"Patriarchy"

[Me Myself]

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

This is because for some reason, every two pages people just forget what the OP said.

The very thing we are discussing ithis last page is a concept of feminism that says parriarchy is what causes the gender inequality. I say parriarchy is a forof gender inequality but it is ovviously not the only one nor the others are dependant on it.

You could have males no longer being the most likely to be political leaders and STILL have all other forms of inequality.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

No , I said it is not NECESSARY.

It is not NECESSARY to buy the myth of toughness for a patriarchy to exist.

Another analogy would be saying that if you eliminate all chairs, there will be no more wood, because peoe use wood ro make chairs.

People may use "men are tough" to build the case for patriarchy, this doesnt mean that eliminating patriarchy will eliminate all the gender inequalities and myths. This is because patriarchy is one gender inequality, that uses other myths to mantain itself, even though it does not need all the myths it uses to perpetuate itself.

You can make chairs of wood, but you can also make them of rock, steel or idk, cutton.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

If feminism is fighting gender roles, then why did they choose to call "patriarchy" to all the unequal privileges and opressions of men and women that currently exist in diferent levels of intensity around the world?

It is gender inequality that favors and disfavors men and women depending on the context. Why then charge it with a male quality?

I can undersand the movement being called feminism to a point, and given its origins, because it fights injustices to women because of unequality. The problem is he second it choose to call this indquality "pariachism" it did itself a diservice by atracking the equality they say to profess.

I have read and understand the reasons they call it patriarchy, but do y honestly think such a term doesnt unwittingly perpetuate the image of the abusive man? To equate the abusive system to a male persona and the solution to a female persona? T equate equality to female and unequality to male? I know they dont do it in their definitions, but the associations speak miles and miles, and we do know it has bite them in the behind by now because a lot of people associate feminism to radical feminism.

I is because of the name. Names have power, words have power.

Patriarchy refers to patriarch, or father. Would anyone care to replace the term Matriarchy, too? I mean, do women want to be mothers, without fathers, of male children, and female children? A patriarch is aware that without a woman, there would be no child. Every type of fertilised embryo, needs both man and woman.

 

[Alceste]

This is because for some reason, every two pages people just forget what the OP said.

The very thing we are discussing ithis last page is a concept of feminism that says parriarchy is what causes the gender inequality. I say parriarchy is a forof gender inequality but it is ovviously not the only one nor the others are dependant on it.

You could have males no longer being the most likely to be political leaders and STILL have all other forms of inequality.

Feminism doesn't say what you say it says. There's no "cause and effect", no assumption that "gender inequality" preceded patriarchy or vice versa.

Once more, since you've ignored it so far:

IN A PATRIARCHY, BOTH WOMEN AND MEN TEND TO ADOPT GENDER ROLES THAT AFFIRM AND PERPETUATE THE PATRIARCHAL SOCIAL SYSTEM.

 

[Me Myself]

Feminism doesn't say what you say it says. There's no "cause and effect", no assumption that "gender inequality" preceded patriarchy or vice versa.

Once more, since you've ignored it so far:

IN A PATRIARCHY, BOTH WOMEN AND MEN TEND TO ADOPT GENDER ROLES THAT AFFIRM AND PERPETUATE THE PATRIARCHAL SOCIAL SYSTEM.[/SIZE]

So then, you indeed agree that we cannot know if patriarchy is the cause of gender inequality?

Furthermore you understand that patriarchy is just one specific form of inequality, and that eliminating it doesnt garantee at all the elimination of all the other forms that exist, and may very well have existed prior to it?

 

[Alceste]

So then, you indeed agree that we cannot know if patriarchy is the cause of gender inequality?

Furthermore you understand that patriarchy is just one specific form of inequality, and that eliminating it doesnt garantee at all the elimination of all the other forms that exist, and may very well have existed prior to it?

That's a nonsensical question. Gender inequality is an aspect of patriarchy. It's not a separate thing at all. It isn't a question of before and after. The presence of gender inequality is how we assess whether or not we are living in a patriarchy. Do women lack proportional access to political and economic power? If your answer is YES, then you are living in a patriarchy. Is that lack of access ever justified by arguments (like the ones I posted) that men are tougher and more capable than women, and therefore better suited to leadership positions? If your answer is YES, then you are living in a patriarchy.

When you, a girl, attempt to go to school to learn how to read and write, do grown men throw acid into your face or shoot you in the head? If your answer is YES, then you are living in an extreme patriarchy.

If we didn't see gender inequality everywhere we look, we would have no reason to believe we are living in a social system where one gender has greater access to political and economic power than the other.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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

I appreciate being given the opportunity to flesh out my thoughts better. Thanks.

I think a round of drinks is in order, if you'd like to join in.

 

[Revoltingest]

I appreciate being given the opportunity to flesh out my thoughts better. Thanks.
I think a round of drinks is in order, if you'd like to join in.

Why, thank you!
Tis always a pleasure to hoist a few with those who value civility, good cheer & differences.
Perhaps also some tapas & nachos to nosh upon?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

Your introduction into feminist theory has been primarily through anti-feminist writings. We've had enough of a history here at RF that your presentation of arguments against many concerns of feminism has shown me your concept of the whole of feminism has been seriously lacking. That's not a bad thing, but it does offer an opportunity to learn.

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.

How about this, dear: start numerous threads on advertising and propaganda (a subject that you know more about than I do), and I'll pollute your discussions with half-truths and misconceptions, and I'll start demanding that you need to take my arguments seriously or I'll accuse you of not caring about my point of view. AND I'll suggest that I don't need to do any more outside research into the subject than through here at RF and through every little thing that you say personally.

Then you'll get an idea of what goes on when you enter a thread regarding feminism and gender equality.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Why, thank you!
Tis always a pleasure to hoist a few with those who value civility, good cheer & differences.
Perhaps also some tapas & nachos to nosh upon?

Perfect! Music and dancing, too, I hope?

 

[Revoltingest]

Perfect! Music and dancing, too, I hope?

I'll listen & watch, but there ain't no way I'd ever be found guilty of perpetrating either.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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 don't have to become an expert. But you at least have to know what are actually existing laws to argue against them.

With this analogy, your arguments thus far have been equivalent to saying you don't like laws that prohibit trees from smacking squirrels in the head, clipping wings off birds, and yelling at ladybugs. These laws not only don't exist in the real world, but are completely nonsensical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then any woman worthy of her ovaries is a masculinist too

In the cases where gender discrimination disadvantages men, I think that the feminist movement is doing a better job of addressing the root causes of that discrimination than the masculinist movement is. When men are disadvantaged by traditional gender roles, basing your position on promoting those same gender roles doesn't actually do anything to help the men the masculinist movement claims to care about.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the cases where gender discrimination disadvantages men, I think that the feminist movement is doing a better job of addressing the root causes of that discrimination than the masculinist movement is. When men are disadvantaged by traditional gender roles, basing your position on promoting those same gender roles doesn't actually do anything to help the men the masculinist movement claims to care about.

Who says "masculinism" is about imposing traditional gender roles?
Locally, they've been fighting the notion that shelters need only serve women with children.
(Homeless men never have kids?)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Who says "masculinism" is about imposing traditional gender roles?
Locally, they've been fighting the notion that shelters need only serve women with children.
(Homeless men never have kids?)

Do all shelters serve women only in your area? The majority of shelters around these parts serve all who are homeless who need a place to sleep and a hot meal.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My critique of the argument of the necessity of the masculinist movement is that I find it to be as necessary as White Pride. It isn't so much that privileged demographics find themselves at the short end of the stick from time to time, but to argue that whites need as much attention in the fight for equality as people of color is an argument I find suspect.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do all shelters serve women only in your area? The majority of shelters around these parts serve all who are homeless who need a place to sleep and a hot meal.

I must admit not checking on current status.
(I don't read our local paper, which isn't paper, anymore.)
I speak only of an argument which I recall.
I hope that things have improved.
Certainly, feminists, masculinists & egalitarians would all agree on this.
The only difference would be who does the advocacy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who says "masculinism" is about imposing traditional gender roles?
Locally, they've been fighting the notion that shelters need only serve women with children.
(Homeless men never have kids?)

Masculism/masculinism has two main aspects (note: even though the link is to answers.com, the material is originally from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

Their fundamental claim is that very serious discrimination is currently being committed against individual males on account of their sex. These activists fall roughly into two categories, traditionalist and liberal–progressive. The traditionalists hold that inherited gender roles, though ‘discriminatory’ in the neutral sense of treating the sexes differently, have been more or less fair and just to both, because, they believe, the disadvantages faced by males and females have been comparable (at least in this culture, in this century) and because the traditional sex roles represent more or less the optimal division of benefits and burdens, the best arrangement for children and for society as a whole. What sets ‘men's rights’ traditionalists apart from traditionalists in general is their belief that contemporary feminism is not only bad for society but seriously unjust to men as well.

In sharp contrast—and in spite of attempts by many to label all talk of men's rights as reactionary, a ‘backlash’—progressive men's rights activists regard the traditional differential treatment as seriously unfair to members of both sexes. Inherited gender roles and stereotypes are not just burdensome to both men and women, they say, but unjust to both, and must be eliminated. (Unlike traditionalists, they have no need to pronounce the roles equally burdensome, and tend to treat the two sets of injustices as incommensurable.) Progressive masculists have thus welcomed many feminist efforts toward societal change, adding, however, that feminism addresses only half the problem. Furthermore, they maintain that many feminist efforts ostensibly aimed at ending sexism are actually increasing sexism against men. This has been especially true, they say, in the 1980s and 1990s, as mainstream feminism has left its inclusivist roots in favour of separatist efforts based on an extreme oppressor– oppressed picture of relationships between the sexes.

Source: Masculism: Information from Answers.com

So... there's one segment of the masculism/masculinism movement that's invested in traditional gender roles and another segment that's not. In my experience, the net effect seems to be that the movement as a whole is more about perpetuating gender roles than tearing them down, but of course there's going to be variation from person to person and from group to group.

 

[Revoltingest]

So... there's one segment of the masculism/masculinism movement that's invested in traditional gender roles and another segment that's not. In my experience, the net effect seems to be that the movement as a whole is more about perpetuating gender roles than tearing them down, but of course there's going to be variation from person to person and from group to group.

As with feminism, there is diversity in the movement. That's why it makes more sense to address what an individual believes, & the
place he/she sees himself/herself within the movement. Meaningful generalities can be lost when mixing together different elements.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sure there is diversity within all movements. I don't deny that. However, if sexism against men is increasing, I'm curious where that is true. Are women in power denying men more protection simply because they are men? Are women who are in power speaking and writing about how it's time that men need to get out of leadership positions because they are men? Are women in power making edicts, claims, and laws in books that insist men are not capable, not intelligent enough, or are too burdened to receive an education, get a job, or care for children? Are women in religious leadership telling men they need to stop complaining about abuse they might be receiving at home and submit to their wives to save their marriages?

Are rates of single fathers getting custody of minor children increasing or decreasing?

Are discussions about men suffering at the hands of women (abuse and rape included) being blacklisted, gag-ordered, or threatened with jail time?

Are boys being more targeted with threats of violence if they wish to get an education?

Are men being told what they have rights to regarding their reproductive systems in their own bodies?

I get the feeling that "sexism increasing against men" is a buzz phrase for men finding some of their privileges revoked in society, and seeing positions that once were freely handed to them not being freely handed to them anymore. I could be wrong, however, but I've yet to see a coherent argument that sexism is, indeed, increasing against men as a whole in society.