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.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Usage sure is, and your usage is wayyyy nonstandard. One might even say, will make it near impossible for people to hear your point.

[tylik.livejournal.com]

Certainly not unprecedented, especially if you're looking into things like "power-over" as opposed to "power with". (I basically agree, mind you, and I haven't heard those definitions in a couple of decades, I don't think.)

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

The conflation of male-ness and power-over is inherently sexist and, quite frankly, counterproductive. It feels old fashioned, and not in the good way.

Having such rhetoric used in a situation which is itself about power over women is unfortunate.

[tylik.livejournal.com]

I certainly agree on the deeply problematic bit. But I would tend to say dated rather than non-standard. (Very ancient religion of the goddess where everyone was super nice and pro social justice because ya know, women.)

[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.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

"Dated", perhaps. More than "perhaps."

But when was Wiscon founded, and what definitions are in its bones? What is the "feminism" that Wiscon identifies itself with? Wiscon comes out of the 1970s feminism, which is precisely when those definitions are from. And I'm willing to bet that they're still in there in its institutional genome.

[rosefox]

But in the meantime you're going to alarm or annoy a lot of the people who might otherwise agree with you.

[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."

[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?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The Goddess is a big white horse with a rainbow mane and a horn and wings, and her name is Celestia. And she's more real and serious -- and will be remembered longer -- than this form of feminism. People will be watching My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic when "patriarchy = centralized authority" is but a footnote in a book called Really Silly Ideologies of 1970-2020.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

"Splitters!"

ROFLMAO!!!

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I think the Committee of Safety needs some sort of machine to expedite the -- ah -- neutralization of the threat from within. You know, those ci-devant followers of the old aristocracy who are more loyal to the King than to Fran ... I mean, to Wiscon.

I direct you to the marvelous device of Dr. Guillotin!

[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".

[ron_newman]

- Wiscon is the convention that re-instituted racial segregation

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

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The "Safe Spaces" for People of Color. It's racial segregation regardless of which race or races you exclude.

Here's the link

Wiscon 36 To Engage in Open Racial Segregation

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Or "sanity" ...

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Etymology is not definition.

In this context, common usage, current referents, relevant associations, and history continuing through the present, are.

Here's a definition that could be dismissed as 'etymology only': A radical is one who eats radishes.

In today's context, 'patriarchy' means a system controlled by men only, or a group of men who control that system.' As well as common usage, this is supported by:

Relevant associations: paternal, patrimony, patriot, patricide, paterfamilias, patriarch

History through the present

[houseboatonstyx.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.

Er, which kind of people? The Mamas or the Papas?

Seriously, who exactly are you expecting to get that point, and is it sarcasm, and if so, on which side? Whoever it is, I suggest you somehow send this message directly to them -- or rewrite it to be more understandable by the rest of us.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Don't troll this blatantly, we're supposed to be better than that.

Eta, not that anything you wrote here was actually *wrong*...