I love living in a 'patriarchy'

How about Catherine de' Medici?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_de'_Medici#Queen_of_France
Throughout Henry II's reign, he excluded Catherine from influence and instead showered favours on his mistress, Diane de Poitiers. Henry's death in 1559 thrust Catherine into the political arena as mother of the frail fifteen-year-old King Francis II. When he too died in 1560, she was appointed regent on behalf of her ten-year-old son King Charles IX and was granted sweeping powers. After Charles died in 1574, Catherine played a key role in the reign of her third son, Henry III. He dispensed with her advice only in the last months of her life.
Click to expand...

Crying Uncle yet, James?
 
What could women do in a patriarchal Russia? Ask Catherine the Great...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_II_of_Russia

Russo-Turkish Wars
Catherine made Russia the dominant power in south-eastern Europe after her first Russo-Turkish War against the Ottoman Empire (1768–1774), which saw some of the greatest defeats in Turkish history, including the Battle of Chesma (5 July – 7 July 1770) and the Battle of Kagul (21 July 1770). The Russian victories allowed Catherine's government to obtain access to the Black Sea and to incorporate the vast steppes of present-day southern Ukraine, where the Russians founded the new cities of Odessa, Nikolayev, Yekaterinoslav (literally: "the Glory of Catherine"; the future Dnepropetrovsk), and Kherson.
Click to expand...
 
Don't forget Isabella I of Spain:

http://womenshistory.about.com/cs/medrenqueens/p/p_isabella_i.htm

Ferdinand had by this time become King of Aragon, and the two ruled with equal authority in both realms, thus unifying Spain. Among their first acts were various reforms to reduce the power of the nobility and increase the power of the crown.

In 1480, Isabella and Ferdinand instituted the Inquisition in Spain, as one of many changes to the role of the church instituted by the monarchs. The Inquisition was aimed mostly at Jews and Muslims who had overtly converted to Christianity but were thought to be practicing their faiths secretly -- known respectively as morranos and moriscos -- as well as at heretics who rejected Roman Catholic orthodoxy, including alumbras who practiced a kind of mysticism or spiritualism.

Ferdinand and Isabella were given the title "the Catholic" by the Pope, in recognition of their role in "purifying" the faith. Among her other religious interests, Isabella also took a special interest in the order of nuns, the Poor Clares.

Isabella and Ferdinand proceeded with their plans to unify all of Spain by continuing a long-standing but stalled effort to expel the Moors (Muslims) who held parts of Spain. In 1492, the Muslim Kingdom of Granada fell to Isabella and Ferdinand, thus completing the Reconquista. That same year, all Jews in Spain who refused to convert to Christianity were expelled by royal edict.

Also in 1492, Isabella was convinced by Christopher Columbus to sponsor his voyage of discovery. The lasting effects of this were many: by the traditions of the time, when Columbus discovered lands in the New World, they were given to Castile. Isabella took a special interest in the Native Americans of the new lands; when some were brought back to Spain as slaves she insisted they be returned and freed, and her will expressed her wish that the "Indians" be treated with justice and fairness.

Isabella was also a patron of scholars and artists, establishing educational institutions and building a large collection of art works. She learned Latin as an adult, was widely read, and educated not only her sons but her daughters. One of these daughters, Catherine of Aragon, is known in history as the first wife of Henry VIII of England and mother of Mary I of England.
Click to expand...

I especially like how she played a major role in getting the Jews out of Spain. Smart woman!
 
lepustimidus said:
http://www.dictionaryfordads.com/custodyanddivorce.htm



I love being a man in a society where males have all the benefits. Oh, wait... :confused:
Click to expand...

if a father has custody of the children the "child support agency" will make an order for the mother to pay, if she defualts then the money is taken from her wages or benifits, there is nothing unfair about that, however the same goes for the father if he defaults they will chase him in the same way, the "child support agency" was designed to be fair on both mothers and fathers. Don't get me wrong the child support agency is far from perfect, it never will be, but its better than the custody perant waiting for money to go into they're bank accounts, and there is nothing they can do if it doesnt.

Also why shouldn't adsent fathers pay for they're kids, likewise so should the women aswell.

The fathers can also fight in court to see they're kids (so can mothers) but if the courts think the mum or dad unfit they will award custody to the decent perant, allbeit the mum or dad, dads do have the same rights to see they're kids all they have to do is fight for that, ok there have been cases where the mother disapeers with the kids (i have a male friend that has happened to) and it can take a long time to know where she has taken them, but it is not impossible for them to track them down, all they have to do is if they think they know where they might bem go and see the records for that town, you are allowed to do that has long as you have made prior arrangments with the certain town.

If you want to see your kids then all you have to do is fight, if they courts see you has unfit they will order supervised visits and the perant with the custody if they default on that arrangment they could face a court order and even a fine.
 
yea its easy as long as they arnt in witness protection or dont have there address listed on the electrol roll you can get a copy of that from any of the state libaries quite easerly:)
 
Asguard said:
yea its easy as long as they arnt in witness protection or dont have there address listed on the electrol roll you can get a copy of that from any of the state libaries quite easerly:)
Click to expand...

if you want to see your kids bad enough then you will fight for that right.

Also the child support agency will allways be able to trace you because they work closely with benifit agencys and certain other agencys, so unless your willing to disapeer from life they will always be able to trace you, it may take them time but they'll find you
 
They only track you down if you are a male, and they only fight to let you see your kids if you are female.
 
Sometimes it is useful to ask some questions when considering these matters which tend to elicit very emotional responses, strawmen (and women!) and spurious comparisons.

In societies where there are strict gender roles and divisions of labour what are the benefits and to whom do they belong?

Or to put it a slightly different way: in a society where strict gender roles and divisions of labour are observed what might be lost and what gained?

Here's another one: What might be the unintentional benefits or unitentional costs in the observance of strict gender roles and divisions of labour?
 
Here's another one: What might be the unintentional benefits or unitentional costs in the observance of strict gender roles and divisions of labour?
Click to expand...

Most women don't want to have their cake and eat it - they have to.
In the 'observance of strict gender rules' women would be married off at the age of sixteen for their fathers to shift the burden.

Your statistic about single mothers not working that many hours - do you think it would be possible for them too?
 
So exactly how is it possible for single fathers to work that many hours?

Are women too weak and pathetic to be able to do the same things that the man does?

Or is it that single mothers don't need to work very often because the state both gives them benifits and hunts down fathers that don't pay their child support while the single fathers are told by the state to fuck off and get a job?
 
Norsefire said:
Women get benefits for a reason; they need protection. As men, it is our responsibility to provide for and to protect them.
Click to expand...

Kadark said:
Wrong. Women need men to protect them; disagree if you wish
Click to expand...

It would appear the Muslims here have yet to enter the twentieth-century, let alone the twenty-first.

Medieval mindsets, based on immoral cults, that believe women are not people who can do most anything men can do, are of the same mindsets women should ONLY be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. And, one may have several 'models' of women available for his entertainment and to do with whatever his whim would suggest.

Chattel, women are not.
 
Yeah, women should be verbally abused at every opportunity, thats the current modern paradigm.
 
Norsefire said:
Women get benefits for a reason; they need protection. As men, it is our responsibility to provide for and to protect them.
Click to expand...

Vlech. I don't want protection and I don't want a provider. An equal who I can have a relationship with, yes. A provider who'll look after me as if I'm a child? Vom-mit.

As for the absent father thing. I know there's all this rhetoric being thrown around, but the cliche of the wronged father and the difficult mother is far from reality. Most times when I've seen that situation happen in real people's lives, it was because of his own asshole behaviour. The courts are not the enemy. They don't keep fathers away from their kids for no reason.
 
I wonder if these statistics say anything about the inequality of pay and professional opportunity for men and women.
Just a thought.
 
one_raven said:
I wonder if these statistics say anything about the inequality of pay and professional opportunity for men and women.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...

You must admit, America seems to have changed...
This year you had a black guy and a white girl running for president. An old-man considering a Jew and a Mormon for V.P.

Many ceiling have been broken right there.
 
If you want something to change you need to fight for it. The fact that more women receive support than men does show the mind set of a patriarchy. That women should always have the kids no matter what. Its their job to look after them. And if a man has his kids it should be because there is something wrong with the mother and he should be able to support them all regardless. Of course this isn't the case it's just how most people feel on the subject.
 
lepustimidus said:
http://www.dictionaryfordads.com/custodyanddivorce.htm



I love being a man in a society where males have all the benefits. Oh, wait... :confused:



Norsefire said:
Women get benefits for a reason; they need protection. As men, it is our responsibility to provide for and to protect them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

How can the "patriarchy" be consistent with those numbers? Norsefire explains it all.

The truth is that the double standards do sometimes work in favor of the oppressed. Women, disproportionately as compared to men, do not have to kill spiders, open tightly sealed jars and, because of what we as a society expect of them, there is less stigma attached to their not working or not working enough to support themselves. all of those numbrers

The other side would (should) argue that getting that "fabulous" package of benefits is great, but not worth the lower salaries (which in part might explain why women are less motivated to work), the belief by some that women need "protection" because (like children) they cannot care for themselves, the increased risk of sexual harassment, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top