"Patriarchy"

[Me Myself]

Then the word "privilege" is not the correct term for what you are referring to. I've highlighted in bold red below:

From wiki:

A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth. Various older privileges, such as the old common law privilege to title deeds, may still exist, but be of little relevance today.[1] Etymologically a privilege (privilegium) means a "private law", or rule relating to a specific individual or institution.
Boniface's abbey of Fulda, to cite an early and prominent example, was granted privilegium, setting the abbot in direct contact with the pope, bypassing the jurisdiction of the local bishop.
In a broader sense, "privilege" can refer to special powers or de facto immunities held as a consequence of political power or wealth. Privilege of this sort may be transmitted by birth into a privileged class, membership in a particular group, or achieved through individual actions. One of the objectives of the French Revolution was the abolition of privilege. This meant the removal of separate laws for different social classes (nobility, clergy, and ordinary people), instead subjecting everyone to the same common law. Privileges were abolished by the National Constituent Assembly on August 4, 1789.
One common legal privilege in the United States is protection from the requirement to testify or provide documents in certain situations. (See subpoena duces tecum and privilege (evidence).)​

Wait, I wrote too soon, from oxford dictionary:

a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group:


Notice that in the oxford it is not necesary that it be given by a ruler in some legal form

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which tire on a motorcycle is essential?

Try doing a wheelie on the front tire lately?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Try this fun exercise: click this link:

Masculism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now put ctrl+f and type matriarchy, and tell me where you find it.

Please, do so.

Why do you consider it fun rather than adolescent?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Why do you consider it fun rather than adolescent?

:clap

Adolescent pretty much describes the entirety of the argument presented by the OP, too. :yes:

 

[Revoltingest]

We could debate this all day, I think. Women voting powerful men into power to limit rights on women doesn't mean there's a matriarchal component to society.

By itself, no. But I opine that the growth of the social safety net is due to the sane nurturing influence of female types.
Certainly knuckle walking males aren't responsible for such motherly ways, even if some are now on board. Consequently,
I see this as a growing component of society.

 

[Me Myself]

Why do you consider it fun rather than adolescent?

I know of little amount of adolescents that are able to laugh about themselves. If y know plenty, that speaks very well for the adolescents you know of

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Adolescent pretty much describes the entirety of the argument presented by the OP, too. :yes:

At best ...

 

[Me Myself]

:clap

Adolescent pretty much describes the entirety of the argument presented by the OP, too. :yes:

Did you do it? Did you understand that masculism does not talk about matrarchy?

It was a direct resonse to your question which assumed masculism talks about a matriarchy.

I find it disappointing that you say this, when finally you were ACTUALLY talking a bit about the subject of the thread instead of caricaturizing and distorting postures never said, like you did with your question about matriarchy.

I do know you dont do it on purpose though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Try doing a wheelie on the front tire lately?

No, the "stoppie" is far beyond my courage & skill...
[youtube]0kQbf30shfc[/youtube]
Motorcycle Stunts Alex Flores 360 endo stoppie - YouTube

 

[MysticSang'ha]

By itself, no. But I opine that the growth of the social safety net is due to the sane nurturing influence of female types.
Certainly knuckle walking males aren't responsible for such motherly ways, even if some are now on board. Consequently,
I see this as a growing component of society.

Do you see this as being a result of the matriarchal component that you suggest exists?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you see this as being a result of the matriarchal component that you suggest exists?

Primarily, yes.

 

[Alceste]

You have any question about e part in bold? It is consistent with what I am saying.

Calling ALL gender inequality, including that which disfavors men as "patriarchy" is misleading, and it attributes all inequality with a male attribute. Then saying ALL equality is reached by feminism, gives equality with a primarily femenine attribute.

You are assuming patriarchy is a pejorative word - one that describes only bad things. It isn't. It's a neutral word that describes a social system where women are excluded from economic and political power. The gender roles we adopt in order to maintain such a system have consequences that are both positive and negative. To maintain the delusion that men are more suitable for leadership roles than women, we imagine that men are tougher, stronger and less emotional than women. The up side is that this delusion gives you a competitive edge economically and politically. The down side is that you will feel ashamed and be ridiculed if you are assaulted by a woman: your toughness (Aka manliness) will be called into question. Also, you may be sent to fight wars due to your toughness. To exclude women from economic and political power, we also imagine that women are too nurturing, sensitive, emotional and fragile to handle the pressures of leadership. The up side of this is that you get to go first in line sometimes and have an edge in custody battles. The down side is that in some countries out it's seen as an abomination of nature to want an education, and you can be murdered for it. You're also more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, since you are perceived as weak.

Obviously in an egalitarian society, where these gender roles have been thoroughly deconstructed, an assault against a man would be dealt with in three exact same way as an assault against a woman, and both parents would have an equal chance of gaining custody of their kids. So to say feminists are not doing anything about those issues is pretty short sighted. We have made significant progress already in smashing up gender roles, but we still have further to go.

 

[Me Myself]

Not until you try my fun exercise first.

Sorry i missed that response:
Well, the paradigm of a patriachy exists, the problem is tht feminism as y propose it and by your words is attributing to it more than "men are leaders" and in itself, that is all that an "archy" means. The paradigms of masculinism also exist. The reason you will find mine enlightening is that it will make you understand the faulty assumption of yours.

Masculism does not propose a matriarchy, simply female privilege existing, and the need to combat it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Did you do it? Did you understand that masculism does not talk about matrarchy?

It was a direct resonse to your question which assumed masculism talks about a matriarchy.

I find it disappointing that you say this, when finally you were ACTUALLY talking a bit about the subject of the thread instead of caricaturizing and distorting postures never said, like you did with your question about matriarchy.

I do know you dont do it on purpose though.

I asked you to try my exercise with certain specific assumptions. You haven't.

Which paradigm do we live under? Answer the question by identifying what we currently live with and we can go from there. You're doing the equivalent of looking at the finger of a person who's telling you to look at the moon while pointing at it.

AND, you have not taken up my suggestions to educate yourself on feminism. I'll keep bringing this up until you actually do some homework to learn more instead of wasting everybody's time by falsely accusing me of ignoring male problems in discrimination.

 

[Me Myself]

You are assuming patriarchy is a pejorative word - one that describes only bad things. It isn't. It's a neutral word that describes a social system where women are excluded from economic and political power. The gender roles we adopt in order to maintain such a system have consequences that are both positive and negative. To maintain the delusion that men are more suitable for leadership roles than women, we imagine that men are tougher, stronger and less emotional than women. The up side is that this delusion gives you a competitive edge economically and politically. The down side is that you will feel ashamed and be ridiculed if you are assaulted by a woman: your toughness (Aka manliness) will be called into question. Also, you may be sent to fight wars due to your toughness. To exclude women from economic and political power, we also imagine that women are too nurturing, sensitive, emotional and fragile to handle the pressures of leadership. The up side of this is that you get to go first in line sometimes and have an edge in custody battles. The down side is that in some countries out it's seen as an abomination of nature to want an education, and you can be murdered for it. You're also more vulnerable to exploration and abuse, since you are perceived as weak.

Obviously in an egalitarian society, where these gender roles have been thoroughly deconstructed, an assault against a man would be dealt with in three exact same way as an assault against a woman, and both parents would have an equal chance of gaining custody of their kids. So to say feminists are not doing anything about those issues is pretty short sighted. We have made significant progress already in smashing up gender roles, but we still have further to go.

i ve put in bold the parts that dont have anything to do with an "archy" concept.

In a monarchy, kings fdont go to wars (the,selves) to demonstrate their toughness. Or at least they are not forced to.

Given this, there is no reason to think this attitude comes from patriarchy itself, and furerre there is no reason to think it is not the other way around: for as much as we know, patriarchy is the result of an unequal perception of the genders, and the things that are attributed to patriarchy really are what caused patriachy not the other way around.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Primarily, yes.

Where we disagree is the disparity of acquisitions in wealth and political influence through these specific means. I see no evidence of a matriarchy existing in our society that has gone out of it's way to specifically exclude men from decision-making positions by women in these specific decision-making positions that influence the entirety of society.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sorry i missed that response:
Well, the paradigm of a patriachy exists, the problem is tht feminism as y propose it and by your words is attributing to it more than "men are leaders" and in itself, that is all that an "archy" means. The paradigms of masculinism also exist. The reason you will find mine enlightening is that it will make you understand the faulty assumption of yours.

Masculism does not propose a matriarchy, simply female privilege existing, and the need to combat it.

I did not suggest two paradigm options as "patriarchy" and "masculinism". I suggested two possible paradigms as "patriarchy" and "matriarchy".

Which paradigm to we currently live under? Patriarchy? Matriarchy? Both? Where, and how? And what is the solution?

 

[Me Myself]

I asked you to try my exercise with certain specific assumptions. You haven't.

Which paradigm do we live under? Answer the question by identifying what we currently live with and we can go from there. You're doing the equivalent of looking at the finger of a person who's telling you to look at the moon while pointing at it.

AND, you have not taken up my suggestions to educate yourself on feminism. I'll keep bringing this up until you actually do some homework to learn more instead of wasting everybody's time by falsely accusing me of ignoring male problems in discrimination.

S you want me to pretend masculinism talks about matriarchy even when it doesnt? Is this art of the asumptions you want me to make? Why?

I already told you. There exist patriarchy, as the paradigm of men being leaders. I have never suggested matriarchy, I am not sure what you are talking about when you talk about that. I have talked about female privilege, but I ve never said propensity to take leader positions was one of them.

So yeah, if your question is whether patriarchism exists or not I have said loooooooooong ago that it does. Why are you talking about that? You seemed to have understood the thread was about you using the term for things besides male leadership, and not whther male leadership exists or not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where we disagree is the disparity of acquisitions in wealth and political influence through these specific means. I see no evidence of a matriarchy existing in our society that has gone out of it's way to specifically exclude men from decision-making positions by women in these specific decision-making positions that influence the entirety of society.

I don't see specific exclusion from positions of authority as a necessary criterion for one or the other to
exist in some proportion. Instead, I look at overall influence which is attributable to women & to men.
As with disparity, there are other factors which exist to varying degree.

Would you say that our society is entirely patriarchical, & that there is no element of matriarchy whatsoever?

 

[Me Myself]

I did not suggest two paradigm options as "patriarchy" and "masculinism". I suggested two possible paradigms as "patriarchy" and "matriarchy".

Which paradigm to we currently live under? Patriarchy? Matriarchy? Both? Where, and how? And what is the solution?

You said masculism held the paradigm of matriarchy and feminism of patriarchy and asked who was in the right pretty much

Feminism can work as a solution for patriarchism, among others. Now, what does that have to do withh feminism putting the label of "patriarchism" to things that hav enothing to do with males being leaders?(after all, that is what patriarchy actually means)