12 thoughts on “Patriarchy is weird sometimes

  1. What’s wrong here?all these young girls dress in white and held in their father’s protective arms until they marry? Classic patriarchal values?

  2. annejjacobson: I don’t know if this is what magicalersatz had in mind (probably not, in fact), but for many of these portraits–especially those featuring a single child with her father’s arms coiled around her (as in the picture above)–I can’t help but think of wedding photos. Which I find slightly disturbing, given the context. But that’s just me.

  3. Michel, you probably got that my questions were rhetorical. I don’t like what’s being presented.

  4. Did any of you bother to read the article? Have any of you ever bothered to talk with people whose values differ from your own, only to discover that their values are sensible and coherent?

  5. Anonymous, look at the descriptions we have given (with the exception of 7, perhaps). You seem to think we are being critical in an uninformed way. But if you think “classic patriarchal values” is negative, then you ought to do some soul searching about what your values really are. The scenes do also employ some of the symbols of a Western wedding ceremony. E.g., the white gown for purity, the father “giving away” what has been “his” and so on. That makes some readers uncomfortable.

    You seem to think that we are ignorant of something going on, but I don’t see in our descriptions ANY ignorance of the values being acted on.

  6. Yep, the scenes employ such symbols. But in this case the artist himself has cautioned against such knee-jerk (and narrow) reactions:

    “He began interviewing the people he photographed and said that also helped shape his ideas of the decisions the young girls had made along with their fathers.

    “’When you start listening to what separate individuals who are part of a group have to say, it suddenly becomes about people and not just about a group mentality. There are huge diversities within the group and reasons for why they choose these ceremonies.’

    “He learned that many of the young women were independent thinkers and their fathers were simply trying to protect their loved ones the best way they knew how.”

    Comments 1-7, along with the original blurb itself, suggest a complete willingness to treat the symbols within the images (which, by the way, could suggest a baptism) as absolutely identical to the motivations of the individuals within them. The artist himself disavows that facile judgment.

    Or is the collective judgment here being directed against only the images? (If so, please help me understand the sense of the title, “Patriarchy is Weird Sometimes”.)

  7. Anonymous, I disagree with your analysis. It is extremely unlikely that a philosophy professor would simply take symbols to indicate motivation. We do teach courses such as ‘critical reasoning.’ We do often interact with people with views and values different from our own.

    I honestly think your reaction is not worth further discussion.

  8. OK, you don’t wish to discuss my reaction. Then please help me to understand the point of the initial posting. What is the meaning of the title, “Patriarchy is Weird Sometimes”? What is the sense of the “Good times!” that closes the initial posting? Is it really the case that the original posting is directed against the images only?

    Or perhaps you’d at least be willing to help me to understand your contributions to the comments. In comment #2, what is the thing to which “wrong” is being applied? (Again: is it just the pictures? Because they use certain symbols? If so, would you allow that those same elements could be interpreted differently, that is, as symbols for other things?) I have the same question in reference to #4’s “what’s being presented.”

Comments are closed.