"Patriarchy"

[Me Myself]

Neither women nor men are oppressed. Gender roles are different institutions than suspending blacks and non-heteros in society's glare. Problems arise because these gender roles no longer serve a purpose, but there is more in common between a working man and stay-at-home mom than the mom and a female CEO.

The whole debate about 'who oppresses who more' is what destroyed the progressive movement in the 1970s, by the way.

I d say they are opressed in different ways and circumstances, both by more powerful people (of any gender) .

Polarising it as in "this gender does this thing and this one does this other" is kind of part of the problem.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, even the earliest philosophical descriptions of patriarchy (Plato's, for example) described much broader gender-based roles than simply "only men are allowed to be political leaders". The father was the head of the household, the final arbiter of family economic affairs, and the heir of his own father's title and estates. Extrapolated to society in general, the lord was the "father" of the region. The king was the "father" of the lords. The church was the "father" of the kings (until the kings woke up), and God was the father of the church.

Women did not enter into this model of society at all, except as indentured servants to men in the home.

So what? Matrilineal societies also describe their societies with gender biases.

Any gender discriminative system will explain itself with gender discrimination of some kind.

You are making a weird confusion though. A chair can be made of many materials, yet the materials are independant of the chair. If we destroyed all the chairs in the world, we wouldt get rid of metal, wood, and any other material with which chairs can be made.


Thats why I say equaling patriarchy with all that you are equating it is ridiculous.

 

[Alceste]

So what? Matrilineal societies also describe their societies with gender biases.

Any gender discriminative system will explain itself with gender discrimination of some kind.

You are making a weird confusion though. A chair can be made of many materials, yet the materials are independant of the chair. If we destroyed all the chairs in the world, we wouldt get rid of metal, wood, and any other material with which chairs can be made.


Thats why I say equaling patriarchy with all that you are equating it is ridiculous.

Take it up with Plato then.

 

[Me Myself]

Pretty sure that this is the strawman that some of the posters here are trying to remove. Dictionaries can be wrong, you know.

Sure, bad ones

In any case, given all cultures up to date eventually have shown gender inequality and not all (even if most) are patriarchal, then it is obvious that the patriarchy is not the "main bad" here. It is one of multiple discriminations.

The patriliniality obviously stands ( which is a subject as interesting as to diserve a thread in itself! ) but for the patriarchy, it makes no sense since all women's votes are worth the same as man's. Or well, at least not in the political leader part when it comes to the entire country. I am sure some discrimination exists in many workplaces (though it also exists against males in favor of women, depending on the area of work) but I d say specifically the "patriarchy" part at least in most democratic countries has largely been abolished.

There are still other forms of discrimination both against women and against men in many countries. In mine, the mother gets immidiate custody of any children in a divorce for example.

 

[Me Myself]

Take it up with Plato then.

He has notng to do iis discussion

Gender inequality exists in all societies including the non patriarchical ones.

I dont care whether Plato knew that or not

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Sure, bad ones

In any case, given all cultures up to date eventually have shown gender inequality and not all (even if most) are patriarchal, then it is obvious that the patriarchy is not the "main bad" here. It is one of multiple discriminations.

This exact belief has been used to justify discrimination in the past. "Well, everybody else has done it, so it's not so bad that we did it too." Are you suggesting that morality is relative? Because that would be a liberal argument.

The patriliniality obviously stands ( which is a subject as interesting as to diserve a thread in itself! ) but for the patriarchy, it makes no sense since all women's votes are worth the same as man's. Or well, at least not in the political leader part when it comes to the entire country. I am sure some discrimination exists in many workplaces (though it also exists against males in favor of women, depending on the area of work) but I d say specifically the "patriarchy" part at least in most democratic countries has largely been abolished.

I wish it had. But you seriously need to stop this line that patriarchy and suppression of women's suffrage are one and the same. You don't realize how out-of-touch it makes you appear on this subject.

There are still other forms of discrimination both against women and against men in many countries. In mine, the mother gets immidiate custody of any children in a divorce for example.

That is one of the few discriminations against men that our society has. But it in no way, shape or form justifies the many discriminations against women. Two wrongs have never, and will never, make a right.

 

[Me Myself]

This exact belief has been used to justify discrimination in the past. "Well, everybody else has done it, so it's not so bad that we did it too." Are you suggesting that morality is relative? Because that would be a liberal argument.

You seem confused. I said it wasnt the MAIN bad. Of course it is a bad.


I know nothing about "liberals" BTW, so , sorry if the joke is lost on me

That is one of the few discriminations against men that our society has. But it in no way, shape or form justifies the many discriminations against women. Two wrongs have never, and will never, make a right.

Yes we agree on that. I have no idea why you bring it up though.

 

[Me Myself]

So, gender discrimination exists in all societies including non patriarchal ones.

What evidence is there that eliminating patriarchy completely would eliminate all the other gender discriminations?

 

[Mathematician]

That is one of the few discriminations against men that our society has. But it in no way, shape or form justifies the many discriminations against women. Two wrongs have never, and will never, make a right.

Nobody in this discussion has defended discrimination against women.

 

[Me Myself]

Nobody in this discussion has defended discrimination against women.

Its incredible how persistently people keep confusing the voices in their heads with the words in my posts :cover:

 

[dust1n]

Its incredible how persistently people keep confusing the voices in their heads with the words in my posts :cover:

No kidding...

What evidence is there that eliminating patriarchy completely would eliminate all the other gender discriminations?

Who said this?

 

[Me Myself]

No kidding...



Who said this?

Nof eliminating patriarchy will not eliminate male dissaility then why some people pretend patriarchy is THE unequality at exists, instead of acknowledging it is one of many?

 

[dust1n]

Nof eliminating patriarchy will not eliminate male dissaility then why some people pretend patriarchy is THE unequality at exists, instead of acknowledging it is one of many?

Again, who stated that eliminating patriarchy would eliminate all discrimination, gender discrimination, or gender roles? Where in the almost 800 posts in this thread has anyone even asserted this?

 

[Mathematician]

Almost every single post has been hostile whenever someone dares to suggest patriarchy in 2013 is a myth, even if we refer back to statistical trend data that shows counter-evidence. You can not have a theory based around institutional discrimination or control by one sex when the 'dominant' sex is confronted with a grocery list of disadvantageous issues across cultural, economical, and political lines that usually screw them over for no greater reason than their genitals. I am interested in today's society - one in which young men are more likely to fail in schools, professionally, and as legal representatives of themselves. Women face unique challenges as well but that admittance indicates gender roles, not patriarchy. The two concepts are distinct.

Indeed the very iteration of patriarchy continues to ignore the issues boys and men confront, hence why progressive men's rights activists are becoming more popular. I've noticed some brief criticism of these groups, which is ironic considering many of these men used to be way beyond average in terms of participating in favor of feminism. Not until they started catching on to the fact feminist organizations and the movement at large is disinterested in helping boys and men did they bail.

Every time I bring up these little facts, it is brushed off as the fault of men. For example, the remark about blaming boys performance is really no different than blaming a woman for unwanted sexual advancements while wearing a skirt. That was an outright sexist remark. I'm sure if I created a post elsewhere on the form and blamed mothers, sisters, and daughters for their failure to attain success in - say- STEM fields, the forum wouldn't be as kind to me.

 

[dust1n]

Almost every single post has been hostile whenever someone dares to suggest patriarchy in 2013 is a myth, even if we refer back to statistical trend data that shows counter-evidence.

My responses weren't hostile. I actually responded and asked for this 'statistical trend data', a link to it or whatever, and I was just ignore it. So how can I refer back to statistical trend data that shows counter-evidence, if it was never provided.

In fact, I just searched all your posts in this thread and this is the only one that even has a link it...

Your personal opinions and anecdotes matter as much as mine. I'm a science-oriented person. I studied mathematical physics for 4 years in college and have devoted my life to numbers, facts, and correlations.

Opting out of work has increasingly become a popular sentiment among women. This is in spite of huge advances in the field of popular culture and education for women to join the work force. In fact education currently has preferential results for girls/women in almost all fields and still many women have reached the conclusion they would (ideally) work at home.

Only Half Of American Women Want To Work Outside The Home

Is 'Opting Out' The New American Dream For Working Women? - Forbes

I have found a profession I love. I am devoting time and resources so that I start up my own school, and I'm willing to live under the thumb of the government and levels of bureaucratic nonsense, but that has little to do with the fact capitalism relies on most jobs being mundane and dronish to thrive.

That's not "statistical trend data that shows counter-evidence" "to suggest patriarchy in 2013 is a myth."

You can not have a theory based around institutional discrimination or control by one sex when the 'dominant' sex is confronted with a grocery list of disadvantageous issues across cultural, economical, and political lines that usually screw them over for no greater reason than their genitals. I am interested in today's society - one in which young men are more likely to fail in schools, professionally, and as legal representatives of themselves. Women face unique challenges as well but that admittance indicates gender roles, not patriarchy. The two concepts are distinct.

I'm willing to admit that women have it much better than 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 30 years ago, etc. to the point where in America, discrimination in all cases is generally as seen as bad by the public. That being said, there is still institutional discrimination against women, non-rich people (the broker the worse), black people, all minorities really, or really anyone that could be considered ugly or abnormal in society.

Indeed the very iteration of patriarchy continues to ignore the issues boys and men confront, hence why progressive men's rights activists are becoming more popular.

And you consider the iteration of patriarchy and confronting issues boys and men experience why exactly? I mean, I iterated patriarchy in the last 800 posts, but when have I 'ignored issues boys and men confront.'

I've noticed some brief criticism of these groups, which is ironic considering many of these men used to be way beyond average in terms of participating in favor of feminism. Not until they started catching on to the fact feminist organizations and the movement at large is disinterested in helping boys and men did they bail.

There are two kinds, which has been expanded upon previously, by I think 9/10th's and this was my understanding to. One, there is an anti-feminist brand, and there is a kinda 'alongside feminism' brand. I stay away from the term myself because a.) it's redundant and b.) I don't want to give anyone the impression of the former of the two. The guy who has really been brought up here is Warren Farrell. All I've been insturctued to do is argue his points in a video as he brings up statistics with reference to no study, so that I cannot even refer to what he is talking about. All the studies I can find suggest unexplainable pay level and wealth gaps, mostly for minority women, older women, divorced women, etc. So, yes, that would include, like, my mom and stuff. Face it, I'm not going to face any discrimination in the serious workplace or disadvantages in the professional world because I am white and because I am male. Women and minorities will undoubtedly face these multiple times in their lives. Now, I was not going to school, and planned on working, and was fat, etc. Of course I would face disadvantages. And of course all poor people whether white, black, male, female, Spanish, Asain, etc., etc. are overtly discriminated against.

I'm against all hierarchy, as you might have imagined. Most people in the world go through ****. This is not a mysterious to anyone. It doesn't discount when institutional racism is taken place, or, more importantly, has taken place for hundreds of centuries (unless, of course, I ever get to see this anthropological records you referenced to earlier in the thread). It's my opinion that capitalism has, in many ways, exacerbated and institutionalized all sorts of biases against people, ideas, etc. etc.

Every time I bring up these little facts, it is brushed off as the fault of men. For example, the remark about blaming boys performance is really no different than blaming a woman for unwanted sexual advancements while wearing a skirt. That was an outright sexist remark. I'm sure if I created a post elsewhere on the form and blamed mothers, sisters, and daughters for their failure to attain success in - say- STEM fields, the forum wouldn't be as kind to me.

I'm not sure which remark you are referring to, but it doesn't concern me so... I just wanted to address the above issues.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Almost every single post has been hostile whenever someone dares to suggest patriarchy in 2013 is a myth, even if we refer back to statistical trend data that shows counter-evidence.

What hostility? What statistical trend data? That patriarchy has existed at least through the near present is a fact. That it somehow magically vaporized in just a couple decades is a fantastic claim that requires fantastic evidence.

Indeed the very iteration of patriarchy continues to ignore the issues boys and men confront, hence why progressive men's rights activists are becoming more popular. I've noticed some brief criticism of these groups, which is ironic considering many of these men used to be way beyond average in terms of participating in favor of feminism. Not until they started catching on to the fact feminist organizations and the movement at large is disinterested in helping boys and men did they bail.

I am perfectly supportive of men's rights' efforts to raise productive, benevolent, self-sufficient men.

I am in no way supportive of men's rights' efforts to "let boys be boys," which is code-speak for letting them cause mischief and mistreat women and girls.

Every time I bring up these little facts, it is brushed off as the fault of men. For example, the remark about blaming boys performance is really no different than blaming a woman for unwanted sexual advancements while wearing a skirt. That was an outright sexist remark. I'm sure if I created a post elsewhere on the form and blamed mothers, sisters, and daughters for their failure to attain success in - say- STEM fields, the forum wouldn't be as kind to me.

Man, do you realize how much this comes across like a white guy complaining of racial discrimination? Please. The ONLY sympathy I have for other men is how they are treated in divorce courts and in some relationships. That is it. You would do well to learn more about the reality of male privilege and all the benefits it gives us, not because we earned any of them (we didn't), but simply because we are men.

 

[Me Myself]

No kidding...



Who said this?

"not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form"[4] and the model for all others.[4]

thats a quote from ellen willis.

Also, Mystic had said more than once that male disposability steams from patriarchy and so does female privilege in general.

The whole thread merely means to say patriarchy is what ptriarchy actually IS.

So sure, it is wrong, but male disposabililty is not part of patriarchy. It is its own gender discrimination iitself . If it didnt exist, it wouldnt be any less of a patriarchy.

 

[outis]

This is the part that isn't a strawman:

but male disposabililty is not part of patriarchy

I have indeed argued several times that it is and have explained the historical rationales. I went along your Gish gallop for some time. I'm done with you unless you shape up but there's no denying this argument happened.

I will also argue if that makes someone happy that patriarchal culture is hegemonic even today and that most of those identifiying as feminist also perpetuate patrichal representations (as some of the most radical feminists did in the past).
I'd rather have fun while doing it though. So please tell me that the only reason I disagree with Hitler is that I want to exterminate different people or something (but don't repeat the same stuff over and over, otherwise there's no point).

 

[Me Myself]

Ah?

I am not following your thought at all.

You are arguing that if peopple had said ithe past "let only women go to war because they are not as valuable as men" then it would have been LESS of a patriarchy?

Bcause if you are saying that male disposability is a fundamental part of patriarchy then you woulde saying that.

 

[outis]

We already had that conversation. I already explained why most women are more valuable than most men in patriarchies. I won't go over it with you unless you shape up.