posted January 24, 2009 03:32 AM         

Like the word Patriarchy .

We dont have that or a similar term in Hindi or most languages that i know of.

If 70 % of the population , both male and female is employed , in the agricultural sector , both earning the same, usually jointly as a family- is it a Patriarchy ?

If 20 % of the remaining population engaged in manufacturing industries where the men and women are fully employed is a Patriarchy ?

If of the remaining 10 % , 5 % are women who work in the service sector , in desk jobs like any american woman - a Patriarchy ?

And if of the remaining 5 % , the women choose on account of good financial conditions to be homemakers -

Does that make India a Patriarchy ?

posted January 24, 2009 03:35 AM         

These are the bottom rung of society in our economy.Here farmers are treated socially as one community and subject to religions and sub-communities marry in that same class .

Men and women in these families do not have access to education beyond high school and usually on account of poverty and lack of government fuding - the remotest villages do not have schools at all.

Which means neither men nor women have access to education and live pretty much the way agricultural life was back in the 1800's.

also, it is not a choice for a farmer's wife to be a farmer - its the only choice.

their routine goes something like this..

wake up, do the morning chores, cook breakfast sans appliances which takes 2 hours, get the kids ready while the husband does the other chores and get ready to go to the fields by say 11.

Here the family ,sometimes including the children,has to work for 4 hours.

The wife takes a break an hour before and goes off to get the lunch ready and since in ourt culture the parents of the husband live with us - the mother in law helps in the chores .

with the lunch ready the wife takes it and sets off to the fields where the family has lunch and it is back to work until sunset.

thereafter the family goes home for some quiet family time and dinner is followed by sleep.

Assuming the kids do not have access to the free schooling our govt. provides to both the genders, male and female.In villages where the govt run schools are working both boys and girls from such families are sent to school - however on account of poverty many families choose to have their kids working irrespective of gender to keep the home running.

the exceptions to the above are the farmers at the higher end who have made more money and live like any middle class perosn would.

Inspite of this the women still have to work in the home business and are delegated finances or administration over the subordinate farmers.

posted January 24, 2009 04:59 AM         

Matriarch means female leadership.

Paternal means on the father's side.

posted January 24, 2009 05:28 AM         

Patriarchy is also cruel to males. As a general rule, women suffer the most as they're the bottom of the heap, and no matter how lowly the male, there's always a woman even lower. Even then, there are exceptions (For example, Queen Victoria ruled in a fairly patriarchal time, and did so with much love and adoration from society--also, men at the time were encouraged to protect women, though a woman was ultimately at a man's mercy all the same, so when that benevolence didn't manifest itself, she was stuck with what she got, unless she could get another man to defend her).

I don't know enough about how India works, but I thought I heard of female (even eunuch) leaders. If that's the case (and not extremely unusual), then it's not a patriarchy. Note, if females can wield considerable political power through religious titles, then that probably means it's not a patriarchy, even if those who officially rule from government are virtually all male.

posted January 24, 2009 06:11 AM         

That's an interesting view.

posted January 24, 2009 11:50 AM         

quote:

---

This secure environment is known as the patriarchal structure and it produces family. Men make patriarchy. No men—No patriarchy. No patriarchy—No family. No family—No security. No security produces depressed women.

---

posted January 24, 2009 12:13 PM         

"Patriarch means male leadership.
Matriarch means female leadership.

Paternal means on the father's side.

Maternal means on the mother's side."

I don´t agree that this is an "interesting view".
Rather I think it`s an accurate definition.
That is the meaning of those words.

Now, how we judge them or value them, depends on HOW those "leaders" express their leadership.

posted January 24, 2009 12:16 PM         

Main Entry: pa·tri·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \-ˌär-kç\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural pa·tri·ar·chies
Date: 1632
1: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line ; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power
2: a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy"

posted January 24, 2009 01:30 PM         

Where I was born, it looks on the outside like men are in charge. But it's really the women always were in charge, and to quote my stepmother: "His tongue won't move unless she allows it."
It's ventriloquism. Women run the show behind the curtain and many of them are content to have it this way. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying that's how it is.

posted January 24, 2009 03:05 PM         

quote:

---

The very fact that most women take on the husband's last name is an example of patriarchy.

---

posted January 24, 2009 05:33 PM         

But that is seen as something "special" and unusual by many men and women here, too.

posted January 24, 2009 06:02 PM         

It's been many years since I studied this, but IIRC, the Celts had a patriarchal culture and matrilinear family.

I personally think matrilinear makes more sense. There are no "******** " in a matrilinear society, nor specific need (beyond genetic questions, and sometimes legal ones) to then KNOW who is the father. Besides, for better and for worse, it's usually the mother that shapes the kids the most.

posted January 24, 2009 06:04 PM         

I understand that some view the loss of the name as a loss of independence. But to me equality is much more than a name, and even if you take on the name of your husband or wife, there still can and should be equality.

But that is just my personal preference, as I do not like too long names. However, if the names are not too long in itself, I would also maybe consider the hypheniated version, but as said I wouldn`t feel less myself, even if I took on my husband`s name.

Hey I probably would love that guy and would love being united with him, even carrying the same name as an outward sign of that connection.

posted January 24, 2009 10:47 PM         

Me personally, I wouldn't mind taking my husband's name in marriage. I mean yes, you feel a bit of a loss of identity but I feel hopefully that would pass.

But like I said again, and as MVM tried to clear up for me, the term matriarchal can indeed fool the average Western person into believing its automatically female-empowerment-friendly and vice-versa for a patriarchy re: its supposed male chauvinism.

quote:

---

I personally think matrilinear makes more sense. There are no "******** " in a matrilinear society, nor specific need (beyond genetic questions, and sometimes legal ones) to then KNOW who is the father. Besides, for better and for worse, it's usually the mother that shapes the kids the most.

---

posted January 25, 2009 12:30 AM         

It actually drives me crazy sometimes because in Egypt women don't take a man's name at all when they marry; they keep their own. When I was so young and came to the US, I couldn't wrap my mind around a woman taking a man's name - it seemed really weird to me, actually. And it still does (I took my ex-husband's name to 'try' it on for size, but then had a royal fit when his mother would keep sending us cards with Mr. and Mrs. Insert HIS first and last name...I just about lost my mind LOL...if I ever get married again, I could never get rid of my last name. I like it too much anyway)

The US has always been a puritanical society. Despite everything I see here, I still see women in the media frequently getting treated like raw pieces of meat. It's a way of getting attention. I even see it in Eastern cultures now, with them trying to mimic the west.

You've got terrible levels of abuse happening in other countries, yes, true. However, there's a huge level of hypocrisy that happens in the US when it comes to this whole thing. It's open, it's free, ok. But it's still puritanical. There's still a HUGE hang-up on the flesh. Almost an obsession. At heart, a lot of western culture feels quite Victorian and prim to me.

Things were A LOT different where I was born than they are now. The country was more open. Religion was less of a threat. Now it's gotten worse, there are a lot of Islamic fanatics running around, having their way with the country I was raised. The economy is terrible. A lot of money is brought in through Saudi Arabia. They vacation in Egypt and spend a lot of money, which the country is happy to have. But in return you have to deal with the Wahabi Muslims, who are completely (IMO) insane, and ruin the culture, as well as the religion itself. They have also made it a LOT more oppressive for women...the younger generation of women is getting the brunt of this. Families are socially pressured into bringing up their girls in accordance to this new 'climate'. So it has gotten more heavy-handed in its patriarchal approach. It's not like in the 70's, when a girl could go around with a mini-skirt and be left alone. Now, it's like most of them are *quietly* (or loudly) pressured into wearing a headscarf. It's moving backwards, for god's sake! I've seen it first-hand, and it is not nice at all.

I know I'm getting rather long-winded here, but I just really feel the urge to talk about this.
Bad economy. Social pressure. Religion. The patriarchal heavy hand which is much more prominent these days. This is politics.
Again, I will give you an example: With the Saudis which come to a place like Egypt and spend SO MUCH MONEY, there is the silent expectation of religious appearance to look pious...to live this so-called 'pious' life.
I will give you a small example of how it is done:
There are a lot of little kiosks in Cairo, on every corner...selling candy, soda, smokes, etc.. A poor guy with a family wants to open a kiosk. Doesn't have the money. Another 'friend' of his will come and tell him 'I have met a very kind, rich man who will help you start your business'. So naturally he is thrilled. He meets this rich investor, who is almost always a Saudi man. The Saudi fronts the money. The poor guy is so thrilled at his own luck, that he doesn't realize how after a couple of months, the Saudi starts commenting: It might be nice for you to start playing Islamic music while operating the kiosk. It might be good of you to start growing your beard, as a good Muslim man. It might be good of you to stop selling cigarettes, as it's not good Muslim practice...etc...etc...until the man hands all his power over to this investor. But he's making money hand over fist.
This is how the 'new' Islamic stuff has been spreading. It's also a class war...this is how the patriarchy is gaining power...it's no longer *as* tolerant of women being on the same footing.

I just wanted to share that, and I hope it's not been too long-winded.

Anyway.

In general, I can only speak for myself: I was raised in the 70's by two extremely strong-willed, liberal women who broke the mold in a so-called 'patriarchal' society and always made their own decisions. These women broke the mold constantly, and my grandmother used to get arrested in the 30's when she was first studying Baha'i. She always did her own thing. As did my mother. As do I.
I've always felt I was raised within a matriarchy

posted January 25, 2009 01:07 AM         

quote:

---

At heart, a lot of western culture feels quite Victorian and prim to me.

---

posted January 25, 2009 09:18 AM         

But another perfect example would be Afghanistan. People believe its always been as it is but if you read a book like the Kite Runner, you might be surprised. 20-30 years of War and poverty can do alot to a society and it's relationship with religion. Though similar to Egypt, I don't believe they like/d the influence of fundamentalism creeping into their culture. O__o

posted January 25, 2009 10:42 AM         

Your perceptions and experiences are fascinating -- thank you for sharing them!!