Numbers Don’t Lie: Patriarchy is Alive and Kicking

61

Hannah Rosin shocked the Internet earlier this month when she proclaimed in Slate that patriarchy was dead. She unites with Christina Hoff Sommers and others who have joined this parade armed with a terrible understanding of feminism and straw-man arguments. Joining them in this seductive non-reasoning is Reason contributing editor Cathy Young, who wrote last week criticizing many of Rosin’s naysayers but never really engaging with any of them.

It’s easy to see why Young, Rosin, and their ilk stick to such ways of addressing their topic: Any real analysis into the issue would tear the tissue paper arguments apart. Make no mistake, my friends, despite the great strides for women’s progress in the last 50 years, patriarchy hasn’t gone anywhere, and the numbers clearly show that.

Define: Patriarchy

In my various readings on this subject, I have yet to see an article that uses the actual definition of patriarchy before they start talking, preferring to pick on so-called feminist double standards and peripheral arguments to make their point. But patriarchy is not that hard to understand. It is, quite simply, a social system where men are the primary authority figures in the central societal roles of (a) political leadership, (b) moral authority, and (c) control of property. In short, a system where men primarily hold power and influence.

Seems easy enough. Let’s see how women stack up under this definition and the three metrics it has provided us:

Political Leadership

In Rosin’s original Slate article, she stated that one-third of U.S. Congressional seats are currently held by women. There’s a nice note at the bottom now—that number is actually 18.3%. A dismal figure at best, but it is surpassed by the fact that a measly 13 of them hold leadership positions—just 27.7%. I don’t need to tell anyone that there hasn’t been a female president ever, and only 4.6% of the Supreme Court justices have been women.

When one considers that half of the U.S. population is female, it’s clear which gender really holds the governmental power.

But political change doesn’t come just through government but also by entities that influence that government and society as well. Women don’t show up very much in leadership positions there, either. As of 2012, they currently hold only 4.2% of CEO positions at Fortune 500 companies. They are underrepresented uniformly in union leadership, even after you consider that women only make up 44% of union memberships.

In the institutions that matter for political authority, women simply are not calling the shots. I think it’s fair to say that we should leave this marker un-checked.

Moral Authority

Moral authority is most easily defined as “the capacity to convince others how the world should be” (as opposed to how it is).

The first and easiest place to turn for moral authority in the United States is churches. Women make up an unsurprisingly low 10% of leadership, pastoral, or ministerial positions in protestant places of worship around the country. In many religious sects, they are barred from leadership positions altogether.

If you’re looking for a more secular approach, women also earn the fewest philosophy PhDs, below everything except for physics, and they comprise only 21.9% of tenured or tenure-track faculty in philosophy.

In the non-profit world, which includes charitable organizations, political activists, and educational institutions, they only hold 21% of the leadership positions, despite the fact that women make up 75% of non-profit workers.

I’m not really seeing a whole lot of moral authority on behalf of women here, either. Sorry, you lose this round too.

Control of Property

Reason’s Cathy Young presented in her piece an interesting statistic that made my eyes pop: Women supposedly control 60% of the wealth in the United States. Surely, if this were true, it’d be a great step for women’s progress! Unfortunately, the cited article is a Forbes piece that does not link to the original report, and the original has eluded me.

Here’s what I did find, though. Women comprise somewhere between 39% and 43% of our nation’s top wealth holders, which isn’t bad, but still not equal. Worse yet, 32% of households with women at the head live in poverty, versus 16.1% of those headed by men. Women outside of families were also living in poverty at much higher rates than men, and, whether it’s by 3% or 33%, women still earn less than men over their lifetimes.

So, I’ll show an act of good faith and give half a check mark on this one.  I hope it’s true that women “control” 60% of wealth in the U.S.—whatever that means. But they still lose out in so many other economic factors that I can’t give the full mark here.

Patriarchy Hurts Everyone—It Just Hurts Women More

Young, Rosin, and other writers are right to point out that men are subjected to gender biases that also lead to some systemic disadvantages. But they are wrong in suggesting that this is evidence that patriarchy is dead. These problems are a product of patriarchy, and feminists are well aware of this. It’s just that these issues do not hold men back from attaining power, whereas women have been systemically kept out of power for generations. Women are poorer, less influential, and less powerful than our male counterparts—by a long shot. Men hold the power in our society. The way to fix everyone’s gender problems is by fixing patriarchy, not by pretending it doesn’t exist.

EDIT: This column originally referred to the authors of the articles as anti-feminists. Thanks to Andrea Castillo for pointing out that this is an inaccurate and unfair characterization.

  • Andrea Castillo

    1) You know that Rosin, Sommers, and Young are not “anti-feminists.” All are committed feminists and have been for longer than you have been alive. Do not be dishonest.

    2) You act like there is one definition of patriarchy. You know there isn’t.

    Under your definition, any outcome that is not 50-50 along all dimensions of *formal* power (you do not at all consider informal power – the traditional domain of female influence) is oppression.

    The odds of your definition of your patriarchy demon ever disappearing in a free society are quite low. But I guess that gives you a lot to complain about in the meantime!

    3) Women are less interested in politics and government generally. They seek office less and tend to vote for men more often than women. There are no institutional barriers preventing women from seeking office.

    http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/Electoral%20Commission%20Genderfindings.pdf

    http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-study-on-language-and-personality-2013-10

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/02/study-wide-political-knowledge-gap-exists-between-men-and-women

    As an admirer of Sowell, you no doubt know that a difference in outcomes does not an injustice make.

    4) Woman comprise a greater proportion of church-goers. If you believe that women are rational actors, you will conclude that their revealed preferences weaken your case for patriarchy.

    http://atheism.about.com/od/religionwomensex/a/WomenDevotion.htm

    5) Re: women controlling 60% of wealth by 2010, here are some discussions:

    http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2008/07/09/why-banks-talk-to-women-differently

    http://money.usnews.com/money/articles/2008/09/23/women-and-philanthropy-4-ways-to-get-started

    http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2008/06/17/how-donating-money-can-make-you-feel-richer

    This goes back to the distinction between direct and indirect power: yes, men make *earn* more money, but women *spend* more of it.

    6) Look at your life. Look at the opportunities you have. Now think about the position of women in developing countries.

    Why this need to claim first world oppression in the face of *undeniable* patriarchy in much of the world? This is why much feminist discourse rings hollow to my ears: much of it is more about white whines than true oppression. Then again we both know who solidarity is for.

    —–

    TL;DR: I think you know that you are being disingenuous in painting Rosin, Sommers, and Young as “anti-feminists” who are simply unaware of the data you presented. They have all addressed this issues in turn (similarly to the way I have) and have emphasized that the true battles of feminism will be fought in the developing world where *undeniable* patriarchy exists.

    You may be right (I don’t think you are), but acting like the people who disagree with you are just backwards idiots is a really sloppy way to make your case.

    Then you reiterate things like “Men hold the power in our society” as if the causes and consequences are merely a foregone conclusion that only “anti-feminists” could disagree with. Disappointing.

    Here is a question for you: at what point would you agree that patriarchy is over? What conditions must be met for Gina to be convinced that she is not a member of an oppressed class? Do you think most feminists would agree with your threshold?

  • PGTB

    Audite strepitum cornicum!

    • Robert Kenneth Kirchoff

      Bill Buckley on TOL? What is this heresy. *Bats troll away with a broom*

      • S/he’s been around. Best to just ignore. I appreciate the anti-troll efforts, though. 🙂

  • Robert Kenneth Kirchoff

    Bombastic language aside, you more or less had me until the end: that “the patriarchy hurts women more” is not a forgone conclusion. Even if we take it as granted that women earn less at the margins and have a more difficult time rising to the peaks of power and basically everything else you’ve said.

    Men live shorter lives, largely thanks to the nasty kind of work they undertake on a scale far greater than women. What are these lost years worth in terms of monetary compensation? I can’t say, but it certainly makes for a narrower gap. While living those lives they do, and almost always have, performed more laborious, dangerous work than women.

    War deaths are another salient point here. While wars, particularly modern ones, are hard on everyone they brutalize men far out of proportion with women. Tens of millions of men died or were mangled by war in the 20th century alone, a fate overwhelmingly spared women. Yes, war treated all civilians poorly. And certainly some wartime atrocities were committed solely against women (Japanese brothels come to mind). But the sufferings of all women alone in war is almost always incomparable in scale and permanency to those horrors suffered by men alone.

    Finally, while men are in charge of more of society, they also indisputably occupy more of the lowest depths of society. It may be that the pinnacle of men compares favorably against the pinnacle of women, but this does not logically mean that all men are therefore better off than all women on average.

    • louise

      Don’t forget that men make up a much larger portion of our prisons, and are much more likely to serve longer sentences for the exact same crimes as women. I think the propensity to be put in a cage for a longer period of time based on being male is a lot more shocking than any of the other statistics here. Not to mention who still has to sign up for mandatory conscription.

      Moral of the story, while it may be quite easy to gain traction playing the statistics game, it’s an endless circle jerk that makes both sides very angry for no good reason. We should all be homies, not enemies.

      Further, a revolution is a movement to a solution- then it defunds itself. Advocating for 50% male/female everything across the board whilst ignoring externalities is not a realistic solution or goal.

    • Helz

      The article used statistics – numbers – hard data. You need to do the same to back up your own points – how can you demonstrate that men “occupy more of the lowest depths of society” (which you’ll have explain – do you mean more men are poor than women? Can you provide data to back up that claim) – in order to be believed.
      Men do live shorter lives, due to a number of different factors that I don’t think can all entirely be laid at the feet of patriarchy.
      While men suffer from patriarchy in a number of ways, I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable to say that women do suffer more for it, particularly as in many societies past & present patriarchy literally meant women were the slaves of men.
      As for war, I don’t think you can say the the suffering of women is “incomparable” to the suffering of men – women are killed in war both as civilians (whose deaths, in all major recent wars, outnumber that of soldiers), & as soldiers (even when they had to disguise themselves to get in). How can you quantify the suffering of one soldier over another, one grieving parent over another, one fearful POW over another? Female civilians are often the targets of rape campaigns in war. Female soldiers are more likely to be raped by their fellows, until recently females working on the front lines for the US had to go unrecognized & underpaid, females are less likely to be represented in leadership, etc. & how do you measure the harm caused to society at large by limiting our forces only to men? When you bar all women (regardless of strength & skill) from service, I don’t think it’s really sensible to then go around & complain that that sexism is more harmful to men because you allow them to be soldiers…

      • Andrea Castillo

        “The article used statistics – numbers – hard data. You need to do the same to back up your own points – how can you demonstrate that men “occupy more of the lowest depths of society” (which you’ll have explain – do you mean more men are poor than women? Can you provide data to back up that claim) – in order to be believed.”

        Roy Baumeister has researched this topic in depth. If you have some time, this EconTalk on how culture exploits gender is a great primer. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/11/baumeister_on_g.html

        I wrote a bit about this topic and summarized Baumeister’s argument here: http://theumlaut.com/2013/04/16/the-problems-with-patriarchy/

        You can find links to the datasets/support for each claim in the article.

        • Jo

          I would suggest you read Myths of Gender, (Dr Anne Fausto-Sterling), Delusions of Gender, (Dr Cordelia Fine), Brainstorm by Dr Rebecca Jordan-Young, to really clear up any misconception you seem to have, (via your link) about evolutionary psychology. It is 2013. Also, in regard to Hoff Sommers it’s more than fair to describe her as anti feminist, she continues to publish works, (more opinion), misrepresentations, errors, unsubstantiated charges, citations etc under the guise of research, attacking feminists, feminism. ONE example: CHS //…arguing against feminist claims that wife-beating was tolerated in English common law, Sommers quotes the 18th Century legal historian William Blackstone: “The husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife….” The ellipsis conceals a Latin phrase that Sommers either didn’t bother to translate or decided to ignore. In English it reads: “other than that which lawfully and reasonably belongs to the husband for the due government and correction of his wife” (Linda Hirshman, L.A. Times op-ed,7/31/94). In other words, the complete text SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of Sommers’ partial quotation.// It doesn’t take much or many people to scrutinize her work and find it wanting. Great article Gina, Well done. I also have something to say about assumptions and opinion re war and affect of war upon women.

          • Andrea Castillo

            Yes, I’m familiar with the work of Fine et al. Many spurious conclusions. You can read through my comments on Disqus for some of my thoughts on their work.

          • Jo

            Your “spurious lies, conclusions” is called science. From a person who quotes Sommers as a feminist or considers any of her work credible just negated your credibility in relation to gender/sex research or comments.

          • Andrea Castillo

            I never called anything a lie. Just sloppy interpretation. And evolutionary psychology is of course a science as well.

            Thanks for the feedback, internet person!

          • liam

            andrea, that’s akin to me quoting rush limbaugh an expert on masculinity studies.

          • liam

            meaning hoff sommers as any credible voice on gender research. unacceptable.

          • Andrea Castillo

            That you disagree with someone is hardly grounds for calling them uncredible. I find your closemindedness unacceptable.

      • Robert Kenneth Kirchoff

        In WWI, approximately 8 million died, the massive majority of which were combat deaths. Upwards of 90% of combat deaths were soldiers, which were (with some exceptions) exclusively men. WWII had about 35 million military deaths and 55 million civilian deaths. Again, that 35m is overwhelmingly men, while the 55 million civilian deaths is only slightly skewed towards women (owing to the indiscriminate nature of most civilian killings in the war and the roughly equal proportion of men-to-women minus men in combat). Men die more in war. And we can take your route and insist we cannot equate misery, but then, pray tell, how can Gina declare with such confidence that women are treated worse?

        Further, your point that other societies mistreat women falls flat. Gina isn’t talking about other societies, as Ms. Castillo points out.

        You’re absolutely right that it’s absurd to bar women from service… BUT THAT’S THE PATRIARCHY. A social expectation based on sexual norms that men fulfill certain roles and women others. That’s why I’m saying it’s absurd to say the patriarchy harms women more than men without qualification or doubt: men are expected to fulfill the insanely dangerous roles while women sit in relative safety.

        • “You’re absolutely right that it’s absurd to bar women from service… BUT THAT’S THE PATRIARCHY. A social expectation based on sexual norms that men fulfill certain roles and women others.”

          Totally agree with you here. Ultimately, I think the question of whether or not men or women are hurt more by patriarchy is one that desperately needs some comparative empirical evidence. If anyone has done something like this, I’d like to see it, but I imagine that’s a freaking massive undertaking.

          • Robert Kenneth Kirchoff

            I’m not even sure I’d like the results. Seems to me it’d end up being a big contest to see who is more picked on that results in endless squabbles over semantics. I just prefer some consideration of the point, since it was that very notion that brought my guard down about the idea of patriarchy some years ago.

          • Jo

            I’d suggest Sex and World Peace by Dr Valerie Hudson and her team, also, The Gender Knot, (Johnson), a good start.

        • Jo

          Some information: //

          Violence against women and girls is not confined to a specific culture, region or country, or to particular groups of women within a society. The roots of violence against women lie in persistent discrimination against women and girls.

          Up to 70 per cent of women experience violence in their lifetime, according to country data available.

          Women aged 15-44 are more at risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, car accidents, war and malaria, according to World Bank data.// You don’t even need a war somewhere for females to be killed: //

          Violence by an intimate partner

          The most common form of violence experienced by women globally is physical violence inflicted by an intimate partner, with women beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused.

          A World Health Organization (WHO) study in 11 countries found that the percentage of women who had been subjected to sexual violence by an intimate partner ranged from 6 per cent in Japan to 59 per cent in Ethiopia.

          Several global surveys suggest that half of all women who die from homicide are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.

          In Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United States, 40 to 70 per cent of female murder victims were killed by their partners, according to the World Health Organization.// http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/briefingpapers/endviol/index.shtml

          In regard to women in politics, it’s always wise to do the research, (sorry, Hoff Sommers doesn’t count), re the how and why this comes about: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9nQY0ZP13O4J:www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/2012-Men-Rule-Report-web.pdf+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk

          Men Rule

          The Continued Under-Representation

          of Women in U.S. Politics

          Dr Valerie Hudson and her team have an excellent resource on violence against women, ‘Sex and World Peace’, “an excerpt that is relevant here: //But as we look around at the world, the situation of women is anything but secure. Our database rates countries based on several categories of women’s security from 0 (best) to 4 (worst). The scores were assigned based on a thorough search of the more than 130,000 data points in the WomanStats Database, with two independent evaluators having to reach a consensus on each country’s score. On our scale measuring the physical security of women, no country in the world received a 0. Not one. The world average is 3.04, attesting to the widespread and persistent violence perpetrated against women worldwide, even among the most developed and freest countries. **The United States, for instance, scores a 2 on this scale, due to the relative prevalence of domestic violence and rape.// I recc’d anyone spruiking about violence toward women need include this book before bother opining. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/24/what_sex_means_for_world_peace

          Include in that also, Gender Knot (by Dr Allan G Johnson), to just get clear an understanding of how a patriarchal system works. http://www.agjohnson.us/books/genderknot/
          Feminism is not anti male, (aka Sommers and her followers), feminism is not a zero sum game, and, a patriarchal system has gender constructs for both males and females, (it’s actually a lose/lose in that regard), but is effective by shoring up a power structure that favors males.
          Why, your welcome.

        • noblegas

          I am not going to comment on whether or not to what extent I think the patriarchy exist in american society and in the western world period or if it exists at all, but bringing up the fact that men are more likely to die in combat during war has always been a bad argument that attempts to discredit patriarchy theory, along with bringing up the scenario that people are more likely to come to a women’s aid if she is in danger than a man who is in a similar situation. Take the status of children and adults in our society. Adults in general are more likely to die in war than children and there are many safeguards that are in place, historically and today, that are supposed to protect children more than adults in a variety of circumstances that adults and children are in together and prevent children from entering dangerous situations. However, one would not argue that because children are less likely to die in war and more likely to be barred from various dangerous circumstance, that we live in a ”pedoarchy” society and argue that children have more privileges than adults because children aren’t likely to die in war and more safety precautions are in place to benefit the safety of children. Despite these safeguards , adults still make most of the decisions for children rather than have children make all of the decisions for themselves despite the fact that adults are in more dangerous circumstances than children.. Likewise, even though women are less likely to be put in dangerous situations compared to men, there are still social domains in society where men are making all or most of the rules for that particular domain, just as this author stated more specifically in her article and therefore a patriarchy could fully well exist.

          • Robert Kenneth Kirchoff

            A small point about your comparison to children: this is extremely inapt. Ironically, even equating women and children makes me question what kind of feminist you are, seeing as such silly equivalencies have been used by proponents of patriarchy since time immemorial in defense of patriarchal attitudes towards women.

            You’re showcasing an extremely collectivist way of thinking. Some men are in charge, yes. Most die in trenches. Please pay attention to what I’m actually saying in my comment: I didn’t say I disagreed with Gina’s view on the patriarchy, I said I disagree with her unsupported notion that women are–without qualification–harmed by it more than men.

            Simply because some people in a group benefit under a system is no indication it is a benefit to all people in that group. You insist that indeed it does benefit them all, I oppose that collectivist notion.

      • “women are killed in war both as civilians (whose deaths, in all major recent wars, outnumber that of soldiers), ”

        Do you have a source for that?

    • According to my data, men, on average, live about five years less than women, due to higher rates of consumption of substances, among a bunch of other things, including war and suicide. I’d be interested to see the lost worth on that.

      I fully admit that the last section is not as fully fleshed out as it could or should be. Both Young and Rosin make comment on the systemic disadvantages that men face, and I didn’t want to not address that, especially because I feel that many men’s issues do get the shaft by feminists in general, but sadly I should abide by my own word count guidelines every once in a while. I think Andrea and I have had this discussion in the comments on my article about Christina Hoff Sommers. It may be the case that if I sat down and attempted to write an argument proving it, I would find myself incorrect. As of right now, I am not convinced.

      In terms of war, I think it should at least be noted that men, qua men, at least hold the power to decide or not to go to war, and that gender suffers the consequences. Women still have very little power, at home or abroad, to decide whether or not to go to war, and they too suffer horrendous consequences—less so in the U.S., but they still do.

      All that being said, I think even if we agreed that men were more harmed by it, it still does not solve the problem to pretend that patriarchy doesn’t exist. A lot of these issues are issues because of the “proper place” of men in society—which is generated by the patriarchy.

      • Robert Kenneth Kirchoff

        “In terms of war, I think it should at least be noted that men, qua men, at least hold the power to decide or not to go to war, and that gender suffers the consequences. ”

        I can’t say I approve of the collective language of that. While I appreciate your consideration of my core critique, this suggests you breezed past my secondary point: that *some* men benefit disproportionately from patriarchy, not all. And that women, while denied those highest heights, are also shielded from the lowest lows. Elites aside, who, after all, has more choice in going to war today: the everyman who lives under threat of conscription, or the woman whose service exists entirely by her own volition? Likewise, some men may craft the law, but but so to do many more (arguably) suffer the most under it.

        • I understand your collectivism concerns. Certainly men as a whole don’t hold the sole responsibility for war. My point is that both men and women suffer and, by and large, men are the ones making the decisions that lead to that suffering, and people who do not are the ones who suffer the consequences. Roughly akin to taxation without representation.

        • Jo

          Not forgetting patriarchy is but one giant collectivist system, aka possibly with in league of government, certainly modeled within military. As is misogyny also, racism/racists for that matter. Many people tend to overlook ‘all that’ within libertarianism. Says far more about their personal beliefs, privilege and bias than libertarianism however.

  • Helz

    Finally a very simple, quantifiable break down that can be shown to those who don’t get it. Thank you.

    • seanwmalone

      Simple, quantifiable… And filled with logical holes and flaws of basic reasoning. Sweet.

  • ben

    Great work Gina, enjoyed this, thanks.

  • Jo

    Just in regard to women’s participation in politics, the research, (not opinion or guesswork, assumptions):

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9nQY0ZP13O4J:www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/2012-Men-Rule-Report-web.pdf+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk

    [Men Rule

    The Continued Under-Representation

    of Women in U.S. Politics

    Jennifer L. Lawless

    American University

    Richard L. Fox

    Loyola Marymount University]

  • Jo

    And just in regard to wealth, ‘it’s more complicated’. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U97z0YSGBiMJ:www.unc.edu/courses/2007fall/geog/804/001/Deere.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk

    //C. D. Harbury and D. M. W. N. Hitchens (1977: 124) found that women’s

    share of total personal wealth increased substantially after the 1920s in both

    Britain and the US, reaching approximately 40 percent in the 1950s. This

    increase in women’s wealth is attributed to the growing tendency of spouses

    to jointly purchase the family home, changes in estate laws that favored the

    division of wealth among spouses for tax purposes, and the growing gender

    gap in life expectancy. While life expectancy rose significantly for both men

    and women, it increased faster for women. In these countries, widows have

    frequently come to control the assets that were previously owned jointly or

    by their husbands during the marriage.// It needs to be read very carefully and understood in context, not presented as just 43% for example…

    //A 1969 analysis of the net worth of the super rich in the US (those with

    net assets over US$60,000 at the time) based on federal estate tax returns

    found that among this 4 percent of the adult population, women

    constituted 43.2 percent and held 43 percent of the net assets (James D.

    Smith 1974: Table 3). However, the marital status of the super rich

    differed by gender. Whereas 88 percent of the men in this wealth group

    were married, only 52 percent of the women were; 32 percent of the

    women were widowed, compared to only 5 percent of the men (Smith

    1974: 148). Smith (1974: 144) also reports differences in the composition

    of wealth, noting that women held a higher share of their assets in stocks

    and cash, whereas men held a greater share in real estate and life

    insurance.

    More recent data for the US suggests that the largest gender wealth gap is

    found at the very top of the wealth distribution. According to a study by

    Merrill Lynch, in 2002 women represented 43 percent of Americans with

    more than US$500,000 in assets (Hannah Shaw Grove and Russ Allan Price

    2003). However, among the 400 Americans listed in the 2004 Forbes

    magazine annual ranking of the world’s wealthiest people, there were only

    51 women (constituting 12.8 percent), and they owned only 14.3 percent of

    this group’s total wealth of US$1 trillion (‘‘More Billionaires Than Ever

    Make Forbes 400 List,’’ Gainesville Sun, 25 September 2004)//. AND ESPECIALLY understanding how that wealth is achieved.

  • Cymboli

    Numbers lie when you create studies with predetermined conclusions and hand selected evidence. Feminist theory is rarely held to any scientific or objective standard. Of course this is likely due to the fact that objectivity and scientific models are viewed the suspicion and considered a product of “the patriarchy.” Much of feminist theory over the past 20 to 30 years is intellectually dishonest and lacking in integrity. My comments will of courses be dismissed outright because feminism has become a religion and you hold your beliefs as fervently as any radical religious person. Facts don’t matter. Only faith.

    • The Young Fool

      so logical mathematics and factual statistics mean nothing. All that matters is men say so and that’s it. That’s not very scientific and there is no basis on which we can verify your assertions. Unlike ours. Sorry–you’ll need to do better. Cause you sound like a Patriarch instead of a logical scientist.

    • The Young Fool

      And speaking of faith all the Catholic Church are men, the pope is a man, protestants. Jews. Muslims. Let’s give this a shot. Let’s replace all the men with women and all the women with men. Since Patriarchy does not exist you can have no objection, correct?

    • The Young Fool

      We gave you facts and figures. But you dismissed them. Because you only have your faith. I challenge you to disguise yourself as a woman and walk around–I guarantee you you will be shocked.

  • tim

    Just because less women have PHD’s in philosophy doesn’t mean they can’t.
    Have you ever thought that their hasn’t been a female president because there hasn’t been a suitable female candidate to run our country.

  • actthenpens

    It is great to have a defined definition of Patriachy to argue with.

    The church is a good point however that only seems to apply to the USA as in Europe the church has little to no powers being largely secular.

    So for instance would the welfare system voted for and mantained by females be an example of a matriachy, as that is female moral authority holding sway over society. Not only is it a female morality but it has evolved into feminist morality authority where the head of Women and Equality states “it is not nessacary that men are needed in the family”

    Considering the welfare state, and the tax system, largely exists to maintain single mothers is that not an example of feminist morality authority.

    So would Europe be an example of matriachy as their morality holds authority over the structure of the society. I would go further and say it is not matriachy morals that hold sway but feminist moral authority that dictate many courses of European society