Honestly I don't see anything in France, Spain or Italy that shows elements of patriarchy.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Feminism of the 21st century
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
Speaking as an American citizen....You obviously don't know my mother, my wife...or my ex-wife..... or my ex-fiancée between wives
I am the one who says Patriarchy is over in the West.
I was responding to some people here who claim it's not over. I was saying: if it's not over, it's up to the women to abolish it.
This has nothing to do with men.
I can recommend a good optician and audiologist.
As i said, things have improved greatly but it still shows in every day interaction. Meet a couple in the street, the male is always acknowledged first.
Also in business, the glass ceiling is still very obvious.
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
Then I misinterpreted, my apologies, however you need to look at the definition of "Patriarchy" before you say it has nothing to do with men
Patriarchy - a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and decent is traced through the male line.
Honestly I think that a cultural revolution has produced an unimaginable change in some Mediterranean cultures like mine.
Seventy years ago, and in some regions, up to fifty years ago, the man was the head of the house. Women had to obey.
But now it's the exact opposite.
In many families it's the woman that manages the economy of the house and even demands to control the money gained by the husband.
There is a real matriarchal system in many places in Spain and in Italy.
Last edited:
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
You have a good point here. I also hear from women I know that popular feminism doesnt really address issues that women of colour face. They say that western feminism is often tone deaf when it comes to the issues of minorities and women elsewhere in the world.
I would say though that sorting out the glaring issues that women face shouldnt cause the liberation movement to stop. That are sorting out symptoms and not the cause. If the cause remains then those glaring issues will gradually crop up again. And in a world where embracing the glaring issues is not popular, the enemy will will find more subversive ways of pushing their narrative so that they have plausible deniability. So they are are more dangerous when they hide in plain sight like this.
A good example is the Redpill movement that is popular on social media. That is dangerously anti women, but they rationalise their views in such a way that they can do it in plain sight. And they are indoctrinating damaged men to feel that women are the enemy and developing hatred for them.
So issues in society like the ones you listed; racism, transphobia, and mental health care are all caused by men?
Considering that the most transphobic people are women and are called TERFs...
patriarchy has nothing to do with that.
I think that's where some of the pitfalls of identity politics can come from. It creates certain ideological complications which are becoming more and more difficult to explain and justify to the masses. It also seems to come up in matters relating to nationalism or ethnic/racial pride. It seems The Patriarchy is not going down without a fight: Trump Allies Attack Corporate ‘Bigotry’ Against White Men - BNN Bloomberg
I think that the past 100-200 years has seen a slow movement towards liberalism and progressivism which has favored various causes of justice, individual freedom, and liberation from oppression. There has been a great deal of injustice, unfairness, and in many cases, outright atrocity, theft, exploitation, slavery, violence, warfare, imperialism - a lot of which still goes on today.
Naturally, there have been those who have sought justice and to reverse policies which promote inequality and oppression. But there is also a natural level of resentment, anger, and hatred by the oppressed against their oppressors. In the process, everyone still seems to get generalized and categorized and lumped into groups just because of who they are (or what they might appear to be). It gets complicated when put into practice, as we've seen disputes and conflicts among various oppressed identity groups. One recent example is the idea of "TERFs" who are feminists but against transgender females, a view which seems inconsistent with notions of tolerance, equality, and liberation from oppression. These are two identity groups both with a history of oppression and intolerance, yet somehow finding themselves at odds with each other.
It's also interesting to look at some of the redpill sites you mentioned, as I've noticed quite a few black men and other men of color who ostensibly agree with many of those views (although I've noticed quite a few far-right white supremacists in the discussions as well, so I'm not sure how that will play out). But in any case, there might be men of color who have a vested interest in supporting and maintaining The Patriarchy for their own reasons, and this may also complicate things, since they are also considered an oppressed group within the same general framework of identity politics.
The effect has been numerous instances of oppressed groups fighting other oppressed groups - or some degree of tension and racism, such as might be seen among some Hispanics, Asians, and African-Americans in the U.S.
We also see it in other conflicts and civil wars around the world, which also brings us back to the original question of why don't white liberal feminists in the first world do very much to help the oppression of women in much of the rest of the world. But these are also the oppressed areas of the world, and those who wish to end the oppression by the powerful nations upon the developing world might feel a certain apprehension or reluctance to impose our will even further upon nations or peoples which we have previously victimized. Even if they're victimizing each other, it's hard to justify military intervention - except when Corporate America deems it necessary, and then it becomes a matter of patriotism and national honor.
You said it. I don't see any "patriarchy". Feminism has won. Females are free to do what they please in this society and are doing better than males on some levels. Ironically, from what I can see, women are usually the worst enemies of other women.
They are part of the (unconscious) cultural nomos. Feminists have given the cultural nomos the name "The Patriarchy."
Do you not understand? They don't call it Bob, Jim, Joe, Matilda, Samantha, or Rudolph. They call it "The Patriarchy."
And what's the definition of the term patriarchy? Doesn't it more or less mean "run by males"?
So what I'm curious to understand is how transphobia, racism and (mis?)handling of mental health are all "because of males"?
So here's what I'm getting at: I'm a feminist. And I'm male. I do not want to be seen as a bad guy, and the term "patriarchy" is fundamentally divisive.
In the US there is no patriarchy.
It's a feminist dictatorship.
And that was visible when Clinton was crucified because of that fact of his private life that doesn't interest the public.
Because he is a man.
Imagine if a female politician cheated on her spouse. No feminist would say anything.
This is my opinion, protected by the First Amendment and article 21 of the Italian Constitution.
That's what they call the nomos. Within feminism, the nomos has traditionally been called "The Patriarchy." (The term Feminism is a contrast to the term The Patriarchy. They critique the nomos.)
Being a man does not mean you are a bad guy. It just means you are a man. Being a woman does not mean you are a good guy. It just means you are a woman.
Clinton wasn't really crucified. The Republicans tried to kick him out of office, but they had a very weak case and failed.
In any event, Hillary and most of his support base (including feminists) remained solidly behind him. He still has a popular following today. I've seen some discussions where some men interpret such observations as an indication that the rules of expected behavior of men aren't applied evenly to all men. A few elite, powerful men are given a pass for bad behavior, while most other men are not. This is also exemplified in liberal elites who like to talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. They generally don't practice what they preach, and this irony has not gone unnoticed by others.
It's cultural. Not political.
Even today, that he is not president, the feminist propaganda targets him.
It's not the right-wing.
These are the sexual-assault allegations against Bill Clinton
Four women over the past few decades have accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting or harassing them.
It's cultural. Not political.
Even today, that he is not president, the feminist propaganda targets him.
It's not the right-wing.
These are the sexual-assault allegations against Bill Clinton
Four women over the past few decades have accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting or harassing them.www.businessinsider.com
I've read about those cases in the past, but as we've seen, he wasn't really crucified in any real way.
On the other hand, if feminists, liberals, and other Democrats (such as the type who drummed Gary Hart out of the 1988 campaign) had been consistent and condemned Clinton for his indiscretions back in the 1990s, he probably would have been removed from office. Instead, they stuck by him and opposed the Republicans full tilt.
From the article you linked:
It's interesting to note that many of these allegations came from decades ago. One might well wonder how and why they were covered up in the past, and why did it take decades for any of these crimes and other acts of misconduct to be revealed to the public?
He was practically a stranger, and none of them said anything.
In the nineties he becomes the most famous person in the world...and magically...the allegations pop out like pop corns.
In my language we have an idiom: let's draw a merciful veil over all this. It's extremely squalid.
If, by "stranger," you mean he was a relative unknown before he entered the Presidential race, then that's true. I actually supported Jerry Brown in the 1992 Democratic primary, and Brown was relatively known to the voters due to being former Governor of California and his early association with Linda Ronstadt. His politics were more liberal and progressive than Clinton's, but for whatever reason, the majority of Democrats went with Clinton. I and many of my liberal friends at the time agreed that Clinton was just a Republican in sheep's clothing. That's been the face of the Democratic Party ever since, even to this day.
What changed during the 1990s was that the public became aware of Clinton's marital infidelity, yet it didn't seem to matter anymore - not like it did with Gary Hart. Or even prior to that, any kind of political sex scandal or extramarital affair would have been fatal to any politician's career. The general public were mostly clueless about JFK's indiscretions until after he was dead. Even the clean-cut, wholesome Dwight D. Eisenhower had a mistress which was concealed to the public.