Thanks Reason - but what did I say about responses?

True to form, the Christian patriarch, having told us that he feels uncomfortable with women as bosses and that men are closer to his God than are women, is incapable of acknowledging his blatant sexism and instead points to my 'godlessness' and supposed lack of exposure to cross-cultural experience. Ha! If only he knew... I don't suppose a couple of decades as a professional anthropologist count! Very droll indeed - as is the idiotic notion that women like to be called "girls" by patriarchal men.

On the other hand, the men's rights apologist, having - inter-alia - gone on and on (and on and on and on...) about divorces being too easy to get, with the implication that women should be forced to remain married to men from whom they wish to separate, cites a notorious second-rate sociologist to make the ludicrous claim that Australian marriages are not patriarchal in nature, nor have they been since the Second World War.

I have to tell you guys that one of the reasons that feminists (however defined) tend to reject marriage is that the institution itself is fundamentally patriarchal (which undoubtedly is why you're so much in favour of it).

However, I have to thank you chaps for a warming chuckle on a bleak morning :) You guys quack me up!

"Patriarchy" is not so much about 'power' its about culture and responsibility. Just as 'Matriarchy' is.

I urge anyone with problems with 'patriarchy' to read the book of Ruth in the old testament. See how BOAZ lived and treated women.
See the concept of "Kinsman Redeemer"

A simple reading of the names of sons of Noah, and his sons, and seeing how they turned into families then tribes and then nations is illustrative of how inevitable a patriarchal approach to life is.(without the artificial props of our current social/historical status quo)

In 1961 there were 55000 marriages per year, in 2001 there were 32000.
Clearly, since the 'sexual/cultural liberation' of the 60s things have changed. The crucial question is 'for the better or worse' ?

If one assumes that co-habitation without the elements which 'marraige' signify and an "easy in/easy out/take me or leave me" approach is a viable way to manage the raising of young human beings, I guess they will opt for 'better'. But my gut feeling is that deep down, most would suggest 'worse'.

Marraige has been with us for...er..what.. like since forever, yet suddenly, we have 'arrived' and its a dispensable commodity. Consumerism at its worst.

I continue to call for a re-structuring of our social organization along patriarchal, marital and responsibility lines, in a values framework which supports unions rather than destroys them.

Mahatma Duck,
Thankyou for calling other posters maligning names (eg “men's rights apologist”). Unfortunately, you have not presented any real evidence to say that what is in previous posts was incorrect, but instead have just called other people various “names” (which would also constitute “flaming” by the way)

I believe that you should now present complete information that marriage is mostly patriarchal in our society, and that unmarried women are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than married women.

You could also present complete information that children in unmarried families are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than children in married families also.

You could also present complete information that the Family Court has been carrying out proper Risk Assessments (as required by legislation) when determining the “best interests of the child”

Mahatma Duck,
You were so right! And funny too. Let’s see where it goes…

BD,
There are so many illogical statements in that last post. Where to start?

“…their patent lack of clear thinking, and actual constructive debate.”

And your’s is? Come on BD. You are structured around an old, outmoded ideology that gives you power, advantage and seniority over 50% of the population. And you say we lack clear thinking?

”It is the unmitigated BIAS which suggests as you guys did, belies lack of actual argumentation of worth.”

And just what do you call your religious bent? Unbiased? You make me laugh…

” Calling a woman a girl is a wondrous complement to those who are feeling the impact of age..”

This is so indicative of your mind. So, age is an impact. I guess you refer to the physical loss of beauty, etc? Typical of the chauvinistic man not to see beyond the surface to the true depths of a woman. Nothing more than a reproductive servant to your kind.

”…enslave women in a work force to get extra dollars ? or perhaps you insult women by suggesting they would be less fulfilled persuing THEIR dreams as opposed to the dreams of some 'glass ceiling boss' ? Perhaps you feel women are incapable of organizing themselves in productive ways without some 'boss' telling them what to do?”

I think the point the Duck and I made was that women are capable and easily skilled enough run their own lives, be successful and contribute equally in all areas of society. How is this ‘less fulfilled’ – unless you believe that all women have the urge/need to have a child and be barefoot in the kitchen for the majority of their life? Again typical of the simplistic, unthreatening mindset of your kind.

”Patriarchy is no less valid than Matriarchy, both are valid cultural expressions of human existence. The point is, they are a response to reality”

Only true in that both are power states to give rule and bias to one sex over the other. The only reality is that some choose to believe themselves more worthy than another (I can here Timkins ‘animal farm reference calling!).

“The Christian view of patriarchy is not as described by you guys.”

Just plain wrong. Deceit. Lies. Or if I was being kind moral blindness on a brainwashed adherent.

”It appears your starting point/presuppositions about life are that God 'isn't'?”

Wrong. Just that you want an old world power structure that does half the world a great deal of harm. Really the difference between you and your Islamic boogie man is so small.

“If correct, then your argument about 'good/bad/right/wrong' is invalid.- culture is dynamic, and will take the form of those opinion leaders (with vested interests) who shape it.”

And that’s why it is wrong. Vested interest. Just how does that equate with democracy! You took a toe off I think…

”Some exposure to cross cultural living experiences might help you guys a bit.”

Typical facile statement showing typical superiority complex. Here’s a pin…

Many apologies to anybody who felt 'maligned' by my previous post. I certainly had no malign intent in attempting to locate a couple of the various anti-feminist arguments put forward in this discussion such as those of the "men's rights apologist" or the "Christian patriarch".

As for "flaming", my understanding of that phenomenon is very similar to this:

"Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board (usually on the Internet)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming

I suggest that Timkins is being a tad sensitive here, particularly in the context of his prolific statements representing his views - which I personally categorise somewhere towards the extreme of those espoused by various "men's rights" apologists. Disagreement with and categorisation of another forum member's views in polite terms doesn't constitute flaming, at least according to the excellent discussion at Wikipedia.

Again, no offence intended to anybody. Merely attempting to add a balanced and intelligent voice to the discussion :) (Which is still intensely amusing, BTW)