestant moralists elevate the status of marriage over the Catholic gold standard of celibacy, but enact even stricter controls over annulments.1769 - The American colonies, basing their regulations on English common law, decree: "The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything."

1800 - Marriage for love, not for property or prestige, is gaining wider acceptance. But women are still completely subjected to male authority.1874 - The South Carolina Supreme Court rules that men no longer may beat their wives.1891 - England's Parliament passes a law that men cannot imprison their wives (or deny them freedom of movement from the home).

1900 - By now, every state in America has passed legislation modeled after New York's Married Women's Property Act of 1848, granting married women some control over their property and earnings.1920s - The Roaring Twenties bring about the biggest sexual revolution in marriage to-date and divorce rates triple. The Supreme Court upholds people's right to marry someone of a different religion.

1965 - In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns one of the last state laws prohibiting the prescription or use of contraceptives by married couples. Seven years later, the right to use contraceptives is extended to unmarried people.

1967 - Interracial marriage is decriminalized in all states when the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes.1968 - The Supreme Court upholds the rights of children of unmarried parents.

1969 - California adopts the nation's first "no-fault" divorce law, allowing divorce by mutual consent.

1970s - Most states overturn rules designating a husband "head and master" with unilateral control of property owned jointly with his wife."

Source: Stephanie Coontz, "Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage"; National Women's History Project.

Found At: azcentral - and Y would be surprised if the book cited above does not have lots and lots of trusted reliable sources.

What's A Gyrl To Do?

2006-12-08T09:50:00.000-08:00

Creation is one thing.
The other thing is destruction.

“I devour this Age of Man!”

by Thalia Took

The Monstrous Regiment Of Women

2006-12-07T10:24:00.000-08:00

"...it is the (collective) father who structures laws and conventions to enforce the perpetuation of his authority over all underlings - beginning with women and girls. Thus we see the bound foot, the amputated vulva, and the lobotomy among so many other such patriarchal operations. Most often it is the mother and older women of a group who are charged with training girls for and submitting them to these procedures. Girls and women are valued primarily as vessels for the production and suckling of men's progeny..." Lesbesquet

Here we see just a few enforcers at work. Their tools: lies, myths, fantasies. Their hopes: by recruiting other women and girls for the use of god, he will suck them up into heaven during the rupture. Of course, they believe what they say, and no doubt have trusted reliable sources to cite if asked.

Why are my junkyard dogs at my heels the way they are? Is it my refusal to become a total woman who has been taken in hand, in the ass, or (as contraculture so elegantly expresses it) to "let him use your cunt"? Patriarchy can not stand hard and fast as it has been without the collaboration of women. So, Y, in the names of my Mothers and Sisters take responsibility for the current existance of patriarchy, as well as its relentless disintigration.

We brought you into this world,

and we will take you out.

Ms. Perceptions

2006-12-05T06:45:00.000-08:00

Recently after seeing this blog, someone suggested to me that Y just "like to fight" . Y do not like to fight. Y do not look to fight. For one thing, fighting hurts. But fighting does not hurt me as much as if someone tries to screw me or you, and then Y do nothing, or even worse - cooperate.

Bias / By Us / Buy Us

2006-12-02T09:25:00.000-08:00

Or, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

No doubt many of those who participate in wikipedia - even some of those in the control zone - are well-meaning indeed. However, ignorance and show-boating are bliss for those who practice them. The wikipedia page about countering systemic bias cited previously in Band Of Brothers, 'looks' good.

Why it matters and what to do
Many editors contribute to Wikipedia because they see Wikipedia as progressing towards, though never reaching, an ideal state as a repository of human knowledge. The more idealistic may see Wikipedia as a vast discussion on what is true and what is not from a "neutral point of view" or "God's Eye View". The idea of a systemic bias is thus far more troubling than even widespread intentional vandalism. Vandalism can be readily identified and corrected. The existence of systemic bias means that not only are large segments of the world not participating in the discussion, but that there is a deep-rooted problem in the relationship of Wikipedia, its contributors and the world at large.

Maybe you can figure out the point of this paragraph, but Y can't. Especially since my contribution was called inappropriate because it did not have a neutral point of view. Y was directed to this:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial. - And Y challenge anyone to show how the current patriarchy article conforms in any way to this criteria.

So, while my attempted edit fit in as a contribution to "a repository of human knowledge" and also as an idealistic "representation of the truth" it was disallowed. But since Y am not a vandal, guess Y fall into the vortex of permanent systemic bias deletion.

The systemic bias of the English Wikipedia is permanent.

...Emphasis: mine. Truth: theirs...

As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not exactly identical to the world demographic, the vision of the world presented on the English Wikipedia will always be askew. Thus the only way systemic bias would disappear would be if the population of the world all spoke English at the same level of fluency and had equal access and inclination to use the English Wikipedia. However, the effects of systemic bias may be mitigated through conscious effort. This is the goal of the Countering systemic bias project.

...conciousness and effort...good ideas, but is mitigation a good goal? No better goal is needed if you insist that bias is permanent. Maybe some kind of bias is inevitable, but it doesn't have to be white man bias, does it?

Above this quote is a giant list of things one could do to 'mitigate' the bias. This is the final suggestion:
Change the demographic of Wikipedia. Encourage friends and acquaintances that you know have interests that are not well-represented on Wikipedia to edit. If you are at a university, contact a professor in minority or women's studies, explain the problem, and ask if they would be willing to encourage students to write for Wikipedia. Contact minority or immigrant groups in your area to see if they would be interested in encouraging their members to contribute. The worst they could say is, "No". But keep in mind that immigrant groups often have a vastly different point of view than the majority of people in the countries they immigrated from, which introduces its own systemic bias.

For one thing, although white men with incomes and time and computers are the majority inside wikipedia, they certainly are not the majority On Earth. There are estimated to be 101 males to 100 females on earth at this time. Since not all of these males are white, white males do not make up the majority, even though they like to classify everyone else as a minority. Source: math and common sense.

For a second and more dangerous thing,

"But keep in mind that immigrant groups often have a vastly different point of view than the majority of people in the countries they immigrated from, which introduces its own systemic bias."

This sentence effectively negates all the 'good intentions' of the entire article because it is implicit permission to do nothing to mitigate the bias since when you do, you are only introducing a new bias. Plus, conveniently: It is the fault of immigrants. Lordy.

And, as a practical matter, if one were recruited in an attempt to change the demographics of the wikipedia community and then challenged the permanent white male bias of wikipedia by exposing relationships among patriarchy, sperm-worship, trusted sources and neutrality, one would be tag-teamed by the guardians of male supremecy. Source: Lesbesquet.

The BBC - Reliable, Trusted Source

2006-12-01T12:14:00.000-08:00

Evidence of Patriarchy: Brought To You By God The Fathers

Ponder this: If children were as important as sperm, could these things happen?

KISS

2006-11-29T06:53:00.000-08:00

If you are a friend of Bill , you probably have heard, "Keep It Simple, Stupid". Y don't support name-calling, especially a name like that. Y do support keeping it simple. Just look at what is in front of you. Also, behind you. It's not that hard to figure out.

Do an experiment. Watch tv - any regular channel - and write in two columns in your records (that's scientific - or use logs, which are also scientific) how many men and how many women are in the picture every time the camera shot changes. For groups or crowds do a realistic estimate. For example, a drive-in movie parking lot would be a wash, since a good estimate would be half men and half women. A scene of the us congress in session - what estimate would you give it? What about the governmental bodies of any country on Earth? Say, Liberia, Argentina, and Poland...

Self Evident

2006-11-28T09:41:00.000-08:00

A Band Of Brothers

2006-11-27T08:09:00.000-08:00

From the Merrriam-Webster online dictionary
Cohort
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin cohort-, cohors -- more at court
1 a : one of 10 divisions of an ancient Roman legion
b : a group of warriors or soldiers
c : band, group
d : a group of individuals having a statistical factor (as age or class membership) in common in a demographic study
2 : COMPANION, COLLEAGUE

Rintrah, in his second comment to The Sorry Mr. Happy, seems disturbed that Y referred to him as a cohort of SecondSight. Y would not like to talk to or be associated with SecondSite, either, after reading his user page on wikipedia. Read it for yourself, if you want, but it looks to me like he spends a great deal of time and energy studying the psychology of personality in order to improve his skills as a "pick-up artist" in the "seduction community".

As far as Y can tell, SecondSight is responsible for deleting my contributions. Here is another aspect typical of patriachal organizations: only those in the know are able to effectively work the system. Navigating wikipedia is like trying to work your way around an underground community of moles. On the surface, anyone can see the evidence of their labors. But it's so hard to tell where it all comes from - it's time consuming, too.

Look at this beauty, that Y was able to dig up:

The origins of bias
The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White, (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, (9) is from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor.
You can read this whole page, including the self-references, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.

Oh, by the way, number (10) is a euphemism for "belongs to one of the upper echelons in the class hierarchy". Euphemism: yet another weapon used by the soldiers of patriarchy.

The Sorry Mr. Happy

2006-11-25T15:58:00.000-08:00

Mr. Happy finds this "page really, really sad" and offers me some advice: "If you bothered to start enjoying life instead of fighting some terrible phantom, you might find your views would turn out a little different." (Comment on Scholarship).

Thanks for your concern, Mr. Happy, but Y am afraid that the more Y bother to start enjoying life, the more life bothers me. For example, Y thought Y would enjoy seeing the Patriarchy entry improved, but the patriarchal structure of wikipedia prevented me from experiencing more than a few moments of enjoyment. For, after placing my contribution on Nov. 14 at 5:14 am, about an hour and a half later Y found this:

Please revise your essay on the patriarchy in Gender Studies. There are no sources; patriarchy in your essay is poorly defined; much of it is blatantly spurious—e.g., [patriarchy] is predicated on the idealization of the sperm—; and the hyperbole is quite offensive. If you want to find a way to constructively contribute, please contribute verifiable, well set-out ideas. I will leave your contributions for a while, so you or someone else can rewrite it as necessary, but if it is essentially unchanged, I will remove it. Rintrah 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As a habitually offensive hyperbolist, Y wasn't surprised. Well, the speed with which Rintrah found my change and published this vitriol was impressive. Especially since by looking at the Statistics page, and doing some math, Y estimated that there are 60,000 edits to wikipedia Every Day! (Sources: Wikipedia and math- but not that good at math, so check my figures). How did he do it? He does seem to be a busy boy. Although he claims he has no special interest in the subject of patriarchy

It might surprise you to know I don't really have strong feelings about this. If I did, I probably would have taken this page off my watchlist. I was trying to agitate people to improve this page.

he does say that it's on his watch list. Here we have an example of one of the consistantly effective tools of patriarchy- equivocation.

the patriarchy page is on his watch list
if he cared about it, he would take it off of his watch list
he tries to agitate people to improve the page
improvements to the page are deleted
he wants the page improved
if someone tries to improve the page, he threatens to remove any hard work they might contribute if it doesn't meet his standards
according to him and his cohort SecondSight, my contributions do not meet the high standards set forth by wikipedia
my contrbutions were reverted to entries which also do not meet these standards, and are actually rediculous, erroneous, inadequate or downright idiotic

So, thanks, Mr. Happy for giving me the stimulus for this entry. Please continue to join us on our journey of exposing the patriarchal basis/bias of wikipedia and the world it purports to describe.

Scholarship

2006-11-22T15:42:00.000-08:00

If you have read the patriarchy page in question ( scroll down to In The Beginning and skim over it if you haven't) you will see what a disgrace it is. More about that later. Today Y want to look at men and their scholarship.

Y attended Wayne State in the 70's. Y took a class called "The Sociology Of Sex". The teacher - using that term loosely - was a real piece of work. He was actually getting money (they call them grants) to go to all the massage parlors in Detroit to "study" how many and what kind of "services" he was able to obtain. Disgraceful.

One day he drew on the chalkboard simple representations of the vulva and the penis/testicles combo. He explained that the clitoris is essentially a tiny penis. When he reluctantly called on me (of course my hand FLEW up) Y pointed out that his comparason was faulty. Every embryo is female, until and unless it gets a hormone bath to turn it into a boy. Therefore, if a comparason is to be made, the penis must be a grossly exaggerated clitoris. But it is not, since the clitoris is the only known organ in the whole phyla of life forms which has as its sole purpose to pleasure its body. If you have the opportunity and the interest, you can see the vestiges of any man's original labia between his testes and anus. Anyway, teacher's response was, "I will not debate theories with you."

Another gem from this reliable, published source on the sociology of sex: "The reason some women don't achieve orgasm during sexual intercourse (the 'with a man' goes without saying- my comment) is because their clitoris is too far away from their vaginal opening."
Y was delighted to point out that the reason women don't have orgasms when having sex with men is likely to be the ineptitude of the man. Of course, this was another theory of mine.

The disgrace of common scholarship depends on using the word 'theory' to disallow facts, common sense, or inconvenient truths in any academic melieu.

Sources, Sauces, Souses, Senses

2006-11-21T07:54:00.000-08:00

If you were to undertake to edit a page on wikipedia, you would see this notice:

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable .

They (whoever they are, but Y know they include Rintrah and SecondSight who have the integrity to identify themselves in some way, at least) consider anything verifiable if it is supported by a source which is approved by every editor who notices it. If any editor does not approve a source, then the illicit material will be deleted.

Problems with "sources":

An assessment of Peter Novick's The Holocaust in American Life by Nancy Russell
Anti-Japan Protests Rooted in Chinese History
Lee Bernstein reviews Prosthetic Memory: The Transformation of American Remembrance in the Age of Mass Culture by Alison Landsberg
Review by James F. Adomanis of History Lessons: How Textbooks from Around the World Portray American History by Dana Lindaman and Kyle Ward
Or, if you don't feel like reading, listen to A Look at How the U.S. Understanding of its Own History Changes

For me the best sources are my experience, current events, common sense and reality.

In The Beginning....

2006-11-20T13:52:00.000-08:00

Here is what we find today at Wikipedia. This is also what was found there when Y decided to edit the Patriachy page.

Patriarchy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The neutrality of this article is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page.
For other senses, see Patriarch (disambiguation).

Patriarchy (from Greek: pater (genitive form patris, showing the root patr-), meaning father and arché meaning rule) is the anthropological term used to define the sociological condition where fathers have supreme authority within families and male members of a society tend to predominate in positions of power; with the more powerful the position, the more likely it is that a male will hold that position. The term patriarchy is also used in systems of ranking male leadership in certain hierarchical churches or religious bodies (see patriarch and Patriarchate). Examples include the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches. Finally, the term patriarchy is used pejoratively to describe a seemingly immobile and sclerotic political order.
The term "patriarchy' is distinct from patrilineality and patrilocality. "Patrilineal" defines societies where the derivation of inheritance (financial or otherwise) originates from the father's line; a society with matrilineal traits such as Judaism, for example, provides that in order to be considered a Jew, a person must be born of a Jewish mother. However, Judaism is still considered a patriarchal society. "Patrilocal" defines a locus of control coming from the father's geographic/cultural community. In a matrilineal/matrilocal society, a woman will live with her mother and her sisters and brothers, even after marriage. She doesn't leave her maternal home. Her brothers act as 'social fathers' and will hold a higher influence on the women's offspring to the detriment of the children's biological father. Most societies are predominantly patrilineal and patrilocal, but this is not a universal (see: matriarchy).

In gender studies
In gender studies, the word patriarchy often refers to a social organization marked by the supremacy of a male figure, group of male figures, or men in general. It is depicted as subordinating women, children, and those whose genders or bodies defy traditional man/woman categorization.

Feminist view
The neutrality of this section is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Many feminist writers consider patriarchy to be the basis on which most modern societies have been formed. They argue that it is necessary and desirable to get away from this model to achieve gender equality.
Feminist writer Marilyn French, in her polemic Beyond Power, defines patriarchy as a system that values power over life, control over pleasure, and dominance over happiness. She argues that:
It is therefore extremely ironic that patriarchy has upheld power as a good that is permanent and dependable, opposing it to the fluid, transitory goods of matricentry. Power has been exalted as the bulwark against pain, against the ephemerality of pleasure, but it is no bulwark, and is as ephemeral as any other part of life...Yet so strong is the mythology of power that we continue to believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it is substantial, that if we possessed enough of it we could be happy, that if some "great man" possessed enough of it, he could make the world come right. According to French:
It is not enough either to devise a morality that will allow the human race simply to survive. Survival is an evil when it entails existing in a state of wretchedness. Intrinsic to survival and continuation is felicity, pleasure [...] But pleasure does not exclude serious pursuits or intentions, indeed, it is found in them, and it is the only real reason for staying alive" —Beyond Power: On Women, Men and Morals The latter philosophy is what French offers as a replacement to the current structure where, she says, power has the highest value.

Non-feminist View
Gender-issues writer Cathy Young, by contrast, dismisses reference to "patriarchy" as a semantic device intended to shield the speaker from accountability when making misandrist slurs, since "patriarchy" means all of Western society.[1] She cites Andrea Dworkin's criticism, "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

Pro-feminism and patriarchy
The neutrality of this section is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Pro-feminism refers to a school of thought developed by men that supports the feminist analysis of patriarchy as a system that privileges men over women, and also men over other men. A pro-feminist analysis of patriarchy asserts that gender interacts with factors such as ethnicity, power and social class. Patriarchy is seen as a hegemonic gender order imposed through individual, collective and institutional behaviours.

In psychology
Psychology researchers have used the SDO and RWA measures to predict patriarchal attitudes.
Terrence Real, best-selling author of I Don't Want to Talk about it: Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression, believes there are two types of patriarchy: 1. Political patriarchy (the sexist oppression of women by men, the target of most feminist writers) 2. Psychological patriarchy ("the dynamic between those qualities deemed masculine and feminine... a dance of contempt, a perverse form of connection that replaces true intimacy with complex covert layers of dominance and submission, collusion and manipulation... it is the unacknowledged paradigm of relationship that has suffused western civilization generation after generation, deforming both sexes and the passionate bond between them.")

See also
Look up Patriarchy inWiktionary, the free dictionary.
Anthropology
Antifeminism
Biblical Patriarchy
Chinese patriarchy
Classical definition of effeminacy
Father
Heteropatriarchy
Matriarchs (Bible)
Matriarchy
Men's movement
Misandry
Paideia
Patriarch
Patriarch magazines
Patriarchs (Bible)
Paternalism
Traditional authority

External links
Cattle ownership makes it a man's world New Scientist (1. October 2003): Early matrilineal societies became patrilineal when they started herding cattle, a new study demonstrates
Debate Between Mark Ridley and Stephen Goldberg on the Inevitability of Patriarchy
The Return of Patriarchy by By Phillip Longman

Literature
Pierre Bourdieu, Masculine Domination, Polity Press 2001
Robert Brown, Human Universals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press 1991
Margaret Mead, . (1950). Male and Female, Penguin, London.
Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour, Palgrave MacMillan 1999
Forms and Styles of Leadership: see also Form of government
Anarchy Democracy Geniocracy Gerontocracy Meritocracy Matriarchy Ochlocracy Panarchism Patriarchy Plutocracy Theocracy Technocracy
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy"
Categories: NPOV disputes Forms of government Cultural anthropology Feminism Sociology Men