Can a Patriarchy Practice Equality of the Sexes

[elguanteloko]

No. If whether or not you have a job is irrelevent to your value in a group then you lose nothing by being denied a job, regardless of the criteria used to deny you.

Jason, I gave a SPECIFIC example of why this is just clearly wrong. You are ignoring the parts of my post that give one clear example of this: Can you count a society that discriminates based on race as treating all its members as having equal value? The same principle applies to a Patriarchal society.

Wrong. Jobs and positions of authority are not considered benefits, in and of themselves.

So, being the president of the church is not a benefit. Receiving the priesthood is not a benefit. Being a God is not a benefit. Having a job is not a benefit. Are you trying to make sense?

[elguanteloko]

You seem to be saying the following:

1. My value (V) = 10 points.

2. V + Job A = 10 points.

3. V - Job A = 10 points.

4. V if denied even the opportunity for Job A for moral reasons = 10 points.

5. V if Job A is denied to me because of immoral reasons = 9 or less points.

It doesn't follow logically.

None of this follows because there is no inference there; you are just making statements. Now I get why you misuse "follow" and "doesn't make sense"... you don't even understand the most basic logic. You don't seem to have any idea what "to logically follow" means.

[Jason]

Jason, I gave a SPECIFIC example of why this is just clearly wrong. You are ignoring the parts of my post that give one clear example of this: Can you count a society that discriminates based on race as treating all its members as having equal value? The same principle applies to a Patriarchal society.

If you are referring merely to whether a race can be accepted to a leadership position then yes, they can treat their members as having equal value. Because, again, a leadership position isn't indicative of value.

So, being the president of the church is not a benefit.

No, it's not. It is in fact a rather harrowing responsibility.

Receiving the priesthood is not a benefit.

Nope. I certainly can't bless myself with it.

Being a God is not a benefit.

Not really, no. And in any case, both men and women have equal opportunity to become Gods.

Having a job is not a benefit.

No. Being paid to do a job is of benefit. If you are paid as much as everyone else then it's not any more or less of a benefit.

[Jason]

You know, the insulting attitude isn't getting you anywhere. I suggest you look at my post #175 again and try to look at what I am saying rather than critiquing how I say it.

[elguanteloko]

You know, the insulting attitude isn't getting you anywhere. I suggest you look at my post #175 again and try to look at what I am saying rather than critiquing how I say it.

You said it didn't follow and I agree because there is nothing that indicates inference. I don't know what is supposed to follow from what.

[elguanteloko]

If you are referring merely to whether a race can be accepted to a leadership position then yes, they can treat their members as having equal value. Because, again, a leadership position isn't indicative of value.

A leadership position is not indicative of value but denying someone to run for such position because of their race is. Let's say we have a competition. If you win it it doesn't mean you are more valuable than he who won but if you are denied the prize because you were Black, then that is obviously practicing unequality of value by denigrating such person... even if they keep repeating they are being equal, they are not practicing such a thing in this case. You are still missing the point over and over again.

Let me say before continuing that you have quite a narrow view of what a "benefit" is.

No, it's not. It is in fact a rather harrowing responsibility.

From which there are many benefits.

Nope. I certainly can't bless myself with it.

Blessing others with it is a benefit.

Not really, no. And in any case, both men and women have equal opportunity to become Gods.

But the man will hold the authority... which is the point.

No. Being paid to do a job is of benefit. If you are paid as much as everyone else then it's not any more or less of a benefit.

Most benefits I can think of are not monetary. I'm not talking about money.

[Jason]

A leadership position is not indicative of value but denying someone to run for such position because of their race is. Let's say we have a competition. If you win it it doesn't mean you are more valuable than he who won but if you are denied the prize because you were Black, then that is obviously practicing unequality of value by denigrating such person... even if they keep repeating they are being equal, they are not practicing such a thing in this case. You are still missing the point over and over again.

A position of authority is not a prize. It is not a benefit. It is not a reward. It is not something to be sought after or gloried in. It is not something to be prideful about.

You keep framing things in terms of a competition or something earned and unjustly denied. When it comes to the Church and marriages who has authority is not a competition and it is not something earned.

You keep agreeing with me that a position of authority doesn't increase a person's value, but you don't really believe it.

[elguanteloko]

A position of authority is not a prize. It is not a benefit. It is not a reward. It is not something to be sought after or gloried in. It is not something to be prideful about.

How void of reality and deluded can this be? ...though this was not the point of the analogy at all; I explain below.

You keep framing things in terms of a competition or something earned and unjustly denied. When it comes to the Church and marriages who has authority is not a competition and it is not something earned.

Of course it isn't since the terms have already been laid out quite clearly: being a man is the only requirement and being a woman, therefore, makes you automatically disqualified. Denying ANYONE from ANYTHING without proper justification (yes, being a born a man or a woman isn't a proper justification) is, by nature, practicing inequality of value (that's my point). In ALL other respects that society may be practicing equality (quite hard in itself), but not on this one. Since this is a critical feature of patriarchy, then patriarchy, by nature, can't practice equality of the sexes (although they keep on repeating they do: i.e. yourself).

You keep agreeing with me that a position of authority doesn't increase a person's value, but you don't really believe it.

The point of the analogy is that denying someone of ANYTHING because of ONE SINGLE UNJUSTIFIED trait they have, even when being more capable than the other ones, is just as ridiculous as denying the winner of a competition the prize because they are Black. This is what patriarchy does BY DEFINITION.

I gave a clear example (several, by now) and you have not addressed them but just continue to repeat your position... how could someone take you seriously, Jason, when you run away from the others' arguments like this?

[Jason]

How void of reality and deluded can this be?

How should I respond to such a remark? How would you respond if I had directed it at you? Does this remark serve the debate in any way?

(yes, being a born a man or a woman isn't a proper justification)

In all situations, or merely in leadership? Why is it improper? What would be proper justification?

[elguanteloko]

How should I respond to such a remark? How would you respond if I had directed it at you? Does this remark serve the debate in any way?

Take it as a call to seriousness.

In all situations, or merely in leadership?

All situations. Before you answer me saying this is so general that letting women go in one restroom and men on the other is a problem for this or something... please stop and thinkg harder this time for Pete's sake.

Why is it improper? What would be proper justification?

In that case, until you answer what "value" (the understanding of which you presuppose) is, then, I'll tell you what "morally wrong" is (the understanding of which I presuppose and that's even more basic than "value"). Or, you can stop playing the ignorant and we can get serious about this.

BTW, this reminds me for the hundredth time I have to do a "Morality" thread for people like yourself and Daniel C. Peterson that seem to understand incredibly little about what morality is and how we arrive to it.

[Jason]

I think I'm done trying to debate you, elguanteloko.

You regularly insult me, you very often don't read my posts, and when you do read them you certainly don't think about them. You question the intelligence of anyone who seems to disagree with you after a shallow reading rather than considering the possibility that there might be something deeper intended. When someone confronts your basic paradigms you wag your finger at them for being ignorant rather than being willing to explore your own position.

Since we seem to be the only two people still reading this thread and you have demonstrated that there is no point in trying to communicate to you, that's pretty much the end of it.

[elguanteloko]

I think I'm done trying to debate you, elguanteloko.

You regularly insult me, you very often don't read my posts, and when you do read them you certainly don't think about them. You question the intelligence of anyone who seems to disagree with you after a shallow reading rather than considering the possibility that there might be something deeper intended. When someone confronts your basic paradigms you wag your finger at them for being ignorant rather than being willing to explore your own position.

Since we seem to be the only two people still reading this thread and you have demonstrated that there is no point in trying to communicate to you, that's pretty much the end of it.

Whatever. I think it's pretty clear that I do confront ALL the parts of your posts while you systematically responded a few and ignored the substance of what I told you. You make up standards so far back as to ask me what "morally good" is while you yourself assume some value and refuse to apply your same standards. You're so busy trying to find faults in what one is saying that you don't realize you are not making any sense. Learn some logic, get some intellectual honesty, and become brave enough to attack other people's arguments directly and maybe we can talk about this issue by then.

[Jason]

So, to sum up:

There were 19 respondents to this thread.

3 said the answer was "no - patriarchies cannot practice equality".

1 expressed no strong opinion.

15 said the answer is "yes" - patriarchies can practice equality.

I also say the answer is "yes".

[elguanteloko]

So, to sum up:

There were 19 respondents to this thread.

3 said the answer was "no - patriarchies cannot practice equality".

1 expressed no strong opinion.

15 said the answer is "yes" - patriarchies can practice equality.

I also say the answer is "yes".

Wait... most people in a Mormon forum believe patriarchy can practice equality of the sexes?

I don't believe this!

[Calm]

Wait... most people in a Mormon forum believe patriarchy can practice equality of the sexes?

I don't believe this!

Since there has never been a society that has been able to demonstrate true equality among all its citizens, this speculation seems to be something reserved for the next life where---if God exists---all things are possible, even equality in a patriarchal order.

That you've gotten this many pages out of it is a demonstration in and of itself on just how much people love to argue about meaningless things.

[TNBu]

So, to sum up:

There were 19 respondents to this thread.

3 said the answer was "no - patriarchies cannot practice equality".

1 expressed no strong opinion.

15 said the answer is "yes" - patriarchies can practice equality.

I also say the answer is "yes".

I think it's very clear from following this discussion that those who answer "no" are working with different definitions of "equality" and "patriarchy" than those that answered yes.

Academic discussion of patriarchy is, fundamentally, about unequal power relations along gender lines. So, clearly, asking about "equality of the sexes" in relation to patriarchy addressed in those terms must also be an inquiry regarding power relations. That being the case, to answer such a question with something along the lines of

[Jason]

That being the case, to answer such a question with something along the lines of

[TNBu]

Except that the question I was posing in the OP was in fact "can men and women in a patriarchy be treated as being of equal value and treated with equal respect" - essentially this question.

Some seemed to think I was asking a different qeustion.

Then you are one step ahead of others who seem to refuse to even consider the idea.

Which is why I've spent ten pages trying to explain the idea.

Yes it does, which I did from the beginning.

You did not specify from the beginning that you were not speaking of patriarchy in terms of its generally-accepted use (although you did stipulate your particular view of equality). There is plenty of discussion in this thread that indicates confusion on the matter of what these terms mean. For example, in your post #78, you said:

The answer to the question "do all patriarchies practice equality of the sexes?" is obviously no. But my question was whether a group can be described as a patriarchy and still practice equality of the sexes. The answer given by this thread appears to be yes, with the obvious implication that the LDS Church is such a group.

It isn't clear from this post that you are not using patriarchy in its standard usage, and it is reasonable within the context of a discussion about patriarchy in general (as in "Can a Patriarchy Practice Equality of the Sexes Or does "Patriarchy" by itself indicate inequality?") to assume that a person is using standard terms unless otherwise stipulated.

At the same time, it is very clear from your posts 81, 84, 94, 99, 122, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133... that you are speaking of patriarchy in terms of authority, which would indicate a standard usage.

1. Is patriarchy compatible with equality of the sexes? The answer is an easy no, it's just a matter of definitions.

2. As a particular group conceives patriarchy, is it compatible with the way that group conceives equality of the sexes? This one seems more arguable, but has little to do with giving a satisfying answer for #1.

1.) So, you have only been addressing question 2? Meaning that you are working with nonstandard definitions for both "patriarchy" and "equality of the sexes"?

2.) Do you acknowledge that your compatibilist view does not work as a response to #1--that patriarchy conceived in standard terms is incompatible with "equality of the sexes"-- and that your stipulated view of "equality of the sexes" does not allow you to claim that it is?

If you're yes and yes, then we understand each other.

[Jason]

You did not specify from the beginning that you were not speaking of patriarchy in terms of its generally-accepted use (although you did stipulate your particular view of equality).

I don't think I have been speaking of patriarchy outside of its general use - a group in which the top positions of authority are exclusively male.

1.) So, you have only been addressing question 2? Meaning that you are working with nonstandard definitions for both "patriarchy" and "equality of the sexes"?

I was primarily addressing question number 2, yes. Essentially I was asking "for this working definition of equality, can a patriarchy practice it?" As I said earlier, I think I am using the generally-accepted meaning of patriarchy. And I made it clear what I meant by "equality" in the OP.

2.) Do you acknowledge that your compatibilist view does not work as a response to #1--that patriarchy conceived in standard terms is incompatible with "equality of the sexes"-- and that your stipulated view of "equality of the sexes" does not allow you to claim that it is?

Part of my point is that how the world commonly views equality is wrong. The emphasis is too much on who is winning a phantom competition, and not enough on how the needs of the group are being met.

There is a reason that I brought up the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16). It shows, perhaps more than any other of Christ's parables, that life is not a competition. The goodman of the house pays the same wage to everyone, regardless of whether they worked all day or just an hour. Those who came last are not valued any less than those who came first.

[elguanteloko]

Part of my point is that how the world commonly views equality is wrong. The emphasis is too much on who is winning a phantom competition, and not enough on how the needs of the group are being met.

No one here had a problem with who gets to hold positions of authority by itself but why some are denied. Even if you take a position of authority as an oportunity to serve and nothing more that still does not mean you can discriminate based on race and say you are practicing equality of value among the races. The emphasis here is NOT on "who is winning" anything. Such group may indeed be able to satisfy all the demands of the people but that does not mean the authority structure is egalitarian with respect to the opportunities to serve.

[TNBu]

I don't think I have been speaking of patriarchy outside of its general use - a group in which the top positions of authority are exclusively male.

I was primarily addressing question number 2, yes. Essentially I was asking "for this working definition of equality, can a patriarchy practice it?" As I said earlier, I think I am using the generally-accepted meaning of patriarchy. And I made it clear what I meant by "equality" in the OP.

Part of my point is that how the world commonly views equality is wrong. The emphasis is too much on who is winning a phantom competition, and not enough on how the needs of the group are being met.

There is a reason that I brought up the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16). It shows, perhaps more than any other of Christ's parables, that life is not a competition. The goodman of the house pays the same wage to everyone, regardless of whether they worked all day or just an hour. Those who came last are not valued any less than those who came first.

Okay, well I see what you mean now. I was being charitable in assuming you were not speaking of patriarchy in the standard sense, because there is an obvious problem with your line of reasoning otherwise, which I pointed out earlier, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. If we're talking about "equality of the sexes" in relation to what is specifically a power structure (standard patriarchy) your definition of "equality" is beside the point. The fundamental concept of standard patriarchy (which you have agreed you are talking about) is the male-centric power structure. If that structure isn't symmetric (and it isn't by any view of standard patriarchy) there is no equality of the sexes in relation to that power structure. The way you conceive equality of the sexes, in terms of worth and value, rather than power and authority, doesn't address fundamental patriarchy at all.

My father acknowledges that full equality of the sexes is incompatible with patriarchy, but doesn't think that equality in that sense is particularly important. Like you, he thinks if the men are doing their jobs correctly, the women shouldn't have anything to complain about. Now, that means he can't wiggle out of all the standard criticisms about patriarchy and equality of the sexes, but I give him credit for being clear about what his view doesn't get him.

[Jason]

If we're talking about "equality of the sexes" in relation to what is specifically a power structure (standard patriarchy) your definition of "equality" is beside the point. The fundamental concept of standard patriarchy (which you have agreed you are talking about) is the male-centric power structure. If that structure isn't symmetric (and it isn't by any view of standard patriarchy) there is no equality of the sexes in relation to that power structure. The way you conceive equality of the sexes, in terms of worth and value, rather than power and authority, doesn't address fundamental patriarchy at all.

Exactly. Part of my point is that who has the power and authority doesn't have to matter at all. Whether you have a patriarchy or matriarchy or some other -archy is irrelevent to the point of whether your group members are being treated as being of equal value and with equal respect. You can have patriarchies that treat women with respect and as being of equal value with men and you can have patriarchies that degrade women and treat them as property.

My father acknowledges that full equality of the sexes is incompatible with patriarchy...

For certain meanings of "equality" this is true, but why do we value "equality" in the first place?

[Jason]

No one here had a problem with who gets to hold positions of authority by itself but why some are denied. Even if you take a position of authority as an oportunity to serve and nothing more that still does not mean you can discriminate based on race and say you are practicing equality of value among the races. The emphasis here is NOT on "who is winning" anything. Such group may indeed be able to satisfy all the demands of the people but that does not mean the authority structure is egalitarian with respect to the opportunities to serve.

As I said earlier, such a position would mean that you can have two groups with exactly the same policies on who gets authority but you would consider one to be fair and the other oppressive, simply based on differing reasoning behind those policies - with no practical difference between the two.

[TNBu]

For certain meanings of "equality" this is true, but why do we value "equality" in the first place?

For any meaning of "equality of the sexes" that has anything to do with patriarchy, it applies. Otherwise you're conceptually confused. Coming up with a way to describe an authority relation that doesn't value the ruler over the ruled does not escape the fact that there is a ruler and a person being ruled and that their authority in relation to each other is unequal. Patriarchy is not about the value of individuals as perceived by a group, it is about authority-- unequal authority along gender lines.

Exactly. Part of my point is that who has the power and authority doesn't have to matter at all. Whether you have a patriarchy or matriarchy or some other -archy is irrelevent to the point of whether your group members are being treated as being of equal value and with equal respect. You can have patriarchies that treat women with respect and as being of equal value with men and you can have patriarchies that degrade women and treat them as property.

So, let me make sure If I understand:

You are now questioning why equality of authority, as precluded by patriarchy, is something people care about if we acknowledge that men and women can be valued equally in other ways, despite being unequal in authority?

[Jason]

Coming up with a way to describe an authority relation that doesn't value the ruler over the ruled does not escape the fact that there is a ruler and a person being ruled and that their authority in relation to each other is unequal.

But should authority be the determinant factor in equality? Is it not possible to be equal to another while being different?

You are now questioning why equality of authority, as precluded by patriarchy, is something people care about if we acknowledge that men and women can be valued equally in other ways, despite being unequal in authority?

Essentially, yes. What is it about giving authority to only one part of a group that bothers us, if that authority is exercised fairly and our needs are met?