Talk:Androcracy

This page was nominated for deletion, it was decided to move it to its current title instead, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrarchy

NPOV?

This does appear to be suggesting widespread oppression of women, disenfranchisement, etc.; while I am not advocating a view for or against that proposition, I do not believe that this article is NPOV. 195.137.95.70

Can you be more specific? --Viriditas | Talk 06:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chiefly that Australia is 'androcratic' - while I realise the policy changes themselves are described as 'androcratic', there seems little objective evidence that these are conducted solely in the interests of men. Never ascribe to a conspiracy what you can ascribe to stupidity.195.137.95.70

Let's start by addressing the content you dispute:

In Australia, androcratic policy changes have impacted women in many significant ways: In 1999, the majority of Australian women's organisations were defunded by the federal Office of the Status of Women; In 2000, a consumption tax was added to tampons and breast pads; Funding for child care was decreased. Efforts are also underway to undermine federal sex discrimination laws that protect women. (Women in Action, 2003) --Viriditas | Talk 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I feel that is better described by 'chauvinistic' than 'androcratic'. While it is, to be sure, a series of policy changes which benefit men, it seems to me unlikely that they are deliberately to benefit men, or that they are symptoms of governance institutionally by and in the interests of men. Probably I'm being silly.195.137.95.70

I am not sure it is a series of policies to benefit men. How do they benefit? There seems to be no reason to single Australia out here and if noone minds I think that section ought to go. Anyone think of a reason why it, and not the US or Iraq, or China, should remain? Lao Wai 15:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

all over the map

Article should mention that the term was coined by Riane Eisler in The Chalice & The Blade, 1987, HarperCollins, p105

I'm not aware of any controversy about "gynocracy". I imagine there are a few well-documented cases of Amazons and such.

There is a controversy is about whether perhaps neither gender dominated the social organization of ancient cultures.

If we had a partnership model we wouldn't need the social programs cited by the article. IMO to cite "defunding" misses the point.

--Munge 08:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Example section? What?

The "Example" section is odd - what exactly is being exemplified? What in that section is an example of an androcracy? Simply because a government has a (even vast) majority of men, does not make it an androcracy. Androcratism is intentional (whether communicated or implied). Perhaps actual examples should be given instead of this bizzare paragraph. I would submit republican ancient greek and roman governments as examples of explicit androcracies.

How is this different from Patriarchy?

The definition, as given, seems to be exactly the same as the definition of patriarchy. Basically, both seem to be "rule by men", when in fact, Patriarchy should probably be "rule by fathers" & androcracy would seem to be rule by men. In fact, a true androcracy would seem to be rule by men FOR men, it not being merely enough that those who wield power are men, but that they rule for the benefit of the other men, possibly at the expense of females. I doubt a true androcracy has ever existed. Even in ancient societies women often had control over male slaves and male children, and it's almost laughable to posit that many male rulers cared more for the opinions or needs of the lowest born/poorest males of their societies rather than the ladies of their courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.200.70 (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I removed:

"Through scientific excavations of ancient sites, archaeologists have recently obtained a great deal of Neolithic data for re-evaluation and reconstruction of our past, indicating neither androcracy nor gynecocracy, but rather equalitarianism, i.e., women as priestesses and heads of clans seem to have played leading roles in all aspects of life, descent appears to have been traced through the mother, therefore men were subordinate." ,

because it's not consistent even with itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.129.112 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Androcracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103004742/http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/arc/world311011.htm to http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/arc/world311011.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)