Can a Patriarchy Practice Equality of the Sexes

[elguanteloko]

I do not see where you have attempted to answer my question. Why do you feel that respect and value must be linked to authority?

I said "authority to choose", not the number of decisions made by the man. Your question does not apply. Authority, as you are using it, means nothing concrete and that's why I am asking you to clarify what you mean by it. For that purpose I wrote this to you: "Do you know what 'authority' means? If a judge has authority to put me in jail, do you have authority to put me in jail, Jason? No. I would imagine that if it's said that the man has the authority to choose X, then the woman does not. If both have the same ability, then there is no such "authority" in relation to each other since both have to agree to it."

It may well be intrinsic to having authority that it must be linked with respect or it is meaningless, but to my mind it is not instrinsic to respect or value that they must be linked with authority. Am I wrong?

According to what I already said, it should be clear this question will takes us nowhere. Your usage of "authority" is unclear and you have to clarify it.

I said I govern our family, not my wife.

....I count your wife as part of your family.

It means that when we make decisions for our family my wife defers to me as the head of the family.

Jason, don't you still get the vagueness of what you are saying here? Will you defer ("To put off; postpone", according to the dictionary) a decision for your family to your wife?

If there is a disagreement (which is rare) in which choice is best for our family, my wife trusts me, she knows I have the priesthood keys for receiving guidance for our family, and she accepts my judgement over her own.

Here is a question from which I hope we will base further discussion: what makes you have authority over your family (whatever that means), Jason? The priesthood (as you seem to sujest here)?

In fact at times she has insisted that my choice is the correct one because of her understanding of how the family works.

vague.

[Jason]

I said "authority to choose", not the number of decisions made by the man. Your question does not apply.

Yes it does.

According to what I already said, it should be clear this question will takes us nowhere. Your usage of "authority" is unclear and you have to clarify it.

Allow me to rephrase then.

In order to have authority (that is, to make choices for others than yourself) you must have respect (the respect of those you are making the choices for, otherwise they will ignore your decisions). However, to have respect and value you do not need authority (the ability to make choices for others). Correct?

....I count your wife as part of your family.

There is a (perhaps subtle) distinction between governing an individual and governing a group that includes an individual. Saying "I govern my wife" would seem to indicate that I make every choice for my wife, which is not the case. In fact I govern my family - I make the decisions that affect the family as a whole - which, yes, includes my wife.

Jason, don't you still get the vagueness of what you are saying here? Will you defer ("To put off; postpone", according to the dictionary) a decision for your family to your wife?

You were unaware of this definition of defer: "to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion"?

Yes, I often follow my wife's counsel on what to do, but the decision is mine. In fact, she often makes sure it is mine.

Here is a question from which I hope we will base further discussion: what makes you have authority over your family (whatever that means), Jason? The priesthood (as you seem to sujest here)?

No, the covenants we entered into in the temple. In other words, I am the head of my family because my wife agreed I should be.

[elguanteloko]

Yes it does.

Whatever.

Allow me to rephrase then.

In order to have authority (that is, to make choices for others than yourself) you must have respect (the respect of those you are making the choices for, otherwise they will ignore your decisions).

No, you can use threats of violence (as governments and religions do).

However, to have respect and value you do not need authority (the ability to make choices for others). Correct?

Agreed.

There is a (perhaps subtle) distinction between governing an individual and governing a group that includes an individual. Saying "I govern my wife" would seem to indicate that I make every choice for my wife, which is not the case. In fact I govern my family - I make the decisions that affect the family as a whole - which, yes, includes my wife.

...

You were unaware of this definition of defer: "to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion"?

They are not mutually exclusive. Nothing changes here.

Yes, I often follow my wife's counsel on what to do, but the decision is mine. In fact, she often makes sure it is mine.

What does "the decision is mine" mean, Jason?

No, the covenants we entered into in the temple. In other words, I am the head of my family because my wife agreed I should be.

This answers nothing. Why you and not her? I'll give you a hint: you are a man and she is a woman.

I'm getting kind of tired of your so-often vagueness. I can't believe you don't realize what I'm trying to get to with my questions and, instead of getting to my points, you just continue evasive moves. Kind of sad, in my opinion.

[Jason]

No, you can use threats of violence (as governments and religions do).

Irrelevent to the question.

Agreed.

So you agree that a person's authority is not directly linked with their respect.

Therefore someone does not need authority in order to be as respected and valued as someone who does have authority.

Therefore giving one person authority does not necessarily mean that they are more valued or respected than those they have authority over.

Correct?

What does "the decision is mine" mean, Jason?

I already explained this:

"I said I govern our family, not my wife. It means that when we make decisions for our family my wife defers ('yields respectfully in judgment or opinion,' not 'To put off; postpone') to me as the head of the family. If there is a disagreement (which is rare) in which choice is best for our family, my wife trusts me, she knows I have the priesthood keys for receiving guidance for our family, and she accepts my judgement over her own. In fact at times she has insisted that my choice is the correct one because of her understanding of how the family works."

-emphasis added.

This answers nothing. Why you and not her? I'll give you a hint: you are a man and she is a woman.

It answers your question. I am the head of our family because my wife agreed to make me such, and made a sacred covenant to that effect.

She agreed to this because she believes families operate best this way. Her opinion was informed by revelation, both personal and public, but that doesn't mean she simply chose to do as the Church asks her to do without any thought on the matter.

I'm getting kind of tired of your so-often vagueness. I can't believe you don't realize what I'm trying to get to with my questions and, instead of getting to my points, you just continue evasive moves. Kind of sad, in my opinion.

If I seem vague and evasive to you, know that you seem equally vague and evasive to me. In fact, often I think you must be a troll (that is, voicing opinions you don't actually hold in order to provoke a reaction) because of how off-the-wall your responses to what I see as perfectly reasonable posts sometimes seem. It may simply be that we are beginning from completely different assumptions, and therefor further explanation is required for understanding.

[elguanteloko]

Irrelevent to the question.

So you agree that a person's authority is not directly linked with their respect.

Therefore someone does not need authority in order to be as respected and valued as someone who does have authority.

Therefore giving one person authority does not necessarily mean that they are more valued or respected than those they have authority over.

Correct?

Depends on why we give "authority" to the other person, what we take that authority to operate on and under what conditions, how it operates, etc. As I said earlier, this is very vague.

I already explained this:

"I said I govern our family, not my wife. It means that when we make decisions for our family my wife defers ('yields respectfully in judgment or opinion,' not 'To put off; postpone') to me as the head of the family. If there is a disagreement (which is rare) in which choice is best for our family, my wife trusts me, she knows I have the priesthood keys for receiving guidance for our family, and she accepts my judgement over her own. In fact at times she has insisted that my choice is the correct one because of her understanding of how the family works."

-emphasis added.

And she does this because she made convenants that she was going to do it because God said a man should have authority over the woman because....? Why?

It answers your question. I am the head of our family because my wife agreed to make me such, and made a sacred covenant to that effect.

She agreed to this because she believes families operate best this way. Her opinion was informed by revelation, both personal and public, but that doesn't mean she simply chose to do as the Church asks her to do without any thought on the matter.

Why does the family "operate best" this way? Because you are a man and she is a woman?

If I seem vague and evasive to you, know that you seem equally vague and evasive to me. In fact, often I think you must be a troll (that is, voicing opinions you don't actually hold in order to provoke a reaction) because of how off-the-wall your responses to what I see as perfectly reasonable posts sometimes seem. It may simply be that we are beginning from completely different assumptions, and therefor further explanation is required for understanding.

fair enough.

[Jason]

Depends on why we give "authority" to the other person, what we take that authority to operate on and under what conditions, how it operates, etc. As I said earlier, this is very vague.

Actually no, I don't think those things matter at all.

I'm making an argument that it is possible to value and respect people equally even when giving one authority over the other, not that everyone in this situation receives equal respect and value in all conditions and circumstances. If you can find one group (or one couple) where my argument holds then it is a correct argument, despite all the counter examples you might also find.

It's like arguing "black swans exist." If you can find one black swan, then the billions of white swans that also exist are irrelevent to the argument.

And she does this because she made convenants that she was going to do it because God said a man should have authority over the woman because....? Why?

Why does the family "operate best" this way? Because you are a man and she is a woman?

That's just how it works. The traditional family is the traditional family because it is also the most successful arrangement for raising and protecting children and bringing happiness to parents and children together. It is (or was) popular for very good reasons. It compliments the strengths of the average members of either sex and compensates best for their weaknesses.

[elguanteloko]

Actually no, I don't think those things matter at all.

I'm making an argument that it is possible to value and respect people equally even when giving one authority over the other, not that everyone in this situation receives equal respect and value in all conditions and circumstances. If you can find one group (or one couple) where my argument holds then it is a correct argument, despite all the counter examples you might also find.

It's like arguing "black swans exist." If you can find one black swan, then the billions of white swans that also exist are irrelevent to the argument.

If this is your argument then this is even more irrelevant. You are claiming THIS system is based on fairness and equality of value but here you are asking if there is such a system. In any case, when the authority is based on unjustified differences, then it is always unfair and does not respect equality of value; this applies to ALL cases. For example, if a group of people is given authority based on nothing but unjustified dogma, then it is always an unjust system. If you are to preside just because you happen to be a man and she happens to be a woman, then it is obviously unjustified. It does not matter how much more prepared emotionally and mentally a woman is to coordinate and lead better than many men, just because she is a woman she will not be given certain authority. Thus, this system does NOT "practice equality of the sexes".

That's just how it works. The traditional family is the traditional family because it is also the most successful arrangement for raising and protecting children and bringing happiness to parents and children together. It is (or was) popular for very good reasons. It compliments the strengths of the average members of either sex and compensates best for their weaknesses.

My neighbors disagree with you here. They are a very successful family (as far as I can see) and the mother goes to work and clearly "presides" over the man who stays home and does the chores there. EVEN IF they are completely OK with this, you are saying they are wrong regardless of their personalities and emotions. Instead of saying "the most capable should lead" you choose to take the position "only men will lead". Wouldn't it be better to say that the best idea should be adopted and NOT the idea the man happens to choose? Why say the man should have authority and not the most capable? Can a woman ever be the President of the Church and, if not, why not?

[Jason]

It does not matter how much more prepared emotionally and mentally a woman is to coordinate and lead better than many men, just because she is a woman she will not be given certain authority. Thus, this system does NOT "practice equality of the sexes".

Again you equate authority with equality. I thought we both agreed that you didn't have to have authority to be regarded as of equal worth and treated with equal respect with someone who did, didn't we?

However, to have respect and value you do not need authority (the ability to make choices for others). Correct?

Agreed.

[elguanteloko]

Again you equate authority with equality. I thought we both agreed that you didn't have to have authority to be regarded as of equal worth and treated with equal respect with someone who did, didn't we?

Dude, you just defined authority as "the ability to make choices for others." A situation where everyone chooses for him/herself would satisfy this situation and that's why I agreed with you.

Again, Jason, you need to justify that THIS is a situation where such authority is justified.

I'm confused... did you read this? ---> "In any case, when the authority is based on unjustified differences, then it is always unfair and does not respect equality of value; this applies to ALL cases. For example, if a group of people is given authority based on nothing but unjustified dogma, then it is always an unjust system. If you are to preside just because you happen to be a man and she happens to be a woman, then it is obviously unjustified. "

and this: "My neighbors disagree with you here. They are a very successful family (as far as I can see) and the mother goes to work and clearly "presides" over the man who stays home and does the chores there. EVEN IF they are completely OK with this, you are saying they are wrong regardless of their personalities and emotions. Instead of saying "the most capable should lead" you choose to take the position "only men will lead". Wouldn't it be better to say that the best idea should be adopted and NOT the idea the man happens to choose? Why say the man should have authority and not the most capable? Can a woman ever be the President of the Church and, if not, why not?"

What don't you get from this?

[Jason]

Dude, you just defined authority as "the ability to make choices for others." A situation where everyone chooses for him/herself would satisfy this situation and that's why I agreed with you.

If you think about it, no it wouldn't. "The ability to make choices for others". If your authority is just restricted to yourself then you are not making choices for others, are you?

Really, the reason you think I am evasive or vague seems to be that you don't read my posts very carefully.

Again, Jason, you need to justify that THIS is a situation where such authority is justified.

That is not the argument I am making. I am not arguing that any specific real world situation (even my own marriage) is equal, merely that a patriarchal group can practice equality of the sexes.

Equal authority is not necessary for equal value and respect.

I'm confused... did you read this? --->

and this:

Yes. I responded to what I considered the most important part of your post, and left these sections of your post unanswered for the moment, until we can clarify that most important part.

[elguanteloko]

If you think about it, no it wouldn't. "The ability to make choices for others". If your authority is just restricted to yourself then you are not making choices for others, are you?

You asked if it was possible for there to be equality of value without authority and I gave you an example. Let me repeat: an instance in which two or more people choose for themselves only (no "authority") is an instance that satisfies what you asked me. This is to what I agreed to: "to have respect and value you do not need authority (the ability to make choices for others). Correct?" (see post #128). Not only that but I gave you the principle that governs ALL systems as pertaining equality of value and authority. Here it is again: "when the authority is based on unjustified differences, then it is always unfair and does not respect equality of value; this applies to ALL cases. For example, if a group of people is given authority based on nothing but unjustified dogma, then it is always an unjust system. If you are to preside just because you happen to be a man and she happens to be a woman, then it is obviously unjustified. "

You are actually confused in that you think I agreed with what you said in post #131. This is what you said there (and something to which I never agreed to): "I'm making an argument that it is possible to value and respect people equally even when giving one authority over the other, not that everyone in this situation receives equal respect and value in all conditions and circumstances. If you can find one group (or one couple) where my argument holds then it is a correct argument, despite all the counter examples you might also find." To this statements of yours I did NOT agreed but actually stated my position in post #132 saying: "In any case, when the authority is based on unjustified differences, then it is always unfair and does not respect equality of value; this applies to ALL cases. For example, if a group of people is given authority based on nothing but unjustified dogma, then it is always an unjust system. If you are to preside just because you happen to be a man and she happens to be a woman, then it is obviously unjustified. It does not matter how much more prepared emotionally and mentally a woman is to coordinate and lead better than many men, just because she is a woman she will not be given certain authority. Thus, this system does NOT "practice equality of the sexes". "

However, since I'm such a nice guy I'm going to agree with what you are saying I agreed but I never did (ha!). Not only that but I'll be consistent with the priniciple I stated. Here it is: a father has authority over his 20 year old mentally challenged son. Here the father is given authority but both are trated with respect and with the same value in principle because it's justified. There you go!

Now, hopefully, you can start trying to justify the position that a patriarchy can practice equality of the sexes...

Really, the reason you think I am evasive or vague seems to be that you don't read my posts very carefully.

funny.

That is not the argument I am making. I am not arguing that any specific real world situation (even my own marriage) is equal, merely that a patriarchal group can practice equality of the sexes.

Equal authority is not necessary for equal value and respect.

Again, I agree with the principle that authority is not necessary for equal value and respect... but I provided the necessary condition for that. Patriarchy is NOT one of those cases in which such inequality is justified; thus, it's unjust.

Yes. I responded to what I considered the most important part of your post, and left these sections of your post unanswered for the moment, until we can clarify that most important part.

...

[Jason]

So your actual answer to the OP is: "no, a patriarchy cannot practice equality of the sexes by its very nature as a patriarchy."

It only took 7 pages.

Thought experiment:

Let's say we have a society where political office is served via a lottery. Rather than being elected to office people are completely randomly selected for a life term.

Can such a society value and respect all of its members equally, or will those who are selected randomly to office be of necessity treated with more value and respect than those who were not selected?

[elguanteloko]

So your actual answer to the OP is: "no, a patriarchy cannot practice equality of the sexes by its very nature as a patriarchy."

It only took 7 pages.

I said that since my first post, you then wanted explanations so I provided them, then you misunderstand my explanations, and finally you ignore my explanations (and my questions) when you get them (like now).

Thought experiment:

Let's say we have a society where political office is served via a lottery. Rather than being elected to office people are completely randomly selected for a life term.

Can such a society value and respect all of its members equally, or will those who are selected randomly to office be of necessity treated with more value and respect than those who were not selected?

Supporting a certain social structure is part of treating others with value and respect. You can treat the monarch and his slaves with as much love and respect as you can but that goes against supporting the unequal and unjustified system of a Monarchy. Saying you are going to "treat" someone with respect while supporting a system of unjustified inequality is contradictory. Agan, Jason, the inequality of power MUST BE JUSTIFIED.... you haven't.

BTW, by ignoring substantial portions of my posts consistently you show a chronic lack of courtesy in discussion.

[Jason]

Supporting a certain social structure is part of treating others with value and respect. You can treat the monarch and his slaves with as much love and respect as you can but that goes against supporting the unequal and unjustified system of a Monarchy. Saying you are going to "treat" someone with respect while supporting a system of unjustified inequality is contradictory. Agan, Jason, the inequality of power MUST BE JUSTIFIED.... you haven't.

So, was that a yes or a no? It sounded kind of like a no.

[elguanteloko]

So, was that a yes or a no? It sounded kind of like a no.

LOL amm... it's a no, sir.

Saying you are going to "treat" someone with respect while supporting a system of unjustified inequality is contradictory. Agan, Jason, the inequality of power MUST BE JUSTIFIED.... you haven't.

[Jason]

So a theoretical system that determines who has power completely randomly is by nature unjustified? How so?

[Jason]

I said that since my first post, you then wanted explanations so I provided them, then you misunderstand my explanations, and finally you ignore my explanations (and my questions) when you get them (like now).

You're right in that your first post was just a "No". But I think I was fully justified in mocking it, since it completely failed to add anything interesting to the discussion.

The fact that I don't respond to everything you post doesn't mean I don't read it. I'm simply trying to focus the discussion a little.

[elguanteloko]

So a theoretical system that determines who has power completely randomly is by nature unjustified? How so?

Because ramdomness does not change anything since you would still have an unjustified power structure that does not need to be there. That a computer randomly chooses who is going to be a slave does not make it any more justified.

[Jason]

Because ramdomness does not change anything since you would still have an unjustified power structure that does not need to be there. That a computer randomly chooses who is going to be a slave does not make it any more justified.

The only example of a justified power structure you gave me so far is of a man watching over a mentally-retarded son. Is it your view that authority structures are only justified when the ruled party is incapable of making their own decisions?

[elguanteloko]

You're right in that your first post was just a "No". But I think I was fully justified in mocking it, since it completely failed to add anything interesting to the discussion.

I had no problem with this at all. The problem came after some posts when you started ignoring substantial portions and resorted to repeating questions that I had already provided an answer.

The fact that I don't respond to everything you post doesn't mean I don't read it. I'm simply trying to focus the discussion a little.

The fact that you don't respond to SUBSTANTIAL parts of my posts that contain core ideas means you lack intellectual respect for others.

[elguanteloko]

The only example of a justified power structure you gave me so far is of a man watching over a mentally-retarded son. Is it your view that authority structures are only justified when the ruled party is incapable of making their own decisions?

Here we go again! Read my posts, bro. I already answered this several times in other posts. Don't you remember me stating the conditions that apply to ALL social structures?

Anyways, when you get serious and put your mind together we may continue. Until then... I guess.

[Jason]

Here we go again! Read my posts, bro. I already answered this several times in other posts. Don't you remember me stating the conditions that apply to ALL social structures?

No, I don't recall you stating such conditions.

I do recall you saying "In any case, when the authority is based on unjustified differences, then it is always unfair" - a negative example, in essence, and one that doesn't obviously apply to my thought-experiment unless you can come up with why completely random selection of one's leaders would be "unjustified."

[elguanteloko]

No, I don't recall you stating such conditions.

I do recall you saying "In any case, when the authority is based on unjustified differences, then it is always unfair" - a negative example, in essence, and one that doesn't obviously apply to my thought-experiment unless you can come up with why completely random selection of one's leaders would be "unjustified."

Nice short-term memory..

Because ramdomness does not change anything since you would still have an unjustified power structure that does not need to be there. That a computer randomly chooses who is going to be a slave does not make it any more justified.

[Jason]

So, again, that's not telling me what does justify authority, only one instance of what doesn't.

As I said, the only example you've provided so far is a father with authority over his mentally deficient son.

So again, I have to ask, in your view is authority only justified when it is exerted over those unable to make their own choices? If not, then when is authority justified?

[elguanteloko]

So, again, that's not telling me what does justify authority, only one instance of what doesn't.

I don't have to just as I don't have to define "good" or "justice" UNLESS we disagree AFTER using some reason. Since you are the one who is saying something is fair when it looks like it is pure sexism, then YOU have to say why this is a fair system. If I was trying to say that a Monarchy practices equality of social classes then I would be demanded to give reasons for something that looks clearly as a contradiction (if I wanted to be taken seriously, that is).

I can't believe you don't even understand how ethics works.