"Patriarchy"

[Me Myself]

Isn't the "males are stronger than females" notion endorsed by patriarchy? If you look at it this way, patriarchy would actually be responsible both for what you're describing above as well as injustice against women.

If both genders were treated equally, female-on-male rape cases would be treated just as much of a concern as male-on-female rape ones.

Sure, if I looked at it that way. That is the way feminism proposes it, but where is the evidence that this notion came AFTER patriarchy?

A patriarchy is a system where men are favored to be leader. There is no reason to believe the notions of physical aptitudes began AFTER patriarchy. The way I see it, it is more reasonable to think patriarchy is a result of gender inequality other than the other way around.

Bt then again, I am open to any sources that support e feminist stance of patriarchy being the origin.

 

[Alceste]

Of the details no, but yes of the coverage.

Saying gender roles come from patriarchy because the society has gender roles and is a patriarchy is not a serious causation evidence.

Then again, by all means, give me evidence from any reliable source that patriarchy was the beging of gender roles, and there were none before it.

Nobody is saying that. That is what you are saying feminists say to defend your own anti-feminist position.

It's been repeated dozens of times by dozens of people in a hundred different ways and you still haven't accepted it, but here it is again:

BOTH MEN AND WOMEN in a patriarchal society adopt gender-specific behavior and attitudes that affirm and perpetuate the exclusion of women from political and economic power.

And again for good measure:

BOTH MEN AND WOMEN in a patriarchal society adopt gender-specific behavior and attitudes that affirm and perpetuate the exclusion of women from political and economic power.

Third time's a charm:

BOTH MEN AND WOMEN in a patriarchal society adopt gender-specific behavior and attitudes that affirm and perpetuate the exclusion of women from political and economic power.

Do you see anything in there about "cause", "blame" or "origins"?

 

[Alceste]

I was once approached by a martial artist who was absolutely sure why men shouldn't dance, why dance was only for women and how unmanly it was, and it was purely because he trained with me in martial arts and told me he'd seen dance before and realized that it wasn't for men.

Then he remarked how well I was picking up self-defense movements, and said he'd attribute it to dance. I mentioned that men around the world dance, and he'd roll his eyes and say again how men don't dance.

I said I'd been in the business for 35 years and have danced with hundreds of men, that I'd taught hundreds of men and boys how to dance, and that there are numerous cultures that see male dancing as extremely masculine. He started yelling in front of the group of people we were hanging out with, "Don't you see? I'm a man! Men don't dance! Men don't dance! You may have been dancing, but you're ignoring the fact that men just don't dance!! I'm a MAN! I should KNOW!"

This thread reminds me of that conversation.

I once got a lecture from a guy who didn't play the fiddle about how I ought to be playing it.

I asked him to demonstrate the proper technique for me. He was absolutely appalling. I loved it.

 

[Alceste]

Sure, if I looked at it that way. That is the way feminism proposes it, but where is the evidence that this notion came AFTER patriarchy?

A patriarchy is a system where men are favored to be leader. There is no reason to believe the notions of physical aptitudes began AFTER patriarchy. The way I see it, it is more reasonable to think patriarchy is a result of gender inequality other than the other way around.

Bt then again, I am open to any sources that support e feminist stance of patriarchy being the origin.

You made that position up. Nobody has said any such thing. Since you made it up, you will need to defend it.

 

[Me Myself]

You made that position up. Nobody has said any such thing. Since you made it up, you will need to defend it.

Oh, then you do understand patriarchism =/= all gender inequality?

You do understand there is no reason to believe that e view of "men are tough" has to do with patriarchism? You understand that patriarchism could very well be a product of already existend gender discrimination and not the producer of all?

 

[Alceste]

Oh, then you do understand patriarchism =/= all gender inequality?

You do understand there is no reason to believe that e view of "men are tough" has to do with patriarchism? You understand that patriarchism could very well be a product of already existend gender discrimination and not the producer of all?

Yes I "understand" your position is that women are excluded from economic and political power in a complete vacuum, apropos of nothing. I "understand" that you think it has absolutely nothing to do with the cultural perceptions of gender roles that have emerged through thousands of years of living in a patriarchal society. I just think it's a silly position to maintain.

You really need to let go of your conviction that patriarchy and feminism are all about cause and effect, blame and approbation. Patriarchy is simply a social system where women are disproportionately excluded from economic and political power. It exists, to varying degrees, in almost every society in the world. It's a fact of life, and has been for thousands of years. It is a NEUTRAL fact, so get it out of your head that it has something to do with fighting against men, or shaming and blaming men, or whatever boogeyman it is that has you so worked up.

Feminist philosophers shine a light on the fact that BOTH MEN AND WOMEN who live in a patriarchy tend to adopt (or be indoctrinated with) attitudes and gender roles that perpetuate a patriarchal social system. That INCLUDES the attitude that men can't be raped or abused by women, and ALSO the attitude that women are better parents and housekeepers than men.

I "get" that you can't see how this all fits together, but I think rather than vigorously defending a simple-minded, shallow and thoughtless position on the subject, your time would be better spent learning about it. Mystic and I are trying to teach you, but you are a difficult student.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes I "understand" your position is that women are excluded from economic and political power in a complete vacuum, apropos of nothing. I "understand" that you think it has absolutely nothing to do with the cultural perceptions of gender roles that have emerged through thousands of years of living in a patriarchal society. I just think it's a silly position to maintain.

You really need to let go of your conviction that patriarchy and feminism are all about cause and effect, blame and approbation. Patriarchy is simply a social system where women are disproportionately excluded from economic and political power. It exists, to varying degrees, in almost every society in the world. It's a fact of life, and has been for thousands of years. It is a NEUTRAL fact, so get it out of your head that it has something to do with fighting against men, or shaming and blaming men, or whatever boogeyman it is that has you so worked up.

Feminist philosophers shine a light on the fact that BOTH MEN AND WOMEN who live in a patriarchy tend to adopt (or be indoctrinated with) attitudes and gender roles that perpetuate a patriarchal social system. That INCLUDES the attitude that men can't be raped or abused by women, and ALSO the attitude that women are better parents and housekeepers than men.

We agree with all of that. Te subject of the thread is about adding to the concept other forms of discriminations that dont have to do with leadership.

Like women being seen as fragile or more nurturing. Furthermore we both agree patriarchy didnt happen in a vacuum, at is pretty much what I am saying: the gender discrimination likey exited before patriarchy and Preparated society for such a hostile take over of power by one of the sexes, all the while women had other privileges.

 

[Alceste]

We agree with all of that. Te subject of the thread is about adding to the concept other forms of discriminations that dont have to do with leadership.

Like women being seen as fragile or more nurturing. Furthermore we both agree patriarchy didnt happen in a vacuum, at is pretty much what I am saying: the gender discrimination likey exited before patriarchy and Preparated society for such a hostile take over of power by one of the sexes, all the while women had other privileges.

Your position that our current gender roles preceded the emergence of patriarchy is a factual claim, for which you will need to provide evidence if you would like anyone to consider it seriously.

When you're done with that, I hear the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first is still going unanswered.

 

[Me Myself]

Your position that our current gender roles preceded the emergence of patriarchy is a factual claim, for which you will need to provide evidence if you would like anyone to consider it seriously.

When you're done with that, I hear the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first is still going unanswered.

Egg, waaaaaaaay before the chicken. Tee has been eggs lotsa times before chickens, and given evolution, its hard to question.

The thing is that as I ve said, and you have been unable to properly refute, saying "men are tougher" does nothing to mantaining them in power. A patriarchy is not dependant on that. It may be dependant on them being "smarter" but it deifneely has nothing to do with physical prowess. Linking both is a thing of whim. Tis is because there are many phacets of the gender discriminations and they cannot be properly described as "males shall lead" which is the only thing patriarchy actually stands for.

 

[Alceste]

Egg, waaaaaaaay before the chicken. Tee has been eggs lotsa times before chickens, and given evolution, its hard to question.

The thing is that as I ve said, and you have been unable to properly refute, saying "men are tougher" does nothing to mantaining them in power. A patriarchy is not dependant on that. It may be dependant on them being "smarter" but it deifneely has nothing to do with physical prowess. Linking both is a thing of whim. Tis is because there are many phacets of the gender discriminations and they cannot be properly described as "males shall lead" which is the only thing patriarchy actually stands for.

Spoken like a person who knows absolutely nothing at all about the subject.

Arguments against Women's Suffrage

Against Women Suffrage

Because all government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of con*tributing.

It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that and many similar absurdities.
Because the United Kingdom is not an isolated state, but the administrative and governing centre of a system of colonies and also of dependencies. The effect of introducing a large female ele*ment into the Imperial electorate would undoubtedly be to weaken the centre of power in the eyes of these dependent millions.
Because past legislation in Parliament shows that the interests of women are perfectly safe in the hands of men.
Because women have at present a vast indirect influence through their menfolk on the politics of this country.
Because the physical nature of women unfits them for direct com*petition with men.

 

[Me Myself]

Spoken like a person who knows absolutely nothing at all about the subject.

Arguments against Women's Suffrage

Against Women Suffrage

Because all government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of con*tributing.

It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that and many similar absurdities.
Because the United Kingdom is not an isolated state, but the administrative and governing centre of a system of colonies and also of dependencies. The effect of introducing a large female ele*ment into the Imperial electorate would undoubtedly be to weaken the centre of power in the eyes of these dependent millions.
Because past legislation in Parliament shows that the interests of women are perfectly safe in the hands of men.
Because women have at present a vast indirect influence through their menfolk on the politics of this country.
Because the physical nature of women unfits them for direct com*petition with men.

Weak propaganda scheme. Relating unrelated things is exactly what they pay people on advertising for. I should definitely know.

 

[Alceste]

Weak propaganda scheme. Relating unrelated things is exactly what they pay people on advertising for. I should definitely know.

Actual historical arguments against allowing women the right to vote, based on the perception that women are too weak to handle power, are "unrelated" to the question of whether perceptions of male toughness have contributed to the perpetuation of excessive male political power?

How is that nail in your foot feeling right about now?

I have presented evidence supporting my position. I would like to see yours.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Weak propaganda scheme. Relating unrelated things is exactly what they pay people on advertising for. I should definitely know.

Actual historical arguments against allowing women the right to vote, based on the perception that women are too weak to handle power, are "unrelated" to the question of whether perceptions of male toughness have contributed to the perpetuation of excessive male political power?

How is that nail in your foot feeling right about now?

I have presented evidence supporting my position. I would like to see yours.

Careful, we just might see another definition from an online dictionary.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Egg, waaaaaaaay before the chicken. Tee has been eggs lotsa times before chickens, and given evolution, its hard to question.

The thing is that as I ve said, and you have been unable to properly refute, saying "men are tougher" does nothing to mantaining them in power. A patriarchy is not dependant on that. It may be dependant on them being "smarter" but it deifneely has nothing to do with physical prowess. Linking both is a thing of whim. Tis is because there are many phacets of the gender discriminations and they cannot be properly described as "males shall lead" which is the only thing patriarchy actually stands for.

Physical prowess can overlap with men being perceived as "smarter," particularly when one gender is perceived to be overall superior to the other.

• Because of the idea that "men are tougher," they seem to be usually favored over women to carry out certain tasks. For example, some jobs such as ones that involve handling heavy equipment, working in assembly lines, etc., seem to be primarily associated with male workers, even though females may be as capable as (or even more capable than) males of performing said jobs. Women are also paid less than men despite performing the same jobs in many cases, so there's more to the discrimination than the facet of males generally being perceived as having more mental prowess than females.

• Consider this study which examined people's perceptions of depression when suffered by a female as opposed to a male. Again, because of patriarchal notions that men are supposed to be "tougher," "stronger," etc., than females, a smaller percentage of people recognized symptoms of depression in a male and showed less sympathy for him compared with a female. This is an example where patriarchy actually has an adverse effect on males, which makes me wonder why you apparently hold the position that feminism doesn't "speak out" against injustice to males. It seems to me that opposing patriarchy effectively opposes injustice against both genders and not just against women.

• If gender discrimination primarily stems from females being viewed as intellectually inferior to men, then explain why females are still being discriminated against in sports, too. What possible primary reasons do you think lead to this other than the notion that "men are tougher"?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Physical prowess can overlap with men being perceived as "smarter," particularly when one gender is perceived to be overall superior to the other.

• Because of the idea that "men are tougher," they seem to be usually favored over women to carry out certain tasks. For example, some jobs such as ones that involve handling heavy equipment, working in assembly lines, etc., seem to be primarily associated with male workers, even though females may be as capable as (or even more capable than) males of performing said jobs. Women are also paid less than men despite performing the same jobs in many cases, so there's more to the discrimination than the facet of males generally being perceived as having more mental prowess than females.

• Consider this study which examined people's perceptions of depression when suffered by a female as opposed to a male. Again, because of patriarchal notions that men are supposed to be "tougher," "stronger," etc., than females, a smaller percentage of people recognized symptoms of depression in a male and showed less sympathy for him compared with a female. This is an example where patriarchy actually has an adverse effect on males, which makes me wonder why you apparently hold the position that feminism doesn't "speak out" against injustice to males. It seems to me that opposing patriarchy effectively opposes injustice against both genders and not just against women.

• If gender discrimination primarily stems from females being viewed as intellectually inferior to men, then explain why females are still being discriminated against in sports, too. What possible primary reasons do you think lead to this other than the notion that "men are tougher"?

It took 20 years for women's ski jumping to be in the Olympics, and will make it's debut in Sochi in 2014. The reasons for why women couldn't compete at the Olympic level were varied, from suggesting that jumping would injure a woman's uterus and make her infertile, to suggesting that women jumping would make the sport less "daring".

This isn't 1950 either. Those comments were made about women's ski jumping in 2006. It took 20 YEARS of the Olympic committee saying "no" repeatedly every time women appealed to have women compete in the ski jump.

I'm SO looking forward to watching the Winter Olympics next year. :yes:

 

[crossfire]

A patriarchy is not dependant on that. It may be dependant on them being "smarter" but it deifneely has nothing to do with physical prowess. Linking both is a thing of whim. Tis is because there are many phacets of the gender discriminations and they cannot be properly described as "males shall lead" which is the only thing patriarchy actually stands for.

You get a self-fulfilling prophesy when females are denied education by the patriarchy. I don't know how things are in your neck of the woods, but here in the United States, the girls are now kicking the boys' butts academically, so to speak.

 

[Revoltingest]

It took 20 years for women's ski jumping to be in the Olympics, and will make it's debut in Sochi in 2014. The reasons for why women couldn't compete at the Olympic level were varied, from suggesting that jumping would injure a woman's uterus and make her infertile, to suggesting that women jumping would make the sport less "daring".

This isn't 1950 either. Those comments were made about women's ski jumping in 2006. It took 20 YEARS of the Olympic committee saying "no" repeatedly every time women appealed to have women compete in the ski jump.

I'm SO looking forward to watching the Winter Olympics next year. :yes:

Not that I ever ever want to see it, but what are the reasons for not allowing males in rhythmic gymnastics & synchronized swimming?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You get a self-fulfilling prophesy when females are denied education by the patriarchy. I don't know how things are in your neck of the woods, but here in the United States, the girls are now kicking the boys' butts academically, so to speak.

Which presents a new conundrum at the university level, to be sure. If the market continues to require higher degrees in the future for job placement, we'll see in the next generation or two more women holding more professional positions than men.

I'd like to see what we can do to ensure boys and men are being given the same opportunity to be educated, and that society doesn't fall into the expectation of males being good for only hard physical labor. I also would like to see the wage gap solved so that if in the future women outpace men in job placement that our gender is paid what she's worth, and that this doesn't create a new underpaid class in our country.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not that I ever ever want to see it, but what are the reasons for not allowing males in rhythmic gymnastics & synchronized swimming?

They aren't "manly" sports. Which is bunk. Both sports require a tremendous amount of physical strength and bodily control. Remember, you're talking with a woman who champions men in dance, and specifically Ballet.

 

[Revoltingest]

They aren't "manly" sports. Which is bunk. Both sports require a tremendous amount of physical strength and bodily control. Remember, you're talking with a woman who champions men in dance, and specifically Ballet.

I had a sneakier point to make. It appears to be typical of feminists to carp about things denied them, but they don't address things denied men.
Now, before you bring out the cat o'nine tails to punish my misunderstanding of what feminism is, I acknowledge they you & other fine examples
of the group favor broader equality, & speak up for it. But I still note that the focus in discussion of feminists on RF is about equality for women,
with far less advocacy for equality of men (secondary focus).
In addition, we have at least one feminist in the "Ladies on the forum...feminist?" thread who said that men are "not oppressed". This is simply
wrong, if one looks at individuals in some circumstances who suffer specifically because they're male. I also note that feminists are rather
dismissive of those who see things differently, eg, the remark about men who aren't feminists lacking cajones, abuse & condescension heaped
upon Me Myself. The denial that there is any element of matriarchy strikes me as indicative of needing complete victimhood, with women failing
to own their share of responsibility for the status of both men & women.

PS
Before anyone thinks my view of feminists harsh, it is not. I'm objecting to some conduct I see, rather than the many common goals we have.
And please, let no one lobby for men's rhythmic gymnastics or synchronized swimming. Sometimes oppression is for the best.