Patriarchy - Science topic

Robots do not have the biological capability to give birth to human babies. Human reproduction involves complex biological processes, including the fusion of sperm and egg, gestation, and childbirth, which are inherently tied to human physiology. While robots can assist in various aspects of reproductive health, such as fertility treatments or prenatal care, they cannot replicate the biological mechanisms of human reproduction. The idea of robots giving birth to humans often appears in speculative fiction, exploring themes of artificial intelligence and the future of humanity, but it remains purely fictional and not grounded in scientific reality.

In my point of view, religion's influence varies in diverse conditions. It really depends, and is not absolute.

I agree, if only there will be a man and a woman as parents.

In the contemporary discourse on sustainable development, a paradigm shift is observable — from traditionally homogeneous urban and rural planning initiatives to models that are cognizant of gender disparities and the overarching patriarchal structures. As urban and rural landscapes metamorphose, the integration of gender-inclusive perspectives becomes not only desirable but indispensable. Challenging patriarchal norms, deeply embedded in societal structures, requires a multi-faceted approach within the planning sphere.

Historically, planning paradigms have been influenced by prevailing societal norms, often marginalizing specific demographic groups, especially women. Urban and rural spaces have been designed with implicit biases, sometimes inadvertently reinforcing patriarchal ideals. Streets, public transport, and even rural agricultural spaces have frequently failed to consider the distinct needs of all genders, often resulting in environments that are unaccommodating or even hostile to certain groups.

To effectively challenge and deconstruct these patriarchal norms, there's a pressing need for active consultation and collaboration with diverse gender groups during the planning stages. Active community participation can illuminate the differential needs of various demographics, ensuring that urban and rural spaces are designed to be accessible, safe, and accommodating for everyone. For instance, women farmers in rural areas might provide insights into how agricultural spaces can be designed to better suit their needs, or urban women might highlight the safety challenges they face in public transportation during late hours.

Another avenue to be explored is the infusion of gender studies in urban and rural planning curricula. By grounding future planners in the theories and practices of gender-inclusivity, we ensure a generation of professionals who are intrinsically sensitive to the nuances of gender in development. This educational foundation will invariably lead to planning outcomes that are naturally more inclusive and equitable.

In tandem with these endeavors, data-driven decision-making can serve as a lynchpin in the quest for gender-inclusive development. By harnessing data analytics, planners can identify and rectify gender disparities in both urban and rural developments. This approach, underpinned by empirical evidence, can guide decision-makers in crafting policies and infrastructure that challenge traditional norms and prioritize inclusivity.

Moreover, looking globally, various regions have pioneered innovative strategies in this domain. Scandinavian countries, for instance, have made significant strides in gender-inclusive urban planning. Emulating and adapting successful models from diverse cultural and geographical contexts can provide valuable blueprints for urban and rural planners everywhere.

In conclusion, as urban and rural landscapes undergo transformation, the imperatives of inclusivity, equity, and justice cannot be sidelined. Only by actively recognizing and addressing patriarchal structures can we envisage and realize environments that truly cater to the multifaceted needs of all gender groups.

This might help:

Thanks, Alaa Ali for finding this discussion on Research Gate and bringing it to my attention again. Feel free to propose answers to one or more of the questions. As for this one:

5. If new materialism provides a platform for theories that might be different or even (in terms of their basis philosophical presuppositions) incompatible, can feminist inquiry use this platform for common goals / research projects?

- my own attempts at re-thinking are circling around terms like "communities of critters" (using Haraway's terms) and "entanglements". Feminist philosophy should be multi-layered, trying out ways of juggling with different subject-positions. "Nature" and "culture", for example, are not distinct, but they are not "the same" either. "Women" stay subjects, although there are many different ways of living gender. This takes into account that feminist philosophy is not politics, but it is not apolitical either. This is what I like about Haraway.

I'm only going to touch on the most common ones here. When we see 'patriarchy' being used we're seeing it coming from two main groups: feminists and traditionalists. The feminist version of patriarchy stems from the dynamics behind this, which are known as hegemonic masculinity. What this means is a system where both males and females at a young age have their behaviors influenced by external factors. This then branches off into other economical, social and political factors that leads to males having a dominant role in society. The source of this is an objective goal of what all males should strive to be. This pattern repeats itself, hence perpetuating the cycle known as hegemonic masculinity.

However, this objective goal for masculinty means many males themselves get hurt by this based on two fronts: males who strive for these goals will always be put in the stigmatized beta status due to one's masculinity being relative to other males. And the other way this hurts males is that not all of them, whether they're heterosexual or homosexual, fit into the typical hegemonic masculine roles. Some call this behavior of males related to not fitting in with the status quo non-hegemonic masculinity, while traditionists subscribing to functionalist theory call this effeminate behavior.

Most traditionalists, including white knights, paleoconservatives and fascists, subscribe to functionalist theory. This group does not deny the reality of patriarchy at its core, but rejects the idea of hegemonic masculinity despite functionalism being the result of the dynamics behind what they're criticizing. What functionalism means is that everything is justifiably the way it should be because it's what helps society (or tribes) function at their best. This means when males and females stick to their roles it's for the best interests of everybody. In other words, they believe what's termed as hegemonic masculinity is a positive thing, and they also tend to think biological rather than social and psychological factors play a far greater role in people's behaviors.

Personally I have criticisms of functionalism for several reasons. My biggest criticism of it is it goes much deeper than gender roles, having a great deal of cultural baggage behind it. Many functionalist critics call this cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony is problematic because it usually has a very rigid set of standards concerning how a society (or tribe) should function such as political ideology, various social issues and not taking into account humans are much more than biologically-programmed robots with each having unique individual assets and interests.

Functionalists also either fail to recognize, or are intentionally ignorant to the fact that we live a modern era where females for the most part have already been liberated from their roles in westernized societies while males have not been. Even so-called nonfeminist traditional women have benefited from the very thing they criticize. Another criticism I have of functionalism is that I don't see how it's benefited the world when we look at the perpetual conflicts, wars and misery it has caused on so many various fronts. This is the problem with functionalism: it was effective for perpetuating the human species, but in doing so it has to rely on many negative aspects to do so. It has also nearly caused humanity to come to an end due to its inability to adapt and be reliant on the most negative aspects of humanity in order to survive. It also does not take into account that other methods of living can be effective for acheiving survival, with an extra bonus: individual happiness and freedom.

I agree with some parts of functionalism, but relying on it as a whole has not been a good thing in my opinion. Much too frequently functionalism has been used to justify keeping a plethora of cultural norms in place that extend to gender roles, politics, economics, 'deviant' behaviors, etc. Perhaps in order to answer questions like this more effectively we should look at human history throughout the industrial, agrarian and hunter/gatherer era. It seems to me we are actually returning to our historical roots during the hunter/gatherer era as more women gain their independence. Patriarchy was a construct from the agrarian era from the past (maybe) 10,000 years where women's roles became more limited.

If I may,

the narrative is not relevant as a series of ideas, those ideas change,

especially given Trump's flip flopping. The narrative is based on groupthink around a personnality (trump) and leaders (pro trump figures, some of the republican leadership) though the identity itself is built, on opposition to mainstream elites, within the right wing. The most effective counter narrative would be to challenge the validity of the basis of the group or the narrative, to destabilize the current ideological bubble. Either showing that elites are just people that should not be opposed as a group, or to show that Trump is not deviating from the mainstream. That would be limited by the fact that the counter narrative cannot be deployed by people who would have interest in lying and can still be dismissed as a democrat plot. Ultimately, the only way to properly engage such a narrative is first on an individual basis, where group effects can be minimized, and then to put such objective and unquestionable points (to a Trump supporter not a liberal) that they would be listened to even if they are opposite to what the group's narrative is.

Writers  like  Tasleema  Nasreen  ,   Arundhati  Roy,    Shobha  De  ,Urvashi  Bhutalia,  Anita Desai’s  novels and genres emerged which reflected, explicitly and implicitly such thoughts. Thus Amrita Pritam’s “The revenue stamp”, Nayantara Sahgal’s “Storm in Chandigarh”  etc  are  examples.  Most  of  their  woman  protagonists  are  educated  woman  groaning under self conflict under circumstances of marriage, to their traditionally assigned roles.  Even  Arundhati  Roy’s  “God  of small  things”  shows three  generations  of  women projecting  silent  suffering,  revolting  and  finally  making way to herself. Taslima Nasreen’s works  are  another  spectrum  of  expressive  feminism.  Post  independence  Indian  woman novelist in English  or even  in regional genres  show educated  woman  in the  changed  socio economic conditions, revolting to their exploitation, skeptical to the traditional roles assigned to  them,  the  inevitability  of  marriage,  patriarchy  and  male chauvinism.  Desai  has  created  a  feminist discourse  of  literary  writings  showing  signs  of  a  seething  discontentment,  hatred  for  the patriarchal norms of “civilized” human existence, aspiration for liberation from societal and  traditional  family  norms  made  compulsory  for  her  acceptable  existence  in  the  mainstream male  dominated  society.  Her  female  characters  are  mostly  in  search  of  self-authenticity,  independent of the identity that has been dumped on her. Desai however has a typical style of  her  own  to  register  protest  against  patriarchal  norms.

I'm agree with Luis Teodoro with his consideration of the meaning of Patriachal situation. I'm not sure of how to foster, but a first step must be related with the correct interpretation of the different ways in which patriarchy has developed in different societies.