Comments - Some Thoughts on Patriarchy - Occupy Cafe2024-03-29T11:43:34Zhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=6451976%3ABlogPost%3A25227&xn_auth=noThat fact sheet I linked abo…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-25:6451976:Comment:269212012-06-25T17:40:43.914ZMark E. Smithhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/MarkESmith
<p></p>
<p>That fact sheet I linked about female-on-female violence isn't a paper tiger, Kelly, it is a fact sheet.</p>
<p>It is true that we're still living in a patriarchal society, so most of the violence is still perpetrated by males, but as females gained economic power over other females, female violence has steadily increased. But there are also female murderers, female combat pilots dropping bombs on innocent people, and other relatively new opportunities for female violence. There seem…</p>
<p></p>
<p>That fact sheet I linked about female-on-female violence isn't a paper tiger, Kelly, it is a fact sheet.</p>
<p>It is true that we're still living in a patriarchal society, so most of the violence is still perpetrated by males, but as females gained economic power over other females, female violence has steadily increased. But there are also female murderers, female combat pilots dropping bombs on innocent people, and other relatively new opportunities for female violence. There seem to be plenty of females competing for such positions. In the context of a combat pilot dropping bombs on entire villages, does it matter if the pilot is male or female? Of course both male and female baby-killers are likely to have patriarchal mind-sets, but the important thing is that they're patriarchal, not that they're male or female. Russell Means is one of many males who join you in preferring matriarchy and finding it more efficient. Of course he happens to be male, so perhaps it isn't his place to advocate matriarchy. But there are some of us who would prefer equality and who don't think that sex and gender matter, that what matters is if an individual is callous with regard to killing other people or not.</p>
<p>The US government is the greatest perpetrator of violence on earth right now. Yet many feminist groups like NOW are willing to ignore that fact and consent to this current government in hopes that they might gain some personal rights for themselves. In other words, if they can foster the slightest hope that the government might protect their rights here, they'll vote to authorize the government to continue to kill females elsewhere. That isn't feminism in my book.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> i never suggested Matriarchy…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-25:6451976:Comment:268342012-06-25T15:38:21.278ZKellyAngelPdxhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/KellyAngelPdx
<p> i never suggested Matriarchy is the only option/alternative, only that it is the solution I favor and see as efficient.</p>
<p></p>
<p> i never suggested Matriarchy is the only option/alternative, only that it is the solution I favor and see as efficient.</p>
<p></p> the vast majority of violence…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-25:6451976:Comment:268332012-06-25T15:36:17.035ZKellyAngelPdxhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/KellyAngelPdx
<p>the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by males. this is a statistical fact. bringing up lesbian domestic violence is a paper tiger.</p>
<p></p>
<p>the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by males. this is a statistical fact. bringing up lesbian domestic violence is a paper tiger.</p>
<p></p> are you calling me an operati…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-25:6451976:Comment:266682012-06-25T15:33:03.600ZKellyAngelPdxhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/KellyAngelPdx
<p>are you calling me an operative? what the heck?</p>
<p>are you calling me an operative? what the heck?</p> Although it wasn't intended…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-25:6451976:Comment:266632012-06-25T12:51:34.646ZMark E. Smithhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/MarkESmith
<p></p>
<p>Although it wasn't intended that way, Carol Hanish's 1969 formulation that "the personal is political," certainly holds true for political operatives who try to make everything personal. Since political operatives are trying to persuade people to continue to work within a failed system, to settle for hopes of reform and change rather than actual reform or change, and to gamble on possibilities of hope and change coming from that failed political system, rather than creating new and…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Although it wasn't intended that way, Carol Hanish's 1969 formulation that "the personal is political," certainly holds true for political operatives who try to make everything personal. Since political operatives are trying to persuade people to continue to work within a failed system, to settle for hopes of reform and change rather than actual reform or change, and to gamble on possibilities of hope and change coming from that failed political system, rather than creating new and better systems that aren't designed to fail in the way that capitalist imperialism is (it is designed so that only a few can succeed while the many must fail in order for that to happen), they have no logical arguments and can only resort to personal attacks.</p>
<p>Are you aware that there are serious problems of domestic violence within the lesbian community? That all participants being the same sex, female, doesn't seem to make a difference in that context? <a href="http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml</a></p>
<p>Occupy Cafe is "an open space for global conversations." The Occupy Cafe mission statement refers to "people" without regard to sex. Gender and sex matter within the context of porn sites, dating sites, and gender- or sex-based sites, but they are not relevant within the context of Occupy Cafe. This is a website, but Occupy Cafe also includes hosted phone discussions about specific topics, and hosted face-to-face gatherings to discuss specific topics. There is no physical violence in these contexts and people are encouraged to join without regard to sex. Nobody is compelled to join. There is no coercion.</p>
<p>There are many contexts where gender and sex matter. Creating safe and supportive spaces for females is one such context. All-male "Stop Rape" groups is another, and many feminists approve of those groups even though they are all-male and do use the word "rape," because their purpose is to stop rape. I think that all-male groups called "Abolish Patriarchy" would be also be considered to be constructive by many feminists. But in the context of this specific topic about patriarchy, which was started by a male, sex and gender do not matter as anyone is free to participate and comments can be evaluated in terms of whether they make sense, are constructive, are civil, and further the discussion, without needing to consider the genital status of the person making a statement.</p>
<p>In abolishing patriarchy it is necessary for both males and females to recognize how patriarchy harms them. In the context of abolishing patriarchy, sex and gender don't matter as much as whether or not the individual understands that patriarchy is harmful and wishes to abolish it.</p>
<p>The major fallacy in this context is thinking that the only way to abolish patriarchy is to establish matriarchy and that there are only two options. Just as there are not only two sexes, there are more than two options. It doesn't have to be either patriarchy or matriarchy, it can be equality, also known as anarchy. Matriarchy may be more beneficial and benevolent than patriarchy but it is not equality. It is a sex-based system where sex and gender matter, whereas in an egalitarian system individual aptitudes and contributions would be the only things that mattered. If the new anarchist feminist definition of matriarchy was beneficial for everyone without regard to sex, then sex wouldn't matter and it wouldn't be called matriarchy. For there to be a new paradigm, it would have to be a system that is human-based rather than sex-based. If it is sex-based so that sex and gender matter, it isn't a new paradigm, it is just mirroring the old paradigm. Matriarchy may be more beneficial than patriarchy, but if it is a sex-based system where biological sex and acted-out gender roles matter, it is not a new paradigm. A new paradigm would be honoring all people as individuals so that discriminatory factors like sex, ethnicity, age, weight, skin color, etc., would not automatically confer or deny privileges. Everyone would be equally privileged.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> We disagree on a great deal h…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-25:6451976:Comment:268282012-06-25T11:33:13.057ZKellyAngelPdxhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/KellyAngelPdx
<p>We disagree on a great deal here. I'd rather demonstrate a better way than argue with you.</p>
<p>I will say, gender and sex do matter in out current context, whether you say so or not.</p>
<p>And...</p>
<p>the personal is political.</p>
<p>More at another time....</p>
<p>We disagree on a great deal here. I'd rather demonstrate a better way than argue with you.</p>
<p>I will say, gender and sex do matter in out current context, whether you say so or not.</p>
<p>And...</p>
<p>the personal is political.</p>
<p>More at another time....</p> Kelly you can interpret my re…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-25:6451976:Comment:266532012-06-25T08:35:45.326ZMark E. Smithhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/MarkESmith
<p>Kelly you can interpret my responses as being defensive and judge me on the basis of my sex, but you can't claim that doing so isn't addressing me rather than addressing the topic under discussion.</p>
<p>What you fail to understand is that simply mirroring patriarchy by favoring females instead of males is not a new paradigm. You're starting a Women's Council. How does that differ from patriarchy's traditional male councils? A council is not a General Assembly. It is a separatist group that…</p>
<p>Kelly you can interpret my responses as being defensive and judge me on the basis of my sex, but you can't claim that doing so isn't addressing me rather than addressing the topic under discussion.</p>
<p>What you fail to understand is that simply mirroring patriarchy by favoring females instead of males is not a new paradigm. You're starting a Women's Council. How does that differ from patriarchy's traditional male councils? A council is not a General Assembly. It is a separatist group that seeks power within a larger group, the same way that all political parties seek power within a given political system. Anyone who bases their identity on their sex and judges others by their sex, is sexist.</p>
<p>The founders and stewards of Occupy Cafe happen to be two white males. I have never seen either of them discriminate against females. Nobody stopped you or any other person claiming to be female from joining this discussion. It is a public discussion, so it wasn't a secret council of males excluding females.</p>
<p>You insist on interacting on the basis of sex. Although you're willing to support self-identification and take people at their word as to whether or not they are male, female, or intersex, you are not willing to examine statements without regard to the sex of the people making those statements. If a self-identified male posted a topic stating that matriarchy is a new paradigm rather than a reversal of patriarchy, and other self-identified males agreed, but no females joined the discussion, you'd say that the discussion was part and parcel of patriarchy because it hadn't included females by commanding or demanding that females join the discussion.</p>
<p>I've had analogous experiences. When I first moved to San Diego I attended meetings of various groups to see if I would feel comfortable with them. Many times I'd walk into a room where everyone was white, or there would be one or two token persons of color, and I'd be shocked and horrified. Had I walked into a KKK meeting? Was this a safe place to be? What kind of people wouldn't notice that they were all white? When I eventually found anarchists I felt comfortable with, they were diverse in every possible way. And they tend to judge statements on the basis of the merits of the statement itself, rather than on the physical characteristics of the person making the statement.</p>
<p>Yes, I am defensive. I have experienced thirty years of Democratic Party political operatives trying to get out the vote for a patriarchal capitalist imperialist state, usually by appealing to people's identity groups and their self-interest, and because I urge people not to vote for a patriarchal capitalist imperialist state, political operatives will use every possible tactic to try to isolate, smear, and silence me. Tag teams of them will attack me using every personal attribute they can find or assume, such as my sex, my race, my age, my weight, my possession or lack of academic credentials, my social status, my tone, my style, etc. And all I can do is try to keep things on topic and ask them to please stop focusing on me and discuss the issue instead.</p>
<p>So I'm asking you, Kelly, could you please refrain from commenting on my sex, my alleged ignorance, or my smell, and discuss the topic, which happens to be patriarchy in this instance, without attacking me? It might be difficult for you, but I'd appreciate even the slightest attempt to keep the discussion civil. Thank you.</p> Reading your response I'm int…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-25:6451976:Comment:267392012-06-25T06:46:32.339ZKellyAngelPdxhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/KellyAngelPdx
<p>Reading your response I'm interpreting you as being very defensive....here are my quick responses:</p>
<p>1) What you don't understand about Matriarchy is a lot. I suggest you learn more before claiming to say what she wants! No really. if you don't understand that Matriarchy is a totally different paradigm and value set & not a mirroring of patririachy then you are clueless in this area. I'm not going to assert this point further. Someone else will have to take on schooling you as I…</p>
<p>Reading your response I'm interpreting you as being very defensive....here are my quick responses:</p>
<p>1) What you don't understand about Matriarchy is a lot. I suggest you learn more before claiming to say what she wants! No really. if you don't understand that Matriarchy is a totally different paradigm and value set & not a mirroring of patririachy then you are clueless in this area. I'm not going to assert this point further. Someone else will have to take on schooling you as I smell/suspect some willful ignorance of feminist principles.</p>
<p>2) If you are really going to suggest that a lack of women's voices in this discussion and in social discourse generally is not part and parcel to patriarchy then we better stop a moment & break this down to the very basics. Again, you seem like a smart guy and I'm wondering how it it is that you and all these other smart and caring guys even think you can have a gender blind conversation about dismantling patriarchy and not notice you forgot to include women. That is nothing new, it is same-old-same-old.</p>
<p>3) Genrally speaking I support self-identification & choose to take people at their word. If you say you are a woman or man or non-gender identified I will seek to engage on that premise, particularly over the internet, but in the flesh as well, in most circumstances. I don't have the time or interest in being suspicious or telling other people who they are.</p>
<p></p> Okay, so you're claiming to…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-25:6451976:Comment:269052012-06-25T05:12:40.320ZMark E. Smithhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/MarkESmith
<p></p>
<p>Okay, so you're claiming to be female. I'm sure everyone will respect your wishes and treat you as a female, Kelly, but this is an online forum, so we have no way to check your claim. You could be male for all we know.</p>
<p>In the NVC discussion, you agreed that it could be important to discuss issues rather than analyzing individuals. Could it also be important to discuss issues rather than identifying each individual's sex?</p>
<p>Do we need to identify the sex of each person so…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Okay, so you're claiming to be female. I'm sure everyone will respect your wishes and treat you as a female, Kelly, but this is an online forum, so we have no way to check your claim. You could be male for all we know.</p>
<p>In the NVC discussion, you agreed that it could be important to discuss issues rather than analyzing individuals. Could it also be important to discuss issues rather than identifying each individual's sex?</p>
<p>Do we need to identify the sex of each person so that we can evaluate their comments in terms of their sex rather than on the basis of whether or not their comments make sense?</p>
<p>If matriarchy didn't want to replicate and invert the dynamics of patriarchy, it wouldn't call itself matriarchy.</p>
<p>Feminist Professor Gerda Lerner pointed out that you can't discriminate against a group on the basis of their membership in a group, unless you have a way to distinguish members of that group from everyone else. In real life that can sometimes be easy, as when there is discrimination against people with dark skin, or it can be difficult, as when the discrimination has to be applied to anyone descended from someone with dark skin, even if the individual in question has light skin.</p>
<p>I thought this was a forum for discussing Occupy ideas, not a dating site where people have to state if they're male or female and if they're looking for a male or a female.</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with separatist groups, as long as they're not negating the humanity of other groups, but in real life it is possible to verify that individuals qualify to belong to a separatist group, whereas online it is not.</p>
<p></p> It appears to me that all the…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-25:6451976:Comment:267352012-06-25T04:36:21.290ZKellyAngelPdxhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/KellyAngelPdx
<p>It appears to me that all the comments to date may well have been made by males.</p>
<p>When it comes to advocating for inclusivity of any kind the first question asked should be who is at the table? who is not? and why? Can you have a conversation about patriarchy with out women & not even note that?</p>
<p>Where are the feminists, or any gender? <br></br><br></br>Patriarchy is at it's root, a system of domination, that domination is based on Sex, but also quickly to many other factors,…</p>
<p>It appears to me that all the comments to date may well have been made by males.</p>
<p>When it comes to advocating for inclusivity of any kind the first question asked should be who is at the table? who is not? and why? Can you have a conversation about patriarchy with out women & not even note that?</p>
<p>Where are the feminists, or any gender? <br/><br/>Patriarchy is at it's root, a system of domination, that domination is based on Sex, but also quickly to many other factors, race, strength etc. It is all about hierarchy. It has a specific value set & I invite us to name that, and describe the values of anarchy, matriarchy or other proposed alternatives. </p>
<p>What is it's opposite? What is in opposition to patriarchy and what duplicates the dynamics?</p>
<p>I will not detail & discuss & define that exclusively from my POV, as I don't seek to be the token female. I'm interested in a collective creation of understanding.</p>
<p></p>