Ironically, I think that Wiscon needs more patriarchy in order to fight sexism.

[xiphias]

The idea of broad-based consensus as a decision model is central to some versions of feminism. And I think we're seeing the limitations of that model.

I think Wiscon tries to work with the ideal of democratic anarchy, with large, broad-based communities working together to hash out actions without a centralized authority to impose ideas by force. Centralized forceful authority that can hammer down Rules From On-High is, as I understand it, the defining characteristic of patriarchy. Whether or not that authority has a penis or not. This particular meaning of "patriarchy" is a concept of how to do things, not something that is around people who identify as "male".

One form of feminism is defined in part by "democratic egalitarian consensus-based anarchy as opposed to centralized authoritarian ruling power."

And what we're finding is that democratic egalitarian consensus-based anarchy is helpless to deal with an active ongoing threat in its midst. In order to deal with threats, cons are having to institute pockets of patriarchy. A Safety Committee may be run by consensus within itself, and its formation may be set up by democratic consensus. But there has to be a decision that "this group has authority to make and enforce exclusionary decisions." That's pretty much what patriarchy is, in at least one definition.

Edited to Add: Comments locked, because the fight in the comments started to get more embarrassing than funny.

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Do you mean "hierarchy"? There's nothing inherently male in telling people to do X because you're their boss.

Patriarchy, being derived from "pater", "father", does kinda require male-ness.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Etymology is not definition.

[tylik.livejournal.com]

Hmph. This is not exclusive of my experience of matriarchy.

Though I wonder if it's also an expression of the divide between revolutionaries, and people interested in the generally less sexy process of building stable and effective systems of governance.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

"Splitters!"

ROFLMAO!!!

[rosefox]

Your meaning is going to be entirely lost because of your choice of words here.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I'm willing to bet even odds that the definitions I'm using are relevant to at least some people on the Wiscon committee, though, and how they perceive the world.

The relevant thing here is that I'm pretty sure that Wiscon was developed under the paradigms I'm talking about.

[redbird]

I think you might find the word kyriarchy worth looking at here.

Also, if your point is that what Wiscon needs is more top-down structure—which is what I get from your comments—maybe what's needed here is more third-wave feminism.

Frankly, it seems to me that a nontrivial part of what Wiscon needs right now is better communications, both within the con committee and between the concom and the rest of the world. (Also documentation, but documentation can help with communication.) It looks (from here) as though a significant piece of the problem is that a lot of people didn't know what was going on, or weren't asked for an opinion: that's not about consensus, if anything it's closer to a more authoritarian "this person/these few people get to make the decision."

[tylik.livejournal.com]

I'm at some remove from the Wiscon thing. Elise is a friend, but I've never been to Wiscon, having been mostly out of the con scene for the last many years. (And when I was more involved, it was out on the West Coast.) So this is just general observation.

Most, though not all, of the organizations I've seen adopt some kind of consensus based structure have at least some of the time fallen into being dominated by a few strong personalities who did not hold formal positions of power and were largely unaccountable.** Some of these arrangements were fairly functional, many were not, but it's common enough that while it's arguably not consensus I think of it as a pretty common mode consensus often falls into.

I think there is a point that if a major ingredient of your subculture is being wary of authority, and being inclusive, it can be hard to exercise power, and hard to say "fuck it, enough is enough, GTFO." It can be also hard to work out how to deal with individuals or entities that have power or influence.

* And really, now that it's semi-local, I'd been kind of thinking of trying to make it out there. Though I'm lame and overscheduled enough who knows if I'd ever have gotten around to it.
** This is frequent enough that I kind of wonder if it's made me into a Statist. I prefer to work by consensus when possible, but having clear roles and procedures to fall back on in times of strife seems rather more clean to me.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

This is utterly freaking hilarious.

First of all, Wiscon is the convention that re-instituted racial segregation. Full stop. The great evil of my youth, returned again to gloat in grinning pride from the convention, under the happy shiny new name of "safe spaces". Wiscon is not in the forefront of anything but the very same revival of fascism that is now threatening the world with war. On a small scale, yes, but still something which the Old Masters of Science Fiction of my youth -- great people like Asimov and Heinlein -- would have abhorred.

Secondly, "patriarchy" has nothing at all to do with "centralized decision making." It has to do with (literally) "rule by fathers" and (generally) "rule by men."

But there has to be a decision that "this group has authority to make and enforce exclusionary decisions." That's pretty much what patriarchy is, in at least one definition.

... in a definition that makes about as much sense as defining it as "cherry vanilla flavored ice cream." Well, I oppose Equestrian matriarchy to your patriarchy, and define it as one of Pinkie Pie's cupcakes. Makes about as much sense ... and you can actually eat Pinkie Pie's cupcakes. If she were real you could, and she's more real than that definition!

And what we're finding is that democratic egalitarian consensus-based anarchy is helpless to deal with an active ongoing threat in its midst. In order to deal with threats, cons are having to institute pockets of patriarchy.

"Active ongoing threat?" Tell us more of this vile menace, which is too vile to be dealt with by normal con security?

[ron_newman]

- Wiscon is the convention that re-instituted racial segregation

what? please explain (to those of us who have never attended Wiscon)

[submarine-bells.livejournal.com]

Um, that's really not what "patriarchy" means.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Your attempt to employ fascist defined semantic terms instead of free anarcho-collective feminist terms is noted, and the Secret Fun Freedom Police are already on their way to take you to the Fun Liberation Device of Dr. Guillotin.

[ron_newman]

I think you are using "patriarchy" to mean what most people would call either "hierarchy" or "authority".

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Or "sanity" ...

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

Drawing from second wave feminism, "that's not funny!"
Yes, Wiscon procedures are proving themselves hideously ineffective. Yes, it looks like more structure and authority would help.

Pretending all authority is intrinsically patriarchal is silly. Did you say it just to introduce a note of lighthearted absurdity to a fraught discussion? Or were you deliberately mocking the kind of feminists who say things like all patriarchy is intrinsically authoritarian? Not helpful. Not funny and not helpful.

[sethg]

I know there was a strain of thought in second-wave feminism that treated hierarchy as a manifestation of patriarchy (which was controversial even then), but turning that idea around and saying that adding hierarchy means “more patriarchy” is... obscuring more than it illuminates.

Also, from what I can tell, Wiscon’s structural problem here is not an absence of hierarchy but an excess of hierarchy, with this committee taking information from that committee and reporting to the concom which reports to etc. etc. As nihilistic_kid said, the Catholic Church only has seven levels of hierarchy between an altar boy and the Pope, so a SF con with a thousand members should be able to make do with far fewer.

[keross.livejournal.com]

"Centralized forceful authority that can hammer down Rules From On-High is, as I understand it, the defining characteristic of patriarchy"

Your logic is flawed.

Patriarchy: 1 a. A form of social organization in which the father is the head of the family, clan, or tribe and decent is reckoned in the male line. b. a society based on this social organization. 2 a. an institution or organization in which power is held by and transferred through males. b. the principals or philosophy upon which control by male authority is based. {Webster's College Dictionary}

While a centralized, highly controlled, governing system is part of one type of patriarchy, it is only one form, there are others that are more along the line of representatives or a council of elders.

The key factor in all of them, and the definition, is the maleness of the person or persons holding power.

Your argument is convoluted, at best and totally wrong in a few spots. Would it not have been be simpler to have said that you want a more structured governing body in the Con, that there are times when a consensus based democracy will not work? And leave out the gender based terminology? ((It took me three times reading through this to figure out what you were saying - or at least make some sense of the post.))

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Seriously, though, what's the "active ongoing threat" in the midst of Wiscon? Some annoying guys harassing girls? What, they can't just set some basic rules of polite conduct and expel people who violate them? How inept are these brilliant leaders of Progressive science fiction?

I remember Heinlein once setting forth a long list of the things a human should be able to do. Apparently, Heinlein's unworthy heirs not only can't do most of the things on that list -- they can't even run a convention.

Seriously pathetic.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

You DO realize that redefining "patriarchy" as "centralized authority" transforms it from something that can be viewed as "always bad", to something that is frequently necessary and unavoidable, right?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine once called this "expansion into insignificance," by analogy with "reduction to absurdity." And yes, it clears the ground for legitimizing actual patriarchy, which is a far from theoretical threat given what's actually going on in the Mideast and Africa right now.

[gothelittle.livejournal.com]

Looks like someone's never been a girl in middle school or highschool.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Women are all supposed to get along in a big mushy pile of anarchic love as opposed to evil male heirarchy -- except that, in real life, this isn't what happens. The next step is to blame males for all female arguments.

[tober.livejournal.com]

Came here to say something but, ah, screw it. Gonna go make popcorn.

[the-xtina.livejournal.com]

Came here to say "oh hey, isn't that the same jordan179 (Jordan Bassior) as over here and thisaway?"

[the-xtina.livejournal.com]

Hoooo boy. Reading the thread wherein he discussed how pedophelia is totes cool dudes. Trigger warnings, naturally.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.arts.sf.written/wCRAv5FPXj8/RWCygP_5qf8J

o_O