"Patriarchy"

[Debater Slayer]

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 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.
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.

Speaking for myself, I believe that inequality can disadvantage men just as much as it does women. I don't think feminism is about being biased against males; it's just about achieving gender equality between males and females, which should minimize injustice against both.

If someone supports equality without necessarily calling themselves a feminist, I don't see an issue with that either. It's up to them what they want to label themselves (or lack thereof).

What you're describing sounds more like misandry than feminism to me, but I suspect you may be right that some people who call themselves "feminists" are indeed misandric and commit the same type of sexism they supposedly rail against. However, that shouldn't be used to generalize all or even most feminists as being the same way.

 

[Revoltingest]

...I believe that inequality can disadvantage men just as much as it does women.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't think feminism is about being biased against males; it's just about achieving gender equality between males and females, which should minimize injustice against both.

I agree that this is generally the case in the US these days.
But it does not appear universal, & the focus is on females.

If someone supports equality without necessarily calling themselves a feminist, I don't see an issue with that either. It's up to them what they want to label themselves (or lack thereof).

Agreed again. Perhaps this is why the arguing can get so nasty, ie, because there is so much agreement.

 

[crossfire]

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.

I'm thinking that this might be the result of medicating so many boys for ADHD. It will prolly level out now that they are medicating girls, too.

There's your new underclass. :/

Are we going towards a society where "a gramme is better than a damn?" :sarcastic

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.
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.

1) I'm harsh with Me Myself personally because I find willful ignorance abhorrent. My harshness comes from the insistence against learning more about feminism while claiming to know about it. My harshness doesn't come from disagreement regarding feminism, given that I can respect differences in opinion surrounding it. However, if anyone were to argue from such a place of refusal to educate, my patience drops to zero.

2) I asked for evidence of matriarchy in our culture, and I disagree with the evidence you'd presented as sufficient. I still see this society as distinctly patriarchal given what supports the contention, so it isn't so much a denial, but a lack of anything to support the contention. You've provided voting blocs as evidence, and I suggest it is insufficient. A matriarchal family with the mother ruling the house, and the husband when asked who he wants to lead wants the woman to lead, doesn't suddenly create a patriarchal element in the household.

3) If there is more emphasis on equality for women, it's likely because of the level of suffering is more emphasized on women. It's been pointed out that comparisons and contrasts between what women face and what men face overall are very different. If feminists more often bring up girls who are shot in the head for demanding an education, or girls who endure clitoradectomies without anesthesia because they're female, or higher rates of domestic abuse and murder, it isn't because men are being ignored. It is because there are more numerous and harsher instances of females who face violence and oppression.

 

[Alceste]

1) I'm harsh with Me Myself personally because I find willful ignorance abhorrent. My harshness comes from the insistence against learning more about feminism while claiming to know about it. My harshness doesn't come from disagreement regarding feminism, given that I can respect differences in opinion surrounding it. However, if anyone were to argue from such a place of refusal to educate, my patience drops to zero.

2) I asked for evidence of matriarchy in our culture, and I disagree with the evidence you'd presented as sufficient. I still see this society as distinctly patriarchal given what supports the contention, so it isn't so much a denial, but a lack of anything to support the contention. You've provided voting blocs as evidence, and I suggest it is insufficient. A matriarchal family with the mother ruling the house, and the husband when asked who he wants to lead wants the woman to lead, doesn't suddenly create a patriarchal element in the household.

3) If there is more emphasis on equality for women, it's likely because of the level of suffering is more emphasized on women. It's been pointed out that comparisons and contrasts between what women face and what men face overall are very different. If feminists more often bring up girls who are shot in the head for demanding an education, or girls who endure clitoradectomies without anesthesia because they're female, or higher rates of domestic abuse and murder, it isn't because men are being ignored. It is because there are more numerous and harsher instances of females who face violence and oppression.

I agree with all of that, and whole-heartedly second your impatience with people who demand that their opinions be taken seriously without ever lifting a finger to learn anything at all about the subject, except through a distorted filter that affirms their erroneous preconceptions. For example, I can plainly see that MM has spent far more time contemplating anti-feminist polemics than he has ever spent contemplating the work of feminists. In that, he's very similar to creationists who are unable to discuss evolution except through the distorted filter of whatever is published on AIG or the Watchtower.

When I'm in a bad mood, I know I come down pretty hard on people for intellectual laziness, but it's hard for me to feel bad about that after thousands and thousands of polite, respectful posts have failed to make a dent in their ignorance.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) I'm harsh with Me Myself personally because I find willful ignorance abhorrent. My harshness comes from the insistence against learning more about feminism while claiming to know about it. My harshness doesn't come from disagreement regarding feminism, given that I can respect differences in opinion surrounding it. However, if anyone were to argue from such a place of refusal to educate, my patience drops to zero.

2) I asked for evidence of matriarchy in our culture, and I disagree with the evidence you'd presented as sufficient. I still see this society as distinctly patriarchal given what supports the contention, so it isn't so much a denial, but a lack of anything to support the contention. You've provided voting blocs as evidence, and I suggest it is insufficient. A matriarchal family with the mother ruling the house, and the husband when asked who he wants to lead wants the woman to lead, doesn't suddenly create a patriarchal element in the household.

3) If there is more emphasis on equality for women, it's likely because of the level of suffering is more emphasized on women. It's been pointed out that comparisons and contrasts between what women face and what men face overall are very different. If feminists more often bring up girls who are shot in the head for demanding an education, or girls who endure clitoradectomies without anesthesia because they're female, or higher rates of domestic abuse and murder, it isn't because men are being ignored. It is because there are more numerous and harsher instances of females who face violence and oppression.

I just came into the house, saw your post, & wanted to respond, but I haven't the time to read it yet.
So let me just trust your judgement, & agree with whatever you said. (How could I go wrong, eh?)
I'll read it & give you a better response later tonite.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I just came into the house, saw your post, & wanted to respond, but I haven't the time to read it yet.
So let me just trust your judgement, & agree with whatever you said. (How could I go wrong, eh?)
I'll read it & give you a better response later tonite.

Ah, no need to agree. But I appreciate the sentiment.

No hurry to respond, btw. Take all the time you wish.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm thinking that this might be the result of medicating so many boys for ADHD. It will prolly level out now that they are medicating girls, too.

There's your new underclass. :/

Are we going towards a society where "a gramme is better than a damn?" :sarcastic

It seems so. I fought the school myself when they wanted to medicate my son. The entire school board, his teacher, the school social worker, the school nurse, all said he needed to be medicated so he can behave better and concentrate better in class.

I signed a letter of refusal and was told that I was putting my son at risk. I had to bite my tongue until it bled wanting to tell them all to go to hell. He's in 10th grade now, never medicated, and is on the Honor Roll, has been given awards for his character, and when I went in for Parent-Teacher meetings I've been told that they've rarely met a more polite, cooperative, and hard working student than him.

I've thought about sending his current records to his elementary school out of spite a few times, but figured that the best revenge is sweet success.

It's sad, though. Isn't it?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It seems so. I fought the school myself when they wanted to medicate my son. The entire school board, his teacher, the school social worker, the school nurse, all said he needed to be medicated so he can behave better and concentrate better in class.

I signed a letter of refusal and was told that I was putting my son at risk. I had to bite my tongue until it bled wanting to tell them all to go to hell. He's in 10th grade now, never medicated, and is on the Honor Roll, has been given awards for his character, and when I went in for Parent-Teacher meetings I've been told that they've rarely met a more polite, cooperative, and hard working student than him.

I've thought about sending his current records to his elementary school out of spite a few times, but figured that the best revenge is sweet success.

It's sad, though. Isn't it?

This is probably off topic, but as far as I know, sometimes it's preferred that medication be taken for certain cases of ADD/ADHD. How would it have an adverse effect on school performance?

(I genuinely would like to know, as I thought medications helped in many cases and now am wondering if that's incorrect.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This is probably off topic, but as far as I know, sometimes it's preferred that medication be taken for certain cases of ADD/ADHD. How would it have an adverse effect on school performance?

(I genuinely would like to know, as I thought medications helped in many cases and now am wondering if that's incorrect.)

There's been controversy on children being misdiagnosed with ADD/ADHD. I knew my son didn't have a problem with attention spans, and I argued against the school's decision. At least I had family and his pediatrician on my side, or it would have been harder.

Medication does help for genuine cases of ADD, but when you have a majority of kids in some districts on Ritalin, there's a bigger problem.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

I honestly see it as a propaganda scheme, I ve seen too many. Its like saying having "royal blood" is part of monarchy. This is not true evethough monarchy justified itself in specific or many circumstances by this. Monarchy means that one person holds all the soverignity, all the power. We dont say that the myth of royal blood is part of monarchy, or that the "god elected the king" is aproduct of monarchy, it is simply one of e instruments monarchy used to perpetuate itself, it is still not part of the concept at all.

Again, we are debating a concept, the way we propose to call something, in this case, adding meanings to the original concept.

A (hopefully) easy analogy would be to say a house cane made of wood, but wood doesnt come from houses, it comes from trees. It is the same way Patriarchy took wood from the trees.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

I agree about the self fuliiling prophecy (. Although I have no idea why you bring that up and leave by side what we were talking about) by the way the book you passed me is amazing! Its like philosophy having sex with poetry

About girls knocking butts academically, I dont know either, the cultural reasons sound interesting to investigate upon.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) I'm harsh with Me Myself personally because I find willful ignorance abhorrent. My harshness comes from the insistence against learning more about feminism while claiming to know about it. My harshness doesn't come from disagreement regarding feminism, given that I can respect differences in opinion surrounding it. However, if anyone were to argue from such a place of refusal to educate, my patience drops to zero.

2) I asked for evidence of matriarchy in our culture, and I disagree with the evidence you'd presented as sufficient. I still see this society as distinctly patriarchal given what supports the contention, so it isn't so much a denial, but a lack of anything to support the contention. You've provided voting blocs as evidence, and I suggest it is insufficient. A matriarchal family with the mother ruling the house, and the husband when asked who he wants to lead wants the woman to lead, doesn't suddenly create a patriarchal element in the household.

3) If there is more emphasis on equality for women, it's likely because of the level of suffering is more emphasized on women. It's been pointed out that comparisons and contrasts between what women face and what men face overall are very different. If feminists more often bring up girls who are shot in the head for demanding an education, or girls who endure clitoradectomies without anesthesia because they're female, or higher rates of domestic abuse and murder, it isn't because men are being ignored. It is because there are more numerous and harsher instances of females who face violence and oppression.

Now that I've read it, I find this a valid perspective.

 

[Alceste]

I honestly see it as a propaganda scheme, I ve seen too many. Its like saying having "royal blood" is part of monarchy. This is not true evethough monarchy justified itself in specific or many circumstances by this. Monarchy means that one person holds all the soverignity, all the power. We dont say that the myth of royal blood is part of monarchy, or that the "god elected the king" is aproduct of monarchy, it is simply one of e instruments monarchy used to perpetuate itself, it is still not part of the concept at all.

Again, we are debating a concept, the way we propose to call something, in this case, adding meanings to the original concept.

A (hopefully) easy analogy would be to say a house cane made of wood, but wood doesnt come from houses, it comes from trees. It is the same way Patriarchy took wood from the trees.

I'm sorry, I can't make any sense of this monarchy analogy. Let me recap what just happened.

1. Most people recognized that the myth of male "toughness" is a key component of patriarchy, as it is used to justify the exclusion of women from economic and political power.

2. Most people recognized that many of the issues you raise, such as domestic abuse of men not being taken seriously, are caused by the myth of male toughness vs. female tenderness and sensitivity.

3. You objected to the two points above, and argued that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between the myth of male toughness and the perpetuation of patriarchy.

4. I provided ACTUAL HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS made in parliamentary debates by men who were attempting to prevent women from voting in the UK, which are completely saturated with various incarnations of the myth of male toughness. This evidence shows that the myth of male toughness is the main reason women have been excluded from political power.

5. You started waffling on about the monarchy and calling my evidence "propaganda". This part makes no sense. I honestly can't make out what you're talking about. Why not simply accept your defeat or provide your counter-evidence.

 

[Me Myself]

1) I'm harsh with Me Myself personally because I find willful ignorance abhorrent. My harshness comes from the insistence against learning more about feminism while claiming to know about it. My harshness doesn't come from disagreement regarding feminism, given that I can respect differences in opinion surrounding it. However, if anyone were to argue from such a place of refusal to educate, my patience drops to zero.

I claim to know little about it. I refute that which I dont agree with that I do have seesupported by feminist theory and havent even said (although remarks of you to the contrary) Of any piece of feminist concept I refuse to be a concept that the whole feminist movement agrees with.

Aout refusal to beg educated on the subject I find that ridiculous. I read at which I have access to, and this forum is still called "religious EDUCATION" forum. If you dont want to discuss the subject, you certainly dont have to, but I sure debate and discuss because it is an efficient way to know and learn about a subject.

 

[Alceste]

I claim to know little about it. I refute that which I dont agree with that I do have seesupported by feminist theory and havent even said (although remarks of you to the contrary) Of any piece of feminist concept I refuse to be a concept that the whole feminist movement agrees with.

Aout refusal to beg educated on the subject I find that ridiculous. I read at which I have access to, and this forum is still called "religious EDUCATION" forum. If you dont want to discuss the subject, you certainly dont have to, but I sure debate and discuss because it is an efficient way to know and learn about a subject.

No, the way to learn about a subject you know nothing about is to respectfully ask questions of those who know more about it than you do, and make a good faith effort to understand their answers. You can't learn a damn thing if all you're willing to do is argue with your teacher.

Teaching music, I sometimes get stuck with little kids who spend their entire lesson arguing with me about their technique. They're always so sure they're right. "But I'm more comfortable slouching" they say, or "I can play just fine with only one finger". It's a total waste of their time and mine, not to mention their parents' money, and they leave the class without any additional skill or knowledge than they walked in with every time. Meanwhile, the students who follow my advice make significant, noticable progress from one week to the next.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm sorry, I can't make any sense of this monarchy analogy. Let me recap what just happened.

1. Most people recognized that the myth of male "toughness" is a key component of patriarchy, as it is used to justify the exclusion of women from economic and political power.

2. Most people recognized that many of the issues you raise, such as domestic abuse of men not being taken seriously, are caused by the myth of male toughness vs. female tenderness and sensitivity.

3. You objected to the two points above, and argued that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between the myth of male toughness and the perpetuation of patriarchy.

4. I provided ACTUAL HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS made in parliamentary debates by men who were attempting to prevent women from voting in the UK, which are completely saturated with various incarnations of the myth of male toughness. This evidence shows that the myth of male toughness is the main reason women have been excluded from political power.

5. You started waffling on about the monarchy and calling my evidence "propaganda". This part makes no sense. I honestly can't make out what you're talking about. Why not simply accept your defeat or provide your counter-evidence.

I said it didnt depend on it, not that it didnt use it at all. What I mean about propaganda is that I know the media, advertising and propaganda works exactly by relating unrelated things. Things that didnt have any prior relationship.

Like beer and women for example. You see an ad of beer with sexy women. The brand had never propagated itself as women being e reason you should buy it, but in this ad, they put women in ere so you associate their brand to sex and buy it. Its similar. This doesnt mean that people wouldnt buy beer if it wasnt for the women in the ad. Its just flashy nonsense. It happens in advertising all the time. Propaganda is no different.

 

[Me Myself]

No, the way to learn about a subject you know nothing about is to respectfully ask questions of those who know more about it than you do, and make a good faith effort to understand their answers. You can't learn a damn thing if all you're willing to do is argue with your teacher.

Teaching music, I sometimes get stuck with little kids who spend their entire lesson arguing with me about their technique. They're always so sure they're right. "But I'm more comfortable slouching" they say, or "I can play just fine with only one finger". It's a total waste of their time and mine, not to mention their parents' money, and they leave the class without any additional skill or knowledge than they walked in with every time. Meanwhile, the students who follow my advice make significant, noticable progress from one week to the next.

I dont plan on becoming an expert in feminism. I am merely arguing about a specific point they are making at I dont agree with. I mean, you dont need to be a lawyer to say which laws you are for or against. While it would make your opinion a more informed one you can always be more informed.

 

[Alceste]

I said it didnt depend on it, not that it didnt use it at all. What I mean about propaganda is that I know the media, advertising and propaganda works exactly by relating unrelated things. Things that didnt have any prior relationship.

Like beer and women for example. You see an ad of beer with sexy women. The brand had never propagated itself as women being e reason you should buy it, but in this ad, they put women in ere so you associate their brand to sex and buy it. Its similar. This doesnt mean that people wouldnt buy beer if it wasnt for the women in the ad. Its just flashy nonsense. It happens in advertising all the time. Propaganda is no different.

You're still not making any sense. Your claim was that the myth of male toughness is not used as an excuse to perpetuate patriarchy. I provided a concrete, verifiable real world example of the myth of male toughness being used to perpetuate patriarchy. The latter is directly relevant to the former, and rather devastating to your argument. You only have two choices: provide counter-evidence demonstrating that the myth of male toughness is NOT used to perpetuate patriarchy or acknowledge that you were wrong. Side-stepping the issue is not an option.

 

[Alceste]

I dont plan on becoming an expert in feminism. I am merely arguing about a specific point they are making at I dont agree with. I mean, you dont need to be a lawyer to say which laws you are for or against. While it would make your opinion a more informed one you can always be more informed.

You have yet to correctly identify and communicate even one single point that "feminists" are actually making.