Sarah Haskins' Discussion Question
A heavy theme of this course is the concept of patriarchy in family and government and the culture that supports this system. Now is your chance to speak up. Do you agree with this? Does this concept of patriarchy work for early modern Europe? the Civil War? Today? Why or why not? Reflect on the course lectures and previous assigned readings and as always use specific examples from both. Remember, you need to respond in a substantive and insightful manner to this prompt.
posted by shask at 5:52 PM
31 Comments:
Patriarchy has been prevelant since time has begun, men have been in charge for the most part, and that's just how it has always been. If you look at our current society all of our presidents have been men. Not saying that women are not completely capable of fulfilling all of the duties necessary for presidency, but I just do not see it happening anytime soon. Also, a tradition that dates back to as far as time can tell, is that women tend to take the last name of their husband. Looking back into the artisan family, one english clergy-man said, "the woman is a weak creature not embued with like strength and constancy of mind" consequently, law and custom, "subjected her to the power of man." They looked at their power over woman, as a king viewed his power over his people. They believed that they had that right granted to them by the church. This may not have been the case during the cival war, because although women were not independent by any means, they also were not "slaves" as they once were.
I do not agree in the system of patriarchy in the family and government. I do not think that any system needs men to be the dominant leading force. It may have worked for early modern Europe considering that is all they were used to. Men, however, I do not think , were what held everything together. What held the family or the government together was the divisions of labor. Everyone doing their own job is what kept all systems running smoothly. In lecture we learned that Christian religious teachings were influencing ideas on family life and child rearing. Patriarchy may work for the Church, since only men are able hold the higher positions (priests, bishops, popes). However, I think for a family unit to work everyone must be treated as an equal. Patriarchy in the civil war was appropriate because at the time the men were the ones who went off to war, while the women stayed and cared for the farms and children. During this period women were always in charge of the homestead and of the children so they were more equipped to care for them than the men. Patriarchy during that time had down sides. I do not believe patriarchy worked after learning in lecture that when a woman is married, through an arrangement, all of her wealth and land is then the man’s and she loses all control.
The system of patriarchy was very effective, and I feel necessary, during early modern European times. In our Henretta text, it says "Hierarchy and authority prevailed in traditional European society both because of the power of established institutions--family, church, and village--and because, in a violent and unpredictable world, they offered ordinary people a measure of security." I agree with this statement, patriarchy flourished because it was the best system at the time. Men were reared as leaders and educated as decision makers, therefore it was appropriate that they be the ones to take control of family and government at that time. However, as time has progressed, the necessity for men to be in charge has diminished. Now, both men AND women are capable of gaining an education and making logical decisions in politics and government. Now as a Christian, and by biblical principles of the doctrine I follow, I believe man remains in charge of the family and the Church. However, I feel that women should take a very active role in the family and the Church (see the book of Ephesians, chapter 6). Now we don’t live in a society where the Church has the total control that it once had, therefore these Bible teachings are not going to be very effective (this goes back to the the writings of Locke). I feel that up until the point when women began their educational careers, that man was in charge of family, Church, and government, on the basis that they were educated to do so. However, that is no longer the case, and I feel only a partial patriarchal systems is necessary in today’s society. In any case, regardless of the era, I feel the parents should be responsible, and “in charge” so to speak, of their children. In Filmer’s Patriarcha (1680), he says “...this subordination of children is the fountain of all regal authority by the ordination of God [H]imself.” I agree with Filmer, however it is not only biblical that the father and mother be in charge of the children, it is also the only sensible authority. Children are not capable of making rational decisions on their own account, they need an authoritative figure to guide them and watch over them. In regard to the theme presented in the prompt, I agree wholly that the concept of patriarchy in family and government is, and should be, based on the culture that the system is actively working in. It was good in the 1600’s, but our culture is much different now, and the patriarchal system needs modification with the change in culture.
Living in a world today where everyone is equal, it is hard to imagine that women and children were considered evil, and needed to be controlled. They had no rights and were labeled to be about as important as a tree. In the Bible, text puts the men in charge. It even states that women should be submissive to men. I do not agree with patriarchy partly because I live in a different time. However, as a women in modern Europe, I guess would have believed that life was unfair. I would have to live with it. Children and women were not equal to men. They were basically considered dirt. Children had to bow, kneel, or remain silent. The goal was “breaking the will; preferably by force.” Women who were married were not allowed to own land. If they married, the husband gained all the land the women owned. Historian, Steve Ozment, stated, “above all, husbands and fathers were supposed to rule.” If a women does get married it’s not out of love, its more “economic and social.” Part of the reason why women were considered to be evil was because of the story of Adam and Eve. Men considered it also to be a reason why women needed to be controlled in modern Europe. Women were never seen in anything that was political. I guess you could say that this idea is true for modern Europe and during the civil war. Women were nurses caring for the wounded soldiers and were constantly in the background. They held no political status because they were not equal to men. Women had no rights, so there was nothing that they could do. The ideal of patriarchy today may see to be a bit sketchy. Women today are becoming more and more powerful . Just less that 100 years ago women were first given their right to vote. Patriarchy is not ruled out today. If you look at world leaders, do you see any women? Women have been going higher up the chain but men are still leaders of companies and rulers in government. I guess it’s the biological nature of men. We are not used to women ruling, because it has never been that way. Women have to work hard to find a spot against men. The rate of women catching up is increasing and growing. Women are increasingly filling the roles of government. They now are just as equal as men.
In regards to patriarchy in family and government, I feel that the time period makes all the differences. For instance, during the early modern Europe time, society was run by men, the only way known at that time. To accredit this statement Robert Filmer states, “As the father over one family, so the king, as father over many families, extends his care to preserve, feed, clothe, instruct and defend the whole commonwealth.” Fathers and kings were known as the providers and possessed all the control in order to keep perfect order. The transition began to show through the Civil War, but was not even remotely obvious until recent years. Now days, as times and culture changes women now have the ability to posses the same responsibilities and leadership roles in the home and in government that men do. It is because of this new equality that patriarchy does not work in the family, government, or culture in today’s time.
I don’t think that patriarchy worked in the family and government. Men ran most everything back then, but women were perfectly ready to do it too. Having men run everything may have worked in the past, but now a days we need the women around us to help support and run our country. The church always influenced many things around family. The thing is that patriarchy worked in the church only because men held the most powerful roles. I am sure that women could have done just as good as a job; the thing was they weren’t given the chance. When we went off to war, the men went off and the women stayed back and took care off the house hold, not only did they take care of the children but they took care of the country, running the factors and such. Some one needed to stay back, and that was the women, other wise things would have fallen apart. One thing that I don’t think is right is that, when women get married to their husband they like loss all there rights and there property to their husband. Then there husbands have full control over them, they can beat them (which is encouraged), they can do anything! In lecture Steven Ozment says “above all, husbands and fathers were supposed to rule” like they are some kind of master of the house. This makes me angry. I don’t think that patriarchy worked at all.
I suppose when you looked back to early modern Europe the patriarchy in a family did work. Think about if it could hold up to today is not even imaginable. Back in the 1960’s patriarchy was everywhere, from government, to churches, to the everyday family home. It was a norm back then and no one really knew anything else besides always being told what to do by their higher power. Looking at an early modern Europe all they cared about was a production, they wanted to always be able to gain something and have everything run smoothly. The ways they went around that is that the husband was always in charge and the wife and kids were merely there for function of primary economics. The wives were treated as if they were kids, only allowed to do as the husband said and if they did not listen they would be beaten if necessary. Referring to the text book, as one English clergy man put it, “The woman is a weak creature not embued with like strength and constancy of mind…subject her to the power of man.” Woman had absolutely no say in how their life should be ran, most all marriages were arranged and as laws whoever she should marry, all of her belongings, land, and money goes in straight control of the husband. I think of this as completely ridiculous, to be told how you should live your life and not having the right to even pick who you marry is absurd. This would never hold up in today’s society. When considering even in the Civil War era if this type of patriarchy would work in the house hold is hard to believe. I do agree there was some type of patriarchy but not to the extent and strictness of the early modern Europe. As Historian Steven Ozment says, “as a body can have but on head…So a household…can have but one lord.” Children also had it very rough as it seem to me that it was basically brainwashing them to a certain degree. As stated in the lecture, we went over how children were taught how women and children were meant to be controlled as they are the original sin. That Eve was the first to bite into the forbidden fruit and it was her that damned the rest of mankind and made such human to always be vile. Children were told how to properly address their parent and only talk, sits, or think when told to do so. They mention their goal was “breaking the will” by force preferably. This entails how basically to immobilization and body shaping. This type of method of control even went on through education and even the parental control over the career choice. As I mentioned earlier this is a method in which I do not see ever to occur in this present day, but I can see how some of it was helpful for the early modern Europe as it was a survival era. All they wanted was to be productive and gain economic values but, I do not believe they went about it in the right way.
The idea of patriarchy in the family is an idea that is seen throughout history. The idea is seen in different levels of intensity, but it always exists. I think that currently in history the idea of patriarchy is very minimal, and is more obvious when you look at the respect children give their parents naturally. Children, despite the lack of physical abuse, know to respect their elders, and this is the current form of our patriarchy. In early modern Europe, the idea of patriarchy is seen in many different aspects of their daily lives, including church and life at home. God is seen as the top of the patriarchal system. All people must give God the utmost respect, or suffer the consequences when they are deceased. You can see the idea of respecting your elders in The Shorter Catechism. When answering the questions about the fifth commandment, it states that it is required and found in the bible that people are expected to respect their elders and give them the respect expected within their level in the patriarchal system. For example, children are at the bottom of the system, and then maybe women got more respect then children, and then fathers got more respect then women. This level system was also seen in school. Children were required to honor their teachers with the utmost respect, because their teachers along with their fathers were there to teach them obedience. With home life, the father is depicted as the leader, much like a king leads a country. Robert Filmer, in the Patriarcha, compares the father of a family to a king in the sense that a king has no laws that limit his rule and control. This is like a father of a family, who chooses how to discipline his family, and does not have to follow a strict set of laws. Filmer continues to show that a father’s discipline, no matter how extreme or harsh, is what is expected of him to “preserve, feed, clothe, instruct, and defend” his family’s place in the town and the honor of his family. The interesting part of this paper, is the idea that a father is to provide everything to his wife and children, except love. In class Professor Pasley told us that it was bad to show too much love in this time because it was a sign of weakness when a man was to loving. This is a perfect example of how fathers were viewed in society, as strict, rule enforcing heads of the family. In the chapter of Leviathan, we see the way society viewed women and children. Thomas Hobbes says, fathers “use violence, to make themselves masters of other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle.” Women and children are compared to animals in the sense that with enough force they can be trained like animals. Professor Pasley gave us a quote in class, “A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree; the more you beat them the better they be.” This is another example of the patriarchy system dividing all people and things into levels. I feel that the patriarchal system of early modern Europe is a terrible spot in history full of oppression and greed. Although this system is now looked down upon, a little bit of the patriarchy system is still seen today in everyday life.
Yes, I do agree that a form of patriarchy in family and government is needed. It is patriarchy that gives families and governments structure or something to support them. In early modern Europe, patriarchy was as strong as ever. This is evident throughout the textbook, for example King Philip II of Spain and King Louis XIV of France were instrumental in the growth of their two nations. “Louis XIV turned New France into a royal colony” as the textbook states and helped promote migration and colonization of the New World. In short patriarchy was effective in early modern Europe as it gave structure to the culture and ways of life. By the time we reach the Civil War, patriarchy is going through some drastic changes and in some senses loses some power. The government of the United States was a mess with no sense of patriarchy or structure as the party system was failing. This is no more evident than the Election of 1860, with a “4-way race for president, Lincoln won” without the majority of votes. (From lecture on September 4th) Patriarchy was in a state of reform where it was not as strictly enforced by families and governments as it was in early modern Europe, but it was still there. It is through Lincoln’s presidency that patriarchy lived on during the Civil War. Lincoln was a strong fixture that “viewed the U.S. as a fatherland and a unitary nation created by the whole people.” (From lecture on September 4th) Even today patriarchy is alive and well. It is still used by most families and some form or another and it is one of the main driving forces that keeps this nation together. This is evident through our chain of command; a hierarchy were the president is almost a patriarchy fixture. Just a new style of patriarchy that has continues to change through families and governments everyday. So, yes I do believe that some forms of patriarchy are important and needed. It has worked for thousands of years through some of the worst periods in history.
I think that patriarchy can work in any time period on certain scales if it is brought upon with love rather than force. In early Europe most men thought the king was a great father protecting their family with divine right. Robert Filmer wrote, “As the father over one family, so the king, as father over many families, extends his care to preserve, feed, clothe, instruct and defend the whole commonwealth.” God had sent them to lead the people as a whole. Once families start disagreeing with their “father” is when the system starts becoming oppressive. Before the Civil War, the South felt a strong sense of patriarchy and was let down by the system. They were being forced into freeing a large portion of their income, and in some cases, slaves that they thought they were protecting. Robert Barnwell Rhett wrote, “Experience has proved that slave-holding States can not be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding States.” The South was being attacked and no longer safe with someone who they thought should be protecting and preserving their way of life. Once they thought patriarchy was harmful rather than “God’s chosen leaders” the South had a major problem.
I think patriarchy works on a small scale today but nothing like early Europe. In families, a sense of respect for the leader and protector is always a good thing. Look at crazy Brother Jet at speaker circle. His kids stand out there with him and sing songs and listen to a bunch or college kids yelling and they still stand by him. They’ve grown up with someone preserving, feeding, clothing, instructing and defending them. They may have an odd upbringing, but who am I to judge. They seem happy and always have someone to follow. I definitely don’t think a large-scale patriarchy would work today. It would probably seem coltish and tyrannical.
So for any patriarchy to carry on, love and good intention must be the backbone. Although in most cases it strays from this ideology.
“There is, and always shall be continued to the end of the world, a natural right of a supreme father over every multitude, although, by the secret will of God, many at first do most unjustly obtain the exercise of it.” ~Robert Filmer
The concept of complete male domination in the family, church and politics is troubling from the perspective of a twenty-first century woman. However, this impression of patriarchy is relative to the present day culture, and just because it seems foreign doesn't mean that it is wrong. Early modern Europe was not as safe as most present-day societies, and the concept of patriarchy allowed people who couldn't physically defend and take care of themselves to survive and prosper. Women and children had to give up their “personal freedom and individual identities” but in return received “a measure of security” in “a violent and unpredictable world.”(Henretta, chp. 1, pg. 16) From an evolutionary standpoint, patriarchy in early modern Europe was very successful because it offered protection for the weak and helped them put their genes into the next generation. However, patriarchy did not work during the Civil War. Many men were actively fighting in the war, leaving responsibilities that had to be filled by women. It was necessary for women to take charge and fill these positions to keep the country up and running. “They took over many farm tasks previously done by men and filled jobs not only in schools and offices but also in textile, clothing and shoe factories. A number of women even took on military duties.” (Henretta chp. 15 pg. 436) It was necessary for women to be independent to keep the country stable. In modern day society, patriarchy is an outdated concept. Because society is based less on physically protecting oneself and more on financially protecting oneself, women are able to be independent. There is no need for women to sacrifice their personal liberties for protection anymore. The concept of patriarchy was ideal in early modern Europe, but as the times changed it became less and less relevant to women.
Nathan Stonner
Patriarchy is the idea that men should be the dominant force and this was prevelant in both family and government. Patriarchy worked for people back in the day because it fit best for their lifestyles and it was the only way they knew how to do things. In today's society and economy women are thought of as equals. This allows women to work the same type of jobs as men. Today there are so many more job opportunities and career choices for women. Our economy works best when the labor is high, whereas, back in the day there weren't alot of opportunities for women so they couldn't prove their equality. In class Tuesday Profoesser Pasley made the comment that women were the same as a dog and a tree. This was thought because all women did was clean, cook, and make babies. They were never given a chance to show men that they could work and make a living just as well as men could. Patriarchy was only successful because of the time it was practiced. In early modern Europe their economy didn't produce many jobs and careers which left men to take the jobs that were open and women to stay at home and listen to their husbands. As time and technology has changed, so too has views of equality between men and women. During the civel war women still were thought of as inferior, but in the 1900s women gained the right to vote and that was a big step toward equaity. Today men and women are equal and patriarchy is thought of as out of date, ignorant, and sexist. This is so, because as countries and economies evolved, women were given the chance to prove that they are indeed equal to men and deserve as much respect as any man.
For early modern Europe, patriarchy had to work. There really was no other alternative. The king was the father and his word the law. It was also like that in each individual household, as we have found out from reading Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha as well as from the lectures in class: the father was the boss, and if he was disobeyed, whether you were the wife or children, abuse could be dealt as a form of discipline. However, this form of government wasn’t always accepted. Good evidence of that is that Charles I was overthrown by dissenters of the amount of power he abused.
At the time of the Civil War, our country was still very much patriarchal society. Men had control; Fathers were the head of the household though perhaps not quite to the extent that they were in early modern Europe, they were still the boss. Abraham Lincoln was almost like the father of the country during the Civil War, and he used all the power he was allowed to hold the Union together, suspending habeas corpus and declaring martial law. Certainly, patriarchy was allowed and worked during the Civil War.
Of course, over time, policies and beliefs become more liberal, and between the Civil War and today, women have gained a copious amount of rights including the right to vote. Today, women may not be considered completely equal when it comes to sexual equality and biased tradition, but they are considered a lot more equal than they were during the Civil War and even more so compared to the society of early modern Europe. Today, there is not only a chance of a woman being the President of the United States, but there is a good chance that it could happen. That is very good evidence to show that patriarchy in today’s society as it was in early modern Europe could not work. Of course, there are many people who are traditionalists and believe that the man is the head of the household. I would say that most people believe that, but in today’s society, women and men alike tend to share more of the power within the household.
I believe that history shows us that both patriarchy and democracy both work perfectly fine as long as the people abide by the rules of the system that is being upheld. For example, families have been run through patriarchy for centuries and managed to have perfectly healthy children and live happy lives just as many families today live in homes where every decision is made by the entire family together. The same concept applies for governments. There have been plenty of governments run by patriarchy which kept their people happy as well as governments run by democracy that worked well. There have even been governments that tried both concepts, such as Rome, and prospered whether they were being run by the senate or an emperor. However, I believe that living under a government run by patriarchy would be much better than people assume. The thought of one person, whether it is a man or woman, being in charge may sound horrible but I believe it made life much easier and often happier. In the case of a president, the people argue over who should run the country and often complain about who was elected. However, back when kings ruled and it was already known that his son would receive the crown, there could be no arguments or hostility between democrats and republicans. The same idea translates to the family life. Having the man of the house hold make all the decisions may sound bad but the divorce rate then was no where near the rate now, which may have to do with the head of the household simply making a decision and the rest of the family following that decision instead of all arguing their opinion.
Patriarchy is not a system in which I find suitable for most time periods. In modern Europe this system worked only because men were more educated than women. This would have been completely different if women had the same opportunities as men. In present time, although there are still forms of patriarchy, power has become more divided between men and women. Although there has never been a female president I can see that one day it will come to be. For example, if you look at Hilary Clinton she has become a major contender in the upcoming presidential election. There are still female’s running parts of the government, which is a big step from what it used to be. Even in a smaller form there are now more Moms as the “head” of the household.
Patriarchy has been how both families and governments operate for centuries. In the Bible it says that a family is led by the father and that everyone in the family should obey him. The first human on earth, according to Christianity, was a man and the woman was made from him. Men are born with a more aggressive personality then women which is generally a quality a good leader needs. So in many ways I think that patriarchy has existed purely because of stereo types for centuries that have existed that men are better than women. I do not believe however that this is necessarily a good thing. I believe in most families a mother is more of the leader of the family then the father. Even in Europe there was Queen Elizabeth who was one of the best leaders in English history. Today patriarchy is not as big a part of our culture as it has been in the past. Women hold high profile jobs and are the leaders of their families. I believe that our culture and world has come a long way from the times when patriarchy was how the world operated. I believe this is for the better.
I do believe in the system of patriarchy.Patriarchy is the system that our country has flourished on.It has led to many major historically significant things, for example, the US constitution, finished in 1787.Men, like John Locke,had a huge role in drafting this vital piece of legislation.Historically, men have always had roles of authority in power.Even in the Bible, down to the very first being, a man, Adam is seen as an important figure.In Patriarcha, Robert Filmer says,"This lordship which Adam by creation had over the whole world...was as large and ample as the absolutest dominion of any monarch which hath been since the creation...."Even later today, men are still viewed as the preferred sex in positions of authority.Especially in most churches, the idea of having female ministers is not right.Many people believe that only men should be leaders in the church and have the right to preach God's word.This is the way it was in Biblical times, though.Men were ordained by God with that authority.America, being a country based on Christian principles, has even come to be the most prosperous nation in the world, which many people credit to the Christian foundations we have.Why should we change now when it has brought us this far? People have grown more liberal, however, to the idea of women starting to assume that place ,too.We don't see as much of a patriarchy in America today as we would've seen back in Civil War times, when women had limited rights.That is not the case today.Women can vote, get an education, and do most things their male counterparts can do.Because women have become more educated, they are now becoming more eligible for higher positions of authority.We see this today in the presidencies.Hillary Clinton is going to be running for president, something unthinkable back in civil war days.Though America's patriarchy has shifted to being more liberal, I do believe that it is in the best interest of the country and it's society if males stayed in these important positions.Don't get me wrong, after all I am a women, but I'm not afraid to admit that men have done a good job forming this country and I think they are highly capable of continuing to do so.Though women are becoming more capable, men have had more experience in these important roles, such as president, and I think we should keep it that way.Patriarchy has brought America a long way and I believe that it's in our best interest if we continue on this path.
I can't say that I really agree with the concept of patriarchy. In early Europe it was just the way things were and nobody knew any different. Even into the time of the Civil War, everyone still just thought that was the way things were done with no questions asked. We talked about in lecture how women were treated as if they were beneath men. Even as children you were ordered to respect the man of the house by calling him Mr. or Sir. Today most men aren't as hard on their children and wives as they were back then. The concept of patriarchy, I think, is slowly dieing out. It some places it is still being used but it isn't as favored as it once was.
I believe that in older times, such as early modern Europe, that patriarchy worked for the time period. Based off of what we have already learned, having a single male leader was sufficient when needed. In the civil war era, men were still dominant but women were definitely more capable of "maning" the house while the men were in combat. I feel that in today's world, patriarchy is unnecessary. In the earlier years, men were brought up and forced to literally run the family. Young boys were taught at very early ages what their "role" was in life. They typically followed in the footsteps of their fathers because no one knew any better or any other ways of life. Women today have made a huge step up in our role in the family. There are plenty of mom's that have to man in their life providing support to the family. In today's world, some patriarchies do exist in certain families, and this is when you see broken homes. For society to work in a decent manner, families should cooperate and all work together for the best of the entire group.
Patriarchy in the government and home seem to have two different success ratings, which are variable within different time period. Patriarchy in the home means that the father is the ruler of his family and essentially makes all the decisions. Patriarchy in the home during early modern Europe is when it was at its highest success. Its success is due to the life expectancy being so low during the time. The family bonds were not as strong as they are today, as professor Pasley said in his lecture, many babies died before reaching childhood, and many children died before adulthood. Patriarchy worked because the father didn’t have to love his “subjects”, he just needed to keep them in line. The church also had an intensely bigger influence over the population in early modern Europe, which greatly pushed for patriarchy. Patriarchy in the home doesn’t work now because religion doesn’t push it over the families. Also, life expectancy is much greater and therefore relationships between family members are increased. If there is a ruler in a family it would be the mother and father as a joint ruler, but with my family all members had equal share of responsibility. Patriarchy in government is a different story. It was the form of government in early modern Europe, the king serving as the fatherly figure for his country. When the English went to colonize America they had a goal of converting Indians to refined people, which includes their belief of patriarchy. This failed miserably as there are few to zero accounts of Indians actually wanting to stay with the English. There are, however, many accounts of Englishmen turning Indian and given the chance to be freed, denying it. This shows how terribly it failed. An excellent example is the story of Bouquet when his recently freed wife leaves him to return to her Indian husband because, “she was happier with her Chief.” During the civil war America was a democracy, however Lincoln served as a type of patriarch because of the fatherly vibe he gave America. Even today patriarchy is present in all governments with prime ministers and presidents.
i think that patriarchy is slowly dieing out, but it is still present in some forms today such as religion in America as well as in other countries. religion is as old as time so there are some things that will never change. patriarch during the civil war was not as common because the men went to war and the women became more of the figures of the household, but there was the army and the government to serve as the patriarchal "head of the house". in early Europe the whole patriarch thing worked because no one knew anything else the king ruled and there were wars , but as the countries grew people began to realize that they wanted to do things for themselves and wanted to have a say about the laws
I feel that the patriarchal method is a system of the past, and it worked in the past. Men went to school and they were the ones who could find real jobs. Today we still have a patriarchal system, but now it is lead by other causes. In lecture we talked about how in the 16th century was said that women were considered “inherently evil”. However, in the present women are considered more emotional, and in some ways, weaker than men; unable to run a country. I feel that if we opened the positions to accept more women we would be better off, as long as that individual could handle the stress. We need to look at the individuals we elect and not the sex. They used bible verses in the years past to prove that men had the true power, “honour thy father" [Exodus, xx, 12]”, from Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha. Now we use psychological studies to try to prove and disprove women’s ability to run the government. I feel that we should try and avoid looking at sex while deciding who has the superior ability in our government.
I think that the patriarchy system has worked fine throughout history but it was not necessarily the best way. There is no evidence that leads me to believe that a male has an inherent ability beyond that of a female, to make better decisions concerning private or public matters.
As far as the family unit is concerned, the patriarchy system is convenient because when there was a problem the father spoke and it was done. If it were a more democratic system that allowed all members to voice their opinion, it would take much longer to resolve a problem. On the other hand, because this system did not allow everyone to have a voice, those who were not the father might be very displeased with a decision and even more displeased with the fact that they were unable to appeal any decision made by the father. For this reason I think the system is unfair.
I think the same essentially about patriarchy in the government. It was good for the men because they were the ones making all of the decisions and the women and children had to obey. Though it was not the fairest means of resolution, it was the quickest and therefore most progressive means of resolution.
In today’s society, women are much more able to be independent of their husbands. They can vote and hold office and presumably whatever else they want so I don’t really see the patriarchal system being prevalent anymore.
To me Patriarchy is a good way to rule in early modern Europe, but that’s not the case with The Civil War and today. In early modern Europe people were much more religious and believed that God chose their ruler (Divine Right of Kings). Because of these beliefs, it made Christians in early modern Europe rely on a Patriarchy because they knew that man was in charge, and there was no other way. The same ideas that formed patriarchy led white men to think they are superior over everyone else. This led to the issues of slavery, which the Civil War was fought over. Today, I don’t think a Patriarchy would work because there are so many laws that keep women equal with men. Because the nation doesn’t have a patriarchy is the reason why women have equal opportunities in education and jobs. If a Patriarchy was still in place then there could still be slavery going on and other hate crimes, and according to Hobbes, men would still be the rulers of the families and politics, and women would have no place in the work place or anywhere outside the home.
Maybe for early modern Europe, the idea of a patriarchy would work. But in the Civil War and in the present day it did not and would not work. No offense to all the men out there, but I think the modern day woman has made a good difference in society. Everyone needs their own space, their own security, their own independence. Granted, some people get carried away with this idea, but everyone needs to experience it.
In the days of early modern Europe, the patriarchal authority seemed to suit the society of that time. But with passing years comes the idea of change, which is why we now have equality for all, or we at least try to. In Hobbes’ "Leviathan" he speaks of people wanting the same rights as any other man. Hobbes argues that “it contradicts the doctrine and history of the Holy Scriptures” also stating that giving man right was what caused the fall of Adam in Genesis. In all fairness, I highly disagree with this concept. The one thing God gave mankind was freewill. He wanted us to live our own lives and make mistakes. It just so happens that the first two humans on earth committed the biggest mistake. The world’s not perfect. I’m not perfect, but I’m okay with that. If it weren’t for Adam and Eve, I may not even be here today, and would never be able to learn from my own mistakes. My point is that a patriarchy may work in certain societies all depending on the time and place, but in our modern society of the United States, this type of government and type of living would not work out too well.
The concept of patriarchy in family and government was extremely evident in early modern Europe, but less visible during the Civil War. In early modern Europe, men were the only figures acceptable for controlling the household. Historian Steven Ozment described the situation by stating, "As a body can have but one head... so a household can have but one lord." Women were not even close to the same level as men. Wives were required to behave just as their children and could be beaten if necessary. The government used patriarchy by having a king as a patriarch and representing the nation as the "household". There was still patriarchy during the Civil War, but not to the extreme of modern Europe. Today, there is little patriarchy in government and politics. I believe that women are equally equivlent to men, if not on a higher pedestal. There are now women holding high positions in Congress. Condeliza Rice is the current Secretary of State and Hilary Clinton could possibly be the next President of the United States. I am in favor of having a women in office, but I believe this will not happen for several years. Patriarchy was allowed to be so extreme in early modern Europe because of men being far more superior to women, but we will never see patriarchy in this form in our world today.
I do not believe it is right to have patriarchy in the family. I don’t believe that it has ever been right to have patriarchy where men are isolated as the important ones. In our present day, women run businesses and hold political office. Fifty years ago this would be unheard of let alone in early modern Europe. I believe our country accomplishes so much more with women having say in our culture. I feel that our world is somewhat behind us in this aspect. In many parts of the world men are still the superior gender. The leading countries of the world have accepted the fact that women can and do help in all features of society. As Hobbes alluded to about man’s innate evilness, I believe that patriarchy in the family is a problem with man’s pride. People, men specifically, want control and they try to micromanage everything and generally that does not work. I believe our country has realized for the most part that women and children are to be respected just as much as men.
I think that patriarchy has worked well in the past but is slowly dying out. In early modern Europe, society was based much more on religion and the idea that men held absolute power over women and children. During the Civil War however, the men went off the war and the women had to take charge of the household. I believe this was the beginning of the decline of patriarchy. As more and more women had to take on the responsibility of the men, they began to realize that they could do just as much as most men and often just as well too. In our modern world, men and women alike are joined in the workforce. The role of provider and ruler of the house is not only reserved for the male and in many cases, the woman actually takes most of the responsibility. Overall, I think that patriarchy still has a place in society but not to the extent that it was in early modern Europe.
Back in modern Europe patriarchy was a really good effective thing no questions asked. Men had more education over women and children, which in turn gave them more responsibilities and power. However, as the Civil War took place the women and children were able and needed to take some of the responsibilities of a man at that time which proved that they were capable of handling responsibilities as well if not better then the men were. Today we have the idea that no matter if you’re a man or woman, white or black, you can do whatever you want, which I believe to be very true. So no I do not think that patriarchy would be effective at all in todays world.
I do not believe in patriarchy in our goverment because, in our world today, all people are equal, including, men, women, children, blacks and whites. One man isn't in charge of one household because people, now, believe that everyone have equal rights to do anything they want. In the past, patriarchy has worked very well to where all men were in charged and all women had to take care of the house and children while the men worked. Patriarchy has slowly died down and will continue to do so til this day. It is now believed that it doesn't matter who you are, you still have a voice to speak for yourself. One person doesn't control a group of people unless the people chose for him to be in charge, for example, the president and mayor. But, again, people have a voice to choose them so in reality, everyone is equal. Men are no better than women so it is good in our society for men and women to work together instead of in the past where women couldn't do anything but what the men tell them to do.
The only way patriarchy could have worked as a just system in Europe (and during any time) would have been if the kings were perfect men, with the needs of their peoples placed before their own desires. In short, the “Divine Right of Kings” would actually require a man to be a perfect god. Although Robert Filmer makes the argument that a king is the head of a country the way a father is the head of a family, the idea is too extremist. Many times over, fathers have abused their children and wives, for centuries in fact. If it were true that they always acted lovingly and justly, there might be some grounds for accepting patriarchy, both in families and in government. Since this is not the case, however, there ought to be laws to protect those under authority from abuse. The Native Americans of Canada actually had a much more realistic view of one man’s powers. In the Pierre de Charlevoix document, he describes the way power is delegated not only to the chief of the tribe, but also among the council of elders. When speaking of the chiefs he says, “It is true that they request or propose rather than command; and never exceed the boundaries of that small share of authority with which they are vested.” This more practical doling out of responsibilities was admittedly a better fit for their particular society, since the tribes were for the most part smaller than countries of Europe.
If we go back to the source of where patriarchy came from, the scriptures, we find that men perverted certain passages. For example, the scriptures say that God ordains authority in order to maintain justice and that it should be obeyed (Romans 13:1-4). However, it never states that a king or ruler is exempt from laws, either divine or mortal. Men like Filmer and Hobbes who believed in the depravity of men were right to insist that men ought not be allowed to run free, but I think that neither should they be subjected to potentially tyrannical rule without a defense or at least the power of impeachment.
Post a Comment
<< Home