Roger Ebert writes about the patriarchy.
I am not concerned so much with Church teachings, but with the way men’s minds work. To put it bluntly, I believe the world is patriarchal because men are bigger and stronger than women, and can beat them up.
And he watches the Blair/Hitchens debate.
The most stimulating thing about the debate was that it was held at all. How often do we ever hear fundamental questions debated in a civil manner between intelligent speakers? Would there be an audience on cable for weekly debates between college teams? In America, debating was the leading intercollegiate sport before the introduction of football.
Blair and Hitchens made points one might agree with, and points one might not. At one point, Hitchens asked Blair a question that hung in the air for a second and went unanswered, because Blair must have had no answer. This was the question:
“Is it good for the world to consider women as an inferior form, as all religions do?”
Of course the “we” who held the debate are Canadians.
The Edge of the American West 
7 comments
December 2, 2010 at 4:24 pm
nick
I think the current terms we identify genders with are incorrect and not biologically nor scientifically based.
I propose new gender terms.
XX = Female
XY = Half Female.
December 3, 2010 at 8:57 am
dave
Three quarters, be fair.
December 4, 2010 at 7:23 am
C Betley
Maybe patriarchy is the original sin that we need to be redeemed from.
December 6, 2010 at 10:24 am
David
In the absence of human law (A decision for cooperation?)or instinct (A form of unconscious law embodied in the genome?) disagreements are resolved on the basis of physical power, being venomous or some other natural weaponry.
Without considering the validity of any supernatural parts, religions seem (to this layman) to be embodiments of human law. Law conforms to the desires (and needs) of the most powerful groups of humans or it is ignored. As a consequence, human law (and religious law) growing from the era when a strong arm and sharp steel were the currency of power favored those groups.
Today power comes from the barrel of a gun mounted in a remote drone aircraft under the control of a person of superior intelligence (More than 50% of Univ. students in the US are women). Even tiny people can have formidable death dealing power. The old laws favoring arm-and-steel (This is a metonymy!) are now in conflict with who has real power. The law (and culture), made by the powerful, inevitably will change to reflect this. (Woe to male chauvinists on the receiving end of a Hellfire missile.)
Instinctual “laws” favoring certain groups of humans (if they exist…) will change in their importance with the new power available to the physically small. It is possible (study of current culture suggests) that humans have an instinct to defer to the tall and physically powerful, to more easily cooperate (be persuaded) by the physically beautiful and etc. If these are real instincts, and they cannot be changed, then I predict that people will seek to use technology (makeup? high heels? human growth hormone? plastic surgery?) to become bigger, stronger, healthier and more beautiful.
I fear the women and men of 2300 CE — 6 feet 6 inches, bench press 350 pounds, the beauty of Cleopatra, the intellect of Twain–and that is only the guys.
December 7, 2010 at 7:08 am
Mr Punch
Of course a question like “Is it good for the world to consider women as an inferior form, as all religions do?” is going to hang in the air — it can’t be answered until the respondent has reviewed the positions of all religions on gender issues. This could take some time.
December 7, 2010 at 8:26 am
Vance Maverick
That’s only so, Mr Punch, if the respondent chooses to evaluate the premise. Rejecting it outright would be an option — someone not committed, like Blair, to a religion open to such accusations, might have taken that tack.
December 7, 2010 at 10:37 pm
zhava
Yeah the big and stronger explanation doesn’t hold water any longer, unless we’re talking about cruising the bars in the early hours down in the docks area. Damn, even then… I know a few women who could probably make a large hairy man cry. We have PC rules, tech and all manner of levelers working in the favor of the traditionally gender disadvantaged. Plus women get to wear make-up and have a fashion choice most suit-wearing patriarchs couldn’t begin to compete with. I’m thinking even the term “patriarchy” should be retired – at least in the western dem zone.