"Patriarchy"

[dust1n]

I say it's time to recognize that while we're trying to ditch patriarchy, but we must also face the growth of a matriarchical component in society.
Ever since womenfolk have been given the right to vote, we've seen government evolve in the direction of their influence, eg, more money for
social programs (the old "nurture" predilection), preferential treatment in child custody, more regulation to make life fair. So you feminist gals
will dislike patriarchical features, but many of us dislike the matriarchy steering us to the nanny state.

This might the most laughable thing I think I've ever seen you post.

 

[dust1n]

This is one of your crazier ideas, and you've got a few! Yes, young, single women put Obama in the white house. They picked Obama because the Republicans apparently don't believe in rape and wanted to take away women's autonomy over their own bodies. It's in their actual party platform.

You think that selecting the only candidate (of two men) who does not want to take away your right to make private medical decisions concerning your own body constitutes "matriarchy"?

That's crazy.

Gave me a good chuckle though.

Now that women show their clout in voting, you know, being over 50% of the population, America has suddenly turned into a matriarchy now!

 

[dust1n]

Jesus, this topic gets really old. You address one point... trail to another... address another.. trail to another. Let's face it, it doesn't matter the legitimacy of feminism or any of the writings, because some people just aren't going to change their mind. Prove one point... point ditch and move to the next topic. No references, no sources, just the same boring movement to one useless point barely relating to feminism to the next.

 

[Revoltingest]

This might the most laughable thing I think I've ever seen you post.

I'm here to help y'all think outside your very comfortable box.
Reality is a complicated phenomenon, & tis limiting to eschew
other perspectives.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now that women show their clout in voting, you know, being over 50% of the population, America has suddenly turned into a matriarchy now!

You should re-read my post. I very carefully pointed out how society comprises multiple competing factors. Just as our economy is a
hybrid of capitalism & socialism without being fully either, matriarchy & patriarchy are coexisting components. If one treats them as
extremes of a continuum, our society will exist in between with elements of both.

I see there is great resistance on RF to consider society & government as more complicated & nuanced than being one thing or another.
I speculate that it's a tribal mentality which guides us to seeing things as us (the good guys) against them (the bad guys), with no room
for complex players with traits from both sides.

 

[dust1n]

I'm here to help y'all think outside your very comfortable box.
Reality is a complicated phenomenon, & tis limiting to eschew
other perspectives.

It's a joke. Women's 'tendencies' are displayed through what man they vote for? And now we are at matriarchy. Yea, that's real outside the box. Next you'll be posting links about how females are doing better in high school now and college, confirmed evidence for this supposed patriarchy.

Talk about complicated reality. I'm having to discuss feminism with several gentlemen as they assert women have more control in political discourse while ignoring every glass ceiling in society.

Glass ceiling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Why then charge it with a male quality?

I have always thought of patriarchy as a social system that also had some support from females as well as many males.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a joke. Women's 'tendencies' are displayed through what man they vote for? And now we are at matriarchy.

This is unacceptable, since you're capable of more than most.
"Matriarchy" is definitely not the state of society.
Rather it is a component of society's state, right alongside patriarchy.

Yea, that's real outside the box. Next you'll be posting links about how females are doing better in high school now and college, confirmed evidence for this supposed patriarchy.

Always remember, this loopy idea was yours, not mine.

Talk about complicated reality. I'm having to discuss feminism with several gentlemen as they assert women have more control in political discourse while ignoring every glass ceiling in society.

You're making the mistake of seeing evidence of patriarchy & from that reasoning that there can be no matriarchy.
Of course, there would be evidence for patriarchy, since it is one component. So this does not defeat my contention that both traits exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm seeing a whole lotta mirthful but dogged resistance to the notion that we can have traits of
both gender biased structures in society, but I ain't seeing any reasonable argument against it.
Is the "Feminist Victimhood Complex" so pervasive that another view cannot bey entertained?

 

[PassionFruit53]

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.

You can say that it is what yo want, but the fact is, in many places, men have too much power. They control the social and religious institutions, and the political, educational, and business world until recently was the "man's world".

But as human civilization has committed an error, that women should dependent on men, so men must control. But in reality since the liberated era, men and women are realized as dependent and complementary. However because of women having biological issues they should also have some certain rights.

I feel so tired of people who are trying to insult feminists and say feminism is no longer right. It belongs to feudalism and barbaric era of modernity and the modern world.

 

[Me Myself]

No kidding, MM: I've probably heard rape jokes and justifications for sexual harassment against women more times than I can remember, literally, and they weren't just on TV or talk shows; they were from people I know in person.

You're talking about females doing this on a talk show; I agree it's unfortunate. However, it's not because feminism propagates some kind of anti-male agenda. Actually, I think it's one of the things that feminism is trying to get rid of. I'm not sure where the idea came from that feminism advocates this kind of thing against males.

people need to start reading what I post three times or something.

I habe NEVER suggested that "feminism" has an evil INTENTIONAL agenda. Come on people...seriously.


I dont tthink it is unfortunate thou.gh. It is a simple joke. Which would have become a madness media scandal if it had been the other way around.

 

[Me Myself]

I invite you to type in a search window anything with the word "sluts", "whores", and your choice of terminology of violence (cut, rape, punch, slam, choke, etc.)....and briefly see what pops up, how often, how groups like this can actually persist, and then how FB will automatically delete breastfeeding pictures in spite of these other pages existing.

You have one talk show episode compared to a quiet systematic and constant push of violence against women. You can't be serious if you think the acceptance is comparable.

The reason you cant see my point is that you are still rying to think whether it is a "male have it worst" thing or a " women have it worst" thing.

Its not what I am talking about.

Tell me true or false: do you think at if e situation in the talk was inversed it would have been a complete media sandal by feminist movements and others yes or no?

Be honest with yourself. If seinfield, Robin williams, michael Jordan and ñdanny devito had a talk show (the names are probably hrribly picked and I know you will spoof this to no end, bur try to get the point ) and in it they laughed about a real blood man cutting the breasts of a real blood woman because he felt phsyically and mentally abused and they said they thoug it was fabulous and all that, do you honestly think they would not have had triple the problems the women from the talkl had? Because of saying how awesome they think it is?

Honestly? Do yu think the full audience of men would have been laughing like in that show were the women?

 

[Me Myself]

It's a joke. Women's 'tendencies' are displayed through what man they vote for? And now we are at matriarchy. Yea, that's real outside the box. Next you'll be posting links about how females are doing better in high school now and college, confirmed evidence for this supposed patriarchy.

Talk about complicated reality. I'm having to discuss feminism with several gentlemen as they assert women have more control in political discourse while ignoring every glass ceiling in society.

Glass ceiling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who said rhat and where? Quote it to me. We are saying there are clear discrimination issues against men, and that is has notng to do with men being in power. Do you understand the difference between that and "women have more control"?

I just cant fathom why you keep adressing e issue as if sexism against women erased sexism against men because this is all I am reading here. "It is imposible that women are sexist to men, because men are very very very sexist towards women" its what you are inherently proposing in a nutshell and it is simply fallacious.

 

[Alceste]

Jesus, this topic gets really old. You address one point... trail to another... address another.. trail to another. Let's face it, it doesn't matter the legitimacy of feminism or any of the writings, because some people just aren't going to change their mind. Prove one point... point ditch and move to the next topic. No references, no sources, just the same boring movement to one useless point barely relating to feminism to the next.

The saddest part is that every single one of these grasping, ludicrous "criticisms" of feminism comes from a person who has never bothered to read so much as a wikipedia article to learn what feminism actually is.

 

[Me Myself]

The saddest part is that every single one of these grasping, ludicrous "criticisms" of feminism comes from a person who has never bothered to read so much as a wikipedia article to learn what feminism actually is.

The wikipedia I read entirely o.o

 

[Alceste]

The wikipedia I read entirely o.o

And you still think feminism is responsible for the fact that many people don't take domestic abuse of men seriously?

Maybe you need to read the ones on patriarchy and gender discrimination too.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The reason you cant see my point is that you are still rying to think whether it is a "male have it worst" thing or a " women have it worst" thing.

Its not what I am talking about.

Tell me true or false: do you think at if e situation in the talk was inversed it would have been a complete media sandal by feminist movements and others yes or no?

Be honest with yourself. If seinfield, Robin williams, michael Jordan and ñdanny devito had a talk show (the names are probably hrribly picked and I know you will spoof this to no end, bur try to get the point ) and in it they laughed about a real blood man cutting the breasts of a real blood woman because he felt phsyically and mentally abused and they said they thoug it was fabulous and all that, do you honestly think they would not have had triple the problems the women from the talkl had? Because of saying how awesome they think it is?

Honestly? Do yu think the full audience of men would have been laughing like in that show were the women?

It would be outrageous, and it's because we still have rape jokes, ****-shaming, and real statistics of violence against women where women are murdered by their significant others. We live in a world of reality where women are at risk of honor-killings, acid-throwing, bride-burning. Girls are at risk for trying to get an education or having their genitals mutliated.

And in the vast majority of these cases, and in cases of violence against women in our country, there are more than whole audiences who point fingers and suggest some how in some way that she asked for it.

We have celebrities as you'd mentioned above who have been charged for rape by a woman, and the resulting public shaming of the woman who pressed charges litters the airwaves by suggesting that she's just after it for the money, or she's a jilted lover, and if the guy says it was consensual....then it automatically was and her sexual history is brought up as proof of how there was no way no how she was actually brutally raped.

Again, you are taking one daytime TV talk show who brought up a Loreena Bobbitt joke back into the social consciousness for a day, and expect us to be outraged by the joke and the laughter. In reality, men don't experience the every day fear of having their penises cut off the way women experience the fear of walking in the dark at night, and being kidnapped, raped, and maimed or murdered.

And because of the rarity of the "Bobbitt" happening IRL, my guess is that's why the audience thought it was laughable.

Were you a part of the Daniel Tosh debate when his stand up including suggesting to a female audience member who objected to his material, "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if she was gang raped right now?".....and what subsequently happened with threats of rape and violence toward her and toward female bloggers who picked up on the story?

Do you really think that your posts here will result in numerous women sending you emails or PMs threatening to mutilate you? No? Or that any men in that audience you spoke of that publically complained about the material would result in dozens of women threatening to break into his house at night to mutilate them?

MM, this is the reality. Men don't live with the same threats of violence that women do on a daily basis, overall, and across cultures. You're cherry picking instances of where men are targeted - and which are addressed - in humor and in prevailing social conscience that assumes men are brute and women are weak and helpless. And you're using these instances as poor arguments for a case of how matriarchy is an undercurrent of prevalence but nobody is talking about it.

Men are abused, raped, and murdered and their plights are ignored. Men are conscripted to fight. Men are deemed weak if they say they are being harassed or bullied. This is not the result of any lack of feminist attention or some mysterious and unseen force of matriarchy....all these examples are symptoms of a patriarchal paradigm that exists in a social conscience that assumes men are to be territorial, unemotional, aggressive, and would make the best soldiers. It assumes men are only valuable by showing power, by taking power, by taking land and resources and by protecting women and children through leadership positions.

Matriarchy does not fit into that particular social construct.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I invite you to type in a search window anything with the word "sluts", "whores", and your choice of terminology of violence (cut, rape, punch, slam, choke, etc.)....and briefly see what pops up, how often, how groups like this can actually persist, and then how FB will automatically delete breastfeeding pictures in spite of these other pages existing.

You have one talk show episode compared to a quiet systematic and constant push of violence against women. You can't be serious if you think the acceptance is comparable.

Do you think it's acceptable for a woman to be called a whore in pornography, or for rape/daddy incest scenes in pornography to exist, what about strangulation? Crying? Beating? Gagging?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The wikipedia I read entirely o.o

It's a start.

There's a good number of highly effective feminist writers. The usual starting points in many university women's studies courses are Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir. But you don't have to begin with Second Wave thinkers. You could legitimately begin with Mary Wollstonecraft, Margaret Fuller, or even check out Christine de Pizan (15th century, whoot). All of these feminists challenge prevailing attitudes about women and offer points in support of more social and political involvment of women.

If you're interested in contemporary feminist writers, I am good friends with one, as a matter of fact, who has published two large works (one is a scholarly reference book), regularly teaches at the university, received her PhD on feminist literature, and lectures often on the subject. But if not her, there are numerous writers covering a wide range of subculture perspectives and that continue to address inequality in various socio-politcal-economic arenas. A quick google search will give you a cursory list to get you started if you're interested.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Do you think it's acceptable for a woman to be called a whore in pornography, or for rape/daddy incest scenes in pornography to exist, what about strangulation? Crying? Beating? Gagging?

I don't like it.

And thank goodness it is a fringe element of pornography, and not mainstream. If it was, I'd be more worried about the state of our culture. But it's availability by itself is symptomatic of the larger picture, and that is a level of acceptability of violence against women. I address the source, personally, not the symptom.