You spend a fair bit of time establishing that words can have multiple opposites. I would disagree. Words do not have opposites; definitions do. And since many words have multiple definitions (as you established in your example), it is inevitable that many words will have multiple opposites, because their definitions are multiple. Just a bit of a quibble, I suppose, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Your mileage may vary...
Well, first of all, let's make the 'linguist vs layman' distinction... in the 'layman' realm (where neither of us live when it comes to words), I think my statement is accurate.
But if we really get into the weeds, which I love, I don't think either one is actually accurate in this case. What I was pointing out was actually something on the order of 'social use'. On the playground, one of the important 'social uses' of the word boy is to separate the boys from the girls. When I was in school they taught sex ed to 'boys' in one classroom, 'girls' in another... thus it was the sex that was the 'opposite'.
Whereas (especially back in my day) we would use the phrase 'this is what separates the men from the boys' and it was the age/ physical maturity that was what was being brought forward.
So the men could have a 'boys night out'... and we understood that 'females' weren't allowed.
So when we look at the word 'patriarchy'; my first concern is the definition. And it must be said that the 'social use' of the word 'patriarchy' has a couple of different ways it is opposed. The person who started this thread spoke anthopologically and said, "Well, compared to matriarchy...', but I doubt that one person in a hundred in the US, when they think of 'patriarchy' think 'as opposed to matriarchy'. They think 'as opposed to equality'. Not sure how the Africans would take it :)
Okay, fair enough. But I still feel like you are using "social uses" to describe the fact that words can mean different things depending on the context in which they are used. That's the definition of "meaning." And when you get down to it, any meaning that a word holds comes from the way the word is used, which can change over time; that's why you don't hear anyone talking about stacking faggots on the woodpile any more! But like I said, it's just a quibble, and rather a tangential one at that. We can agree to disagree on this particular definition. :-)
In other news, I did like the idea of adjacent authority that you explored. I hadn't ever thought about that before, but I think you've hit on something there. I'm not sure I would take it quite as far as you did (someone 100 years dead doesn't have much authority anymore, I'd say), but I think the basic concept is an important element in exploring how authority structures work, on a broader scale.
Well here, as a Biblical Scholar, and linguist, I think you have fallen quite on your face!
>>(someone 100 years dead doesn't have much authority anymore, I'd say),
1) Do a word search on the Greek word 'patriarch' in the NT and you will find 14 people specifically listed. They all had been dead for well over 100 years at the time.
2) Two of them are literally quoted, by Christ, as an example of someone the unbelieving Jews *should have* been treating as an authority, but weren't.
3) Jer 35:18 And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
Jer 35:19 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.
I would, indeed do, argue that a patriarch is not truly a patriarch until they have been dead for generations!
Okay, now you are departing from the "social use" of the word patriarch. Of course, certain men have an influence (or authority, if you prefer) that extends well beyond their lifetime. Primary among these would be prophets who were called by God to proclaim God's Law and guidance to His people. Of course, their influence is going to extend centuries after their deaths.
However, when you speak of "the patriarchy" in modern America, most people do not immediately think of Abraham, Moses and the prophets of the OT. They think of the system by which men disproportionately tend to hold positions of power over women, even (as they see it) in cases where the woman may be more qualified to hold said authority. This use of the term is focused on authority in the immediate sense, not in the "God called this man to show us His eternal, unchangeable way" sense.
When I made the comment you quoted above, I was thinking personally, as patriarchy relates to my own life. Undoubtedly, my great-grandfather has influenced me in ways that I don't even realize, but practically speaking, his authority over me (and my children) does not exist. I know nothing about his life, his character or his desires for his children; I don't even know his name. Surely you are not suggesting that this nameless, faceless, completely unknown man holds some kind of genuine authority over me, simply because he happened to sire my father's father. And that doesn't even take into account what authority my mother's grandfather (who is equally unknown to me) would necessarily also have. And that is just within my own, personal familial line. When you raise this idea to a societal level, it quickly becomes untenable to say that any of these long dead fathers have any measurable influence or authority on the generations who are currently alive, except for those exceptional few (prophets and presidents) whose influence greatly exceeds the authority of the "common man" even in life.
Perhaps I am moving beyond your definition of patriarchy into a definition that you disagree with and thus, are not choosing to defend; making that distinction was the original purpose of establishing your definition, if I understand your post correctly. If that is the case, then perhaps none of what I've said actually pertains to what you are trying to establish.
I will respond more info, when I get to the point where I can sit down and type into a computer, I’m on the road right now, but a couple quick notes: to the extent that your grandfather has no influence over you, my comment would be that he’s not a patriarch. Not all men succeeded in being patriarch, even when they have great grandchildren. Patriarchy is a value system in which some succeed much more than others, and it is a system that influences this society at large.
And your 2nd point or at least the second that I remember right now, while dictating on my phone, has to do it definitions and yes, indeed one of my big points in this particular paper and this series of papers is to point back to the biblical and historic idea of patriarchy, not the modern perversion thereof. Thus my idea of Jason is a direct attack upon the modern way that the word patriarchy is used.
I dictated all of this on my phone without even my reading glasses on, so I hope it’s legible.
Okay, now I see where we miscommunicated. I was hearing you say that all men become patriarchs simply by virtue of having progeny to wield authority over. What I now understand you to be saying is that all men have the potential to become patriarchs, but not all achieve this level of authority. Further, one of the marks of achieving patriarchal status is that your authority continues to hold some sway even long after your death.
By the way, the 14 men listed as Patrix, in the new Testament are Abraham, David, and the 12 sons of Jacob. One can certainly argue that they were all in one sense profits, that is certainly not the sense that is being used by this word.
My other example, was Jeremiah 35. In Jeremiah, 35, men were still obeying the commandments of their long, dead, great great, great, great. Grandfather.
After reading the background material, I find myself feeling inadequately prepared to enter this discussion. But I will give it a try.
First a question. By replying in a comment, am I participating in a “letter exchange?” Or is there a more formal means?
Next a few points to position myself. I am a baby-boomer, semi-retired from a reasonably prosperous engineering career. I am a husband, father, and grandfather. I grew up on a farm and have lived my entire adult life in the same mid-sized community in the Midwest. I am a Christian practicing with all the confusion of modern ELCA Lutherans. I love respectful arguments with thoughtful points on virtually any topic. I argue from a perspective that common sense, experience, and faith should not be dismissed as source material. I love to explore new ideas, but my skeptical streak appears when academic studies defy conventional wisdom with claims of scientific certainty. So, I have plenty to think about these days!
I am aware of the conflicting views on patriarchy, but I am not as versed as other commentors in the anthropology, versus the natural order argument, versus the divinely ordained argument. When I use the word “patriarchy,” my context is “the institution that is or was the enemy of classic feminism.”
Certainly commenting on any of our posts is a form of participation. however, writing your own post and linking it to ours, and letting us know that you have written it, would be a fuller form of participation
Men have more physical strength and are the protectors. Women reproduce and are extremely vulnerable under those conditions. Men rule the outer world and provide the living conditions. The female runs the home and is responsible for the offspring. Different functions of equal importance.
You spend a fair bit of time establishing that words can have multiple opposites. I would disagree. Words do not have opposites; definitions do. And since many words have multiple definitions (as you established in your example), it is inevitable that many words will have multiple opposites, because their definitions are multiple. Just a bit of a quibble, I suppose, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Your mileage may vary...
Well, first of all, let's make the 'linguist vs layman' distinction... in the 'layman' realm (where neither of us live when it comes to words), I think my statement is accurate.
But if we really get into the weeds, which I love, I don't think either one is actually accurate in this case. What I was pointing out was actually something on the order of 'social use'. On the playground, one of the important 'social uses' of the word boy is to separate the boys from the girls. When I was in school they taught sex ed to 'boys' in one classroom, 'girls' in another... thus it was the sex that was the 'opposite'.
Whereas (especially back in my day) we would use the phrase 'this is what separates the men from the boys' and it was the age/ physical maturity that was what was being brought forward.
So the men could have a 'boys night out'... and we understood that 'females' weren't allowed.
So when we look at the word 'patriarchy'; my first concern is the definition. And it must be said that the 'social use' of the word 'patriarchy' has a couple of different ways it is opposed. The person who started this thread spoke anthopologically and said, "Well, compared to matriarchy...', but I doubt that one person in a hundred in the US, when they think of 'patriarchy' think 'as opposed to matriarchy'. They think 'as opposed to equality'. Not sure how the Africans would take it :)
Okay, fair enough. But I still feel like you are using "social uses" to describe the fact that words can mean different things depending on the context in which they are used. That's the definition of "meaning." And when you get down to it, any meaning that a word holds comes from the way the word is used, which can change over time; that's why you don't hear anyone talking about stacking faggots on the woodpile any more! But like I said, it's just a quibble, and rather a tangential one at that. We can agree to disagree on this particular definition. :-)
In other news, I did like the idea of adjacent authority that you explored. I hadn't ever thought about that before, but I think you've hit on something there. I'm not sure I would take it quite as far as you did (someone 100 years dead doesn't have much authority anymore, I'd say), but I think the basic concept is an important element in exploring how authority structures work, on a broader scale.
Well here, as a Biblical Scholar, and linguist, I think you have fallen quite on your face!
>>(someone 100 years dead doesn't have much authority anymore, I'd say),
1) Do a word search on the Greek word 'patriarch' in the NT and you will find 14 people specifically listed. They all had been dead for well over 100 years at the time.
2) Two of them are literally quoted, by Christ, as an example of someone the unbelieving Jews *should have* been treating as an authority, but weren't.
3) Jer 35:18 And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
Jer 35:19 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.
I would, indeed do, argue that a patriarch is not truly a patriarch until they have been dead for generations!
Okay, now you are departing from the "social use" of the word patriarch. Of course, certain men have an influence (or authority, if you prefer) that extends well beyond their lifetime. Primary among these would be prophets who were called by God to proclaim God's Law and guidance to His people. Of course, their influence is going to extend centuries after their deaths.
However, when you speak of "the patriarchy" in modern America, most people do not immediately think of Abraham, Moses and the prophets of the OT. They think of the system by which men disproportionately tend to hold positions of power over women, even (as they see it) in cases where the woman may be more qualified to hold said authority. This use of the term is focused on authority in the immediate sense, not in the "God called this man to show us His eternal, unchangeable way" sense.
When I made the comment you quoted above, I was thinking personally, as patriarchy relates to my own life. Undoubtedly, my great-grandfather has influenced me in ways that I don't even realize, but practically speaking, his authority over me (and my children) does not exist. I know nothing about his life, his character or his desires for his children; I don't even know his name. Surely you are not suggesting that this nameless, faceless, completely unknown man holds some kind of genuine authority over me, simply because he happened to sire my father's father. And that doesn't even take into account what authority my mother's grandfather (who is equally unknown to me) would necessarily also have. And that is just within my own, personal familial line. When you raise this idea to a societal level, it quickly becomes untenable to say that any of these long dead fathers have any measurable influence or authority on the generations who are currently alive, except for those exceptional few (prophets and presidents) whose influence greatly exceeds the authority of the "common man" even in life.
Perhaps I am moving beyond your definition of patriarchy into a definition that you disagree with and thus, are not choosing to defend; making that distinction was the original purpose of establishing your definition, if I understand your post correctly. If that is the case, then perhaps none of what I've said actually pertains to what you are trying to establish.
Wow, what a great comment.
I will respond more info, when I get to the point where I can sit down and type into a computer, I’m on the road right now, but a couple quick notes: to the extent that your grandfather has no influence over you, my comment would be that he’s not a patriarch. Not all men succeeded in being patriarch, even when they have great grandchildren. Patriarchy is a value system in which some succeed much more than others, and it is a system that influences this society at large.
And your 2nd point or at least the second that I remember right now, while dictating on my phone, has to do it definitions and yes, indeed one of my big points in this particular paper and this series of papers is to point back to the biblical and historic idea of patriarchy, not the modern perversion thereof. Thus my idea of Jason is a direct attack upon the modern way that the word patriarchy is used.
I dictated all of this on my phone without even my reading glasses on, so I hope it’s legible.
Okay, now I see where we miscommunicated. I was hearing you say that all men become patriarchs simply by virtue of having progeny to wield authority over. What I now understand you to be saying is that all men have the potential to become patriarchs, but not all achieve this level of authority. Further, one of the marks of achieving patriarchal status is that your authority continues to hold some sway even long after your death.
That, I can agree with.
I would also argue that we are currently living not just in a non-patriarchal age, but in a deliberately anti-patriarchal age.
By the way, the 14 men listed as Patrix, in the new Testament are Abraham, David, and the 12 sons of Jacob. One can certainly argue that they were all in one sense profits, that is certainly not the sense that is being used by this word.
My other example, was Jeremiah 35. In Jeremiah, 35, men were still obeying the commandments of their long, dead, great great, great, great. Grandfather.
After reading the background material, I find myself feeling inadequately prepared to enter this discussion. But I will give it a try.
First a question. By replying in a comment, am I participating in a “letter exchange?” Or is there a more formal means?
Next a few points to position myself. I am a baby-boomer, semi-retired from a reasonably prosperous engineering career. I am a husband, father, and grandfather. I grew up on a farm and have lived my entire adult life in the same mid-sized community in the Midwest. I am a Christian practicing with all the confusion of modern ELCA Lutherans. I love respectful arguments with thoughtful points on virtually any topic. I argue from a perspective that common sense, experience, and faith should not be dismissed as source material. I love to explore new ideas, but my skeptical streak appears when academic studies defy conventional wisdom with claims of scientific certainty. So, I have plenty to think about these days!
I am aware of the conflicting views on patriarchy, but I am not as versed as other commentors in the anthropology, versus the natural order argument, versus the divinely ordained argument. When I use the word “patriarchy,” my context is “the institution that is or was the enemy of classic feminism.”
It will take me a few days to offer my letter.
Certainly commenting on any of our posts is a form of participation. however, writing your own post and linking it to ours, and letting us know that you have written it, would be a fuller form of participation
Men have more physical strength and are the protectors. Women reproduce and are extremely vulnerable under those conditions. Men rule the outer world and provide the living conditions. The female runs the home and is responsible for the offspring. Different functions of equal importance.
Part of that is the subject of my next post in the series :)