RIP #MeToo

[lilpixieofterror]

And I applaud you personal commitment.

But I do wonder if you find it helpful to point out that the unmarried woman in a relationship is less secure than the married woman in the abusive relationship while you are helping them at shelters and afterwards.

In this context you mean? It makes quite a bit of difference because abuse happens anywhere, at any time, and attempting to pin it on a group of Christians you ‘think might lead to domestic violence’ is not the least bit helpful. It simply comes off as an attempt to smear your opponents without evidence or even facts.

You are the one making the argument, in the context of a thread about the me too movement, a movement centered on raising awareness of abuse and offering empathy for women in the situations, as well as changing social norms.

Another smear, you’re very good at smear campaigns, I’ll give you that, but it’s too bad the media didn’t care about abused women and only saw it as an means to an end and silenced it when it took down too many of their own.

Your commented was in response to my post which asked how much abuse should a woman endure.

And this entire topic started as a smear against a group of people you disapprove.

[lilpixieofterror]

You make good points. Part of the legacy of the patriarchical/complementarian culture that endured till the latter half of the 20th century is that with the teaching that the woman is the submissive help-meet, many times women view the marital problems as their fault, not the fault of the husband. And so she shoulders at least some of the shame and the burden, feeling that somehow she is at least in part to blame. This, in fact, helps marriages survive abuse (but at what cost to the woman?), and helps keep it quiet, behind closed doors as it were, and contributes to the perception 'all is well' when in fact it is not.

In an egalitarian mindset, the woman is more likely to understand 'this is NOT my fault', 'this fellow has a problem and I do not deserve this, nor will I tolerate it'. When the woman's worth is tied to the man (as it often is in a patriarchical society) it is very hard for a woman to build that sort of self-confidence and self-worth that enables them to walk away from such a situation. In patriarchical societies, if children are involved, it is even more difficult, as she has little or no financial recourse for raising the children if she leaves him.

I did find an interesting study on this as it relates to the Church by a Christian author that believes that the correct understanding of the Biblical text actually helps prevent abuse.

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...-594_Tracy.pdf

Source: above

These studies do find a link between conservative religion and domestic violence, but it is not the simple causal relationship the feminist model would predict. Rather, there is an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence. Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are found to be the least likely group to engage in domestic violence, though conservative Protestant men who are irregular church attendees are the most likely to batter their wives. Thus current research disproves the feminist hypothesis that patriarchy is the single[ emphasis mine] underlying cause of all abuse against women, though it strongly suggests that patriarchy plays some role in domestic violence[again, emphasis mine]

© Copyright Original Source

The conclusion is also very informative:

Source: above

While all forms of patriarchy can and do contribute to domestic violence, it appears that the models of patriarchy which give husbands the greatest levels of power and authority are most likely to stimulate domestic violence. Furthermore, recent social science research which reveals an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence among conservative Protestant men challenges both patriarchalists and egalitarians to modify their understanding of gender roles and abuse and to work together to combat domestic violence

© Copyright Original Source

emphasis mine again.

He (again this is an paper by a Christian person from a Christian perspective with a positive view of the effect of Christian theology on the potential for abuse) also points out the following:

Source: above

Thus we would anticipate that very traditional patriarchal teaching that views male headship primarily in terms of power and control, places few parameters on submission, and urges women not to correct their husbands could most easily prompt insecure and misogynistic men to justify abuse and domination. This approach to gender roles also undercuts a woman’s ability to challenge her husband’s abusive behavior.There are numerous examples of this approach to gender roles in the very conservative patriarchal literature. Marlene Evans, for instance, argues that a wife should never correct her husband even in private and should never fail to obey her husband. Martha Peace instructs wives that they can only challenge their husband’s authority one time, and after that they should accept his decision as the will of God, even if that means suffering for righteousness’ sake. Jack Hyles argues that one of the best things parents can do for a daughter is teach her strict obedience that means “she must obey immediately, without question and without argument.” The reason this is so important is that she will be transferring her obedience to her future husband. Hence, parents who require their daughter to obey immediately, without question and without argument “have done a big favor for their future son-in-law.”61 It takes no stretch of the imagination to visualize how this kind of rigid patriarchal teaching that gives men virtually unbridled power and little or no accountability to their wives could stimulate unhealthy men to become abusive and domineering. Furthermore, this type of patriarchal teaching clearly programs women to accept abuse. Some patriarchal literature is even more extreme and actually instructs wives who are being physically abused to passively submit to their abusive husbands and to accept the resultant physical and emotional suffering as an act of godliness.

© Copyright Original Source

A question not answered is whether the high attendance males have a higher or lower than average abuse rate as compared to the average in society. The paper cited showed 2% for regular attendees, up to over 10% for sporadic attendees, but those come from a source I can't get to so I can't determine the time frame of that 2%. One year averages for the US are around 1.2% (wikipedia), but w/o a timeframe for the 2%, I can't offer a fair comparison to the 1.2% yearly average for the entire US population.

So the evidence for that 'encouragement of abuse' I'm talking about is real. But - if one is a true follower of Christ and balances those teachingsw with the whole of the teaching of scripture, those other teachings are sufficient to counteract that pressure.

But for the marginal followers, it is not.

A final comment from the paper above:

Source: above

It is imperative that conservatives begin to acknowledge that there is a real causal connection between male headship and domestic violence. It is troubling when conservatives who affirm male headship dismiss this connection and imply that abuse is largely or solely the result of feminism. For instance, see John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem; Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991) 62

© Copyright Original Source

*about the author:

Dr. Tracy’s research and ministry specialization is in gender, sexuality, and abuse. Dr. Tracy has served the state of Arizona on the Governor’s Commission for the Prevention of Violence against Women, and is also Director of Research and Curriculum for Mending the Soul Ministries.

https://www.ps.edu/faculty-staff/steve-tracy/

Yet Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer got away with their crimes, for years, in an industry that plays lip service to women rights. How did that happen? Anyone can explain it to me?

[oxmixmudd]

I did read that abstract on the paper. But it brings in the commonly used assertion of real Christian in contrast to the nominal Christian. Would regular attendance at a church make reporting (self reporting at that) inhibit reporting? And the theological questions of the influence of metanoia, state of the soul, for the regular church goer is hardly suitable for scientific study, but a central question for an approach anchored in Christian theology. All fascinating questions, but unlikely to be actually discussed in a venue like this.

Submitting to an abusive husband, and acceptance of the physical and emotional trauma, as a manifestation of godliness is quite similar to the self flagellation and hair shirts often derided by critics of Catholicism. But which is more common, self flagellation or passive submission to abuse?

Again - you make good points. But I think the author appears to have a balanced and educated understanding of many of the factors. Note that while the paper wants to push back against the idea that Patriarchy can be treated as the SOLE cause of abuse, he does several times make clear that the research is clear that there is a strong positive correlation between patriarchal culture and spousal abuse.

He does note in the paper itself that one could argue that more modern (i.e. more egalitarian) applications of the balancing of the scriptural injunctions for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church (i.e. sacrificially, with an eye towards being a servant leader) may not actually qualify as a patriarchal model, at least not in practical terms.

[oxmixmudd]

Yet Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer got away with their crimes, for years, in an industry that plays lip service to women rights. How did that happen? Anyone can explain it to me?

I think you covered it quite well yourself - lip service. The church is by no means the only bastian of patriarchal culture in the US or the world. Nor is it by any means the worst stronghold for it. My original comment was that Conservative Church Patriarchal culture is itself an element that encourages abuse. But that is not the only element that defines the church or church teaching. And as I acknowledged in several of my replies, proper balancing of all the scripture on the topic pushes back against the pressure a partriarchical sub-culture exerts towards the abuse of women. And many churches have moved beyond strict adherence to that model, recognizing in Paul's teachings Paul's own recognition of many of the problems with it - e.g. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, and his comments on the husband treating the wife as the weaker vessel (which is difficult for modern ears, but in his time is was a call for compassion and respect for the wife, rather than the more abusive actions and discipline that were common), and his admonition to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think you covered it quite well yourself - lip service.

Sayeth the person unable to back up his assertions with facts. Do tell Jim, if your assertion is true why than:

1. Why are modern victims of domestic abuse, most commonly, abused by boy friends while husbands are the least common?
2. How did the entertainment and media industry end up with so many cases of abuse?

Woke liberals love to blame others, but never turn their eye on themselves. Why?

The church is by no means the only bastian of patriarchal culture in the US or the world. Nor is it by any means the worst stronghold for it. My original comment was that Conservative Church Patriarchal culture is itself an element that encourages abuse.

Yet, the most high profile cases, in the past few years, have mainly come from the liberal camps in the media, entertainment industry, and political parties being among the worst offenders. Some of the most ‘woke’ groups have had some of the worst problems with abusing women. For your theory to be true, shouldn’t it be the reverse?

But that is not the only element that defines the church or church teaching. And as I acknowledged in several of my replies, proper balancing of all the scripture on the topic pushes back against the pressure a partriarchical sub-culture exerts towards the abuse of women. And many churches have moved beyond strict adherence to that model, recognizing in Paul's teachings Paul's own recognition of many of the problems with it - e.g. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, and his comments on the husband treating the wife as the weaker vessel (which is difficult for modern ears, but in his time is was a call for compassion and respect for the wife, rather than the more abusive actions and discipline that were common), and his admonition to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'.

That doesn’t answer a word I said.

[simplicio]

In this context you mean? It makes quite a bit of difference because abuse happens anywhere, at any time, and attempting to pin it on a group of Christians you ‘think might lead to domestic violence’ is not the least bit helpful. It simply comes off as an attempt to smear your opponents without evidence or even facts.

Another smear, youÂ’re very good at smear campaigns, IÂ’ll give you that, but itÂ’s too bad the media didnÂ’t care about abused women and only saw it as an means to an end and silenced it when it took down too many of their own.

And this entire topic started as a smear against a group of people you disapprove.

Do you think the Church too movement is an attempt to smear Christians? The women who demanded that paige Patterson not be given a retirement worthy of a hero of the faith were not attempting to pin abuse on Christians.

This entire topic was started in the OP, which incorrectly noted that me too was dead; both the LA and NY Times published opinion pieces on the Kobe-rape topic. When a major icon dies an untimely death, there is a period in which most people feel should be a grace period of mourning. Violations of that indeterminate period provoke strong backlash: a high school principle retracted a post about karma catching up to Bryant over the rape case, and is apparently receiving a backlash. And your comment,started in response to my question about how much abuse should a woman put up with, which I think you still haven't addressed.

How much abuse should a woman put up with? How much should a Christian woman, in a Christian family, who goes to a bible believing and preaching church, put up with?

[simplicio]

Yet Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer got away with their crimes, for years, in an industry that plays lip service to women rights. How did that happen? Anyone can explain it to me?

And you expect the secular sphere to respond better than the Christian sphere?

If Weinstein and Lauer somehow disprove the industry's committment to women's rights, then one has to question Christianity's comment to rights when we are confronted with such cases.

Whether Hollywood or the pulpit, attitudes of the culture can and do affect how people react. And that view is entirely consistent with the Christian doctrine of original sin.

[lilpixieofterror]

Do you think the Church too movement is an attempt to smear Christians? The women who demanded that paige Patterson not be given a retirement worthy of a hero of the faith were not attempting to pin abuse on Christians.

My friend, we can play this game all day long, but it doesn’t change the facts or the stats. The basic premise is that rises in feminist ideals leads to lessening of abuse, but the facts do not speak that at all. The facts tell us boy friends are the most common domestic abusers and industries that pay lip service to feminist ideals are the ones under attack for sexual harassment or sexual assault, so the idea that ‘these views lead to abuse!’ appears to not be based in fact.

This entire topic was started in the OP, which incorrectly noted that me too was dead; both the LA and NY Times published opinion pieces on the Kobe-rape topic. When a major icon dies an untimely death, there is a period in which most people feel should be a grace period of mourning. Violations of that indeterminate period provoke strong backlash: a high school principle retracted a post about karma catching up to Bryant over the rape case, and is apparently receiving a backlash. And your comment,started in response to my question about how much abuse should a woman put up with, which I think you still haven't addressed.

I did, you just don’t like the answer. Let’s start here, what industry has #metoo taken down most?

How much abuse should a woman put up with? How much should a Christian woman, in a Christian family, who goes to a bible believing and preaching church, put up with?

I had a pastor tell a domestic abuse victim, “Where does the Bible say you should be abused?” and she couldn’t say where. That should answer the question quite well.

[lilpixieofterror]

And you expect the secular sphere to respond better than the Christian sphere?

If the underline premise is:

“Feminist ideals lead to less abused women.”

Than the facts should line up to that. Has it?

If Weinstein and Lauer somehow disprove the industry's committment to women's rights, then one has to question Christianity's comment to rights when we are confronted with such cases.

It’s about your logic. If feminist ideals are superior at preventing women from being abused, why did this happen and the very same people preaching ‘girl power’ were the ones turning a blind eye to it? Shouldn’t we see the reverse?

Whether Hollywood or the pulpit, attitudes of the culture can and do affect how people react. And that view is entirely consistent with the Christian doctrine of original sin.

So you have no evidence these views lead to increases in violence to women?

[oxmixmudd]

--- if your assertion is true why than:

1. Why are modern victims of domestic abuse, most commonly, abused by boy friends while husbands are the least common?
2. How did the entertainment and media industry end up with so many cases of abuse?

Woke liberals love to blame others, but never turn their eye on themselves. Why?

The fact that Patriarchal cultures foster the abuse of women is actually independent of which implementation of that patriarchal culture we are talking about. The extent to which that culture fosters abuse depends directly on the extent to which that culture is about control and power. Those two facts should be sufficient to answer both your questions, to the extent they apply.

Boy friends vs spouse seems somewhat trivial though. A marriage is a commitment and often involves a more mature couple with long term hopes and goals for each other and a family. Women who insist on marriage before entering that commitment are also going to tend to have a better self-image and be more purposed in their involvement with the men they are committed too. These factors in and of themselves would serve to filter purely self-serving relationships and reduce the instances of abuse found in that subset.

Yet, the most high profile cases, in the past few years, have mainly come from the liberal camps in the media, entertainment industry, and political parties being among the worst offenders. Some of the most ‘woke’ groups have had some of the worst problems with abusing women. For your theory to be true, shouldn’t it be the reverse?

They are still a product of and live in a culture that at it's core is purely patriarchal: the entertainment industry. Not only that, it's patriarchy is almost exclusively about power and control. This actually reinforces the fact patriarchal cultures foster abuse with a direct correlation to the extent that culture is about power and control. "pay lip service to" does not change the reality. And the reality is, the power structure was and still is patriarchal in the entertainment industry, severely so, with the expected results.

That doesn’t answer a word I said.

It does, but you may have to think a bit to get there.

[oxmixmudd]

If the underline premise is:

“Feminist ideals lead to less abused women.”

Than the facts should line up to that. Has it?

But that is not the underlying premise.

The fact patriarchal cultures foster the abuse of women does not necessarily imply feminist cultures do not.

The premise is that egalitarian relationships (all other things being equal) should lead to less abused women. egalitarian is not feminist, it is egalitarian. That is, feminism is a response to patriarchy. Sometimes violent and oppressive in its own terms. egalitarian is a mutually respectful relationship that sees the worth of the man and the women in the relationship as EQUAL.

Further, the ability to articulate egalitarian ideals does not necessarily mean the underlying culture or relationship is not in fact still patriarchal, or that there are not other factors that ALSO contribute to abuse.

[lilpixieofterror]

The fact that Patriarchal cultures foster the abuse of women is actually independent of which implementation of that patriarchal culture we are talking about. The extent to which that culture fosters abuse depends directly on the extent to which that culture is about control and power. Those two facts should be sufficient to answer both your questions, to the extent they apply.

It doesn’t and shows you are hearing what you want to hear vs the facts. For your theory to be true we must see:

1. Those accepting a Patriarchal culture would be the worst abusers.
2. Those accepting a feminist culture would be the least likely abusers.

Does realty support that?

Boy friends vs spouse seems somewhat trivial though. A marriage is a commitment and often involves a more mature couple with long term hopes and goals for each other and a family. Women who insist on marriage before entering that commitment are also going to tend to have a better self-image and be more purposed in their involvement with the men they are committed two. This factors in and of themselves would serve to filter purely self-serving relationships and reduce the instances of spousal abuse found in that subset.

Conservatives are more likely to be married. Liberals are less likely to get married and will often live together, without being married. This is how my ultra liberal cousin lives, so while it doesn’t tell us everything, it does help a bit. Your description of marriage is interesting since society is slowly rejecting the idea of getting married and lo and behold, you’re proving my point and don’t even notice. Apparently, acceptance of feminism has little bearing on domestic abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.

They are still a product of and live in a culture that at it's core is one a few years out from a patriarchal culture. They are in the entertainment industry, which as you pointed out up until the last year or two was in reality a closeted and very patriarchal culture. This actually reinforces the fact patriarchal cultures foster abuse. "pay lip service to" does not change the reality. And ther reality is, the power structure was and still is patriarchal, serverly so, in the entertainment industry, with the expected results.

Interesting, so even though they preach feminism and play plenty of lip service to the idea, the answer is still ‘patriarchal culture is to blame.’ Quite revealing how your thought process works really.

I does, but you may have to think a bit to get there.

It doesn’t, but you’re welcome to be the arrogant ass you truly are all you please, while you tell a women that that she’s wrong about her own observations in how things actually work. Conservative men have been far more accepting of my electrical and mechanical abilities, leadership, etc than many liberal men have been because I’ve noticed many of them are used to women with stronger personalities. Why is that, if your claims are true?

[oxmixmudd]

It doesn’t and shows you are hearing what you want to hear vs the facts. For your theory to be true we must see:

1. Those accepting a Patriarchal culture would be the worst abusers.
2. Those accepting a feminist culture would be the least likely abusers.

Does realty support that?

1) You don't seem to understand that 'feminist' is not necessarily 'egalitarian'. For example, a Matriarchy would be 'feminist' but would also be potentially subject to the same sorts of abuses (in reverse) that a Patriarchy is.

2) research does show a strong postitive correlation between patriarchy and the abuse of women. This is reality. And that egalitarian relationships are less prone to the problem.

Conservatives are more likely to be married. Liberals are less likely to get married and will often live together, without being married. This is how my ultra liberal cousin lives, so while it doesn’t tell us everything, it does help a bit. Your description of marriage is interesting since society is slowly rejecting the idea of getting married and lo and behold, you’re proving my point and don’t even notice. Apparently, acceptance of feminism has little bearing on domestic abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.

You are conflating a lot of variables Pix. First and foremost, feminism isn't being fostered as the positive alternative, egalitarianism is. And again, the research shows a strong positive correlation between Patriarchy and the abuse of women. Marriage vs. non-marriage has a correlation to patriarchy (patriarchal cultures demand marriage as part of the ownership model) but it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges in Marriage is a union for life, in great degree to create a stable environment for raising children, that is found in almost all cultures regardless of whether they are patriarchical, egalitarian, or matriarchal. The move away from marriage in our culture is actually only partially correlated with the move away from patriarchy. And the other factors driving this departure from marriage may themselves have strong correlations to abuse in a relationship.

To say that there is a strong correlation between patriarchy and the abuse of women is not to say it is the only possible cause of male abuse of women. That point, in fact, is made many times in the paper that I posted a link to.

Interesting, so even though they preach feminism and play plenty of lip service to the idea, the answer is still ‘patriarchal culture is to blame.’ Quite revealing how your thought process works really.

Yes, patriarch is in fact still to blame, especially in the entertainment industry, because even though many actors and actresses may well embrace a non-patriarchal ideal, the Directors and Buisiness CEOs that they are employed by in large majority apparently do not.

[lilpixieofterror]

1) You don't seem to understand that 'feminist' is not necessarily 'egalitarian'. For example, a Matriarchy would be 'feminist' but would also be potentially subject to the same sorts of abuses (in reverse) that a Patriarchy is.

Which doesn’t change a word I said.

2) research does show a strong postitive correlation between patriarchy and the abuse of women. This is reality. And that egalitarian relationships are less prone to the problem.

Do these research papers assume their premise as you did below? For your logic to hold true, we should see lessening abuse towards women as society, as a whole, further embraces feminist ideals. Is that what is happening? Is there any measurable difference in the abuse of women, over the years? The recent cases we’ve seen of Weinstein, Lauder, or Epstein tells us no we’re not. The best appears to have gone underground and not out in the open, as before. It’s like people, who want to abuse women, will simply find a way to do it no matter what you embrace.

You are conflating a lot of variables Pix. First and foremost, feminism isn't being fostered as the positive alternative, egalitarianism is.

Which had zero bearing on a single word said. Your point is a further separation from a patriarchy culture should lead to less abuse of women, has it?

And again, the research shows a strong positive correlation between Patriarchy and the abuse of women.

Research, over a decade old and you have yet to successfully show anything to indicate that a complementary theology, is linked to. Plenty of very strong, very accomplished women, exist in these groups. You are aware of the repeatability problems, of social science research, right? Can you show a more recent paper, where the experiment is repeated?

Marriage vs. non-marriage has a correlation to patriarchy (patriarchal cultures demand marriage as part of the ownership model) but it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges in Marriage is a union for life, in great degree to create a stable environment for raising children, that is found in almost all cultures regardless of whether they are patriarchical, egalitarian, or matriarchal. The move away from marriage in our culture is actually only partially correlated with the move away from patriarchy. And the other factors driving this departure from marriage may themselves have strong correlations to abuse in a relationship.

And who is more likely to get married and have children? I think the cause is human nature doesn’t change just because of the coat of paint you slap on it. Abusers will abuse, rather they are patriarchy, feminist, or egalitarian in theory.

To say that there is a strong correlation between patriarchy and the abuse of women is not to say it is the only possible cause of male abuse of women. That point, in fact, is made many times in the paper that I posted a link to.

A paper, over 10 years old, that wasn’t aware of the high profile cases that have since come out. Interesting, so how long did it take you to search Google till you found something that agreed with you?

Yes, patriarch is in fact still to blame, especially in the entertainment industry, because even though many actors and actresses may well embrace a non-patriarchal ideal, the Directors and Buisiness CEOs that they are employed by in large majority apparently do not.

You apparently haven’t watched any movies made in the past 10 years or heard their speeches and outlooks. Plenty of them play lip service too Jim. Directors and CEO’s are quite woke and tweet about it. Sounds like you’re out of touch.

[oxmixmudd]

Which doesn’t change a word I said.



Do these research papers assume their premise as you did below? For your logic to hold true, we should see lessening abuse towards women as society, as a whole, further embraces feminist ideals. Is that what is happening? Is there any measurable difference in the abuse of women, over the years? The recent cases we’ve seen of Weinstein, Lauder, or Epstein tells us no we’re not. The best appears to have gone underground and not out in the open, as before. ItÂ’s like people, who want to abuse women, will simply find a way to do it no matter what you embrace.



Which had zero bearing on a single word said. Your point is a further separation from a patriarchy culture should lead to less abuse of women, has it?



Research, over a decade old and you have yet to successfully show anything to indicate that a complementary theology, is linked to. Plenty of very strong, very accomplished women, exist in these groups. You are aware of the repeatability problems, of social science research, right? Can you show a more recent paper, where the experiment is repeated?

I have no searched that out yet, no. There is more than enough support for its conclusions Pix. But you have access to the same resources I do if you want to chase it down, or try to mount a counter to it.

And who is more likely to get married and have children? I think the cause is human nature doesn’t change just because of the cost of paint you slap on it. Abusers will abuse, rather they are patriarchy, feminist, or egalitarian in theory.



A paper, over 10 years old, that wasnÂ’t aware of the high profile cases that have since come out. Interesting, so how long did it take you to search Google till you found something that agreed with you?



You apparently haven’t watched any movies made in the past 10 years or heard their speeches and outlooks. Plenty of them play lip service too Jim. Directors and CEO’s are quite woke and tweet about it. Sounds like you’re out of touch.

Your focus on the excess of the entertainment industry and it's underlying hypocrisy on this issue as some sort of measure of the truth or falsity of the correlation between Patriarchy and the abuse of women is misguided.

A very large overview of the effect of Patriarchy to egalitarian can be seen in this map of the relative security of women:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domest...compressed.jpg

Map3.1NEW_Womens_Physical_Security_2011_compressed.jpg

It you overlay that map with societies that are more egalitarian vs more patriarchal, or equivalently governments that enforce laws that guarantee equal rights to women vs those that do not

https://i1.wp.com/www.doublexeconomy...compressed.jpg

Map5.1Discrepant_Behavior_compressed.jpg

the correlation is obvious. But a more fine grained analysis of the research will have to wait for me to have a little more time available to gather it and present it.