Next we'll hear that "patriarchy" killed off the dinosaurs, makes cars rust, & is behind global warming.
(I couldn't help myself.....I just had to let that one out.)
-
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 Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
(I couldn't help myself.....I just had to let that one out.)
From one who claims that matriarchy exists, why the rage quotes?
Don't like my joke, eh?
What's a "rage quote"?
You skipped the nuance of what I said about matriarchy, which is that our society has shared power between men & women, which would make it a hybrid of matriarchy & patriarchy....which points to the uselessness of both terms.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
I've kept my comments extremely specific. Yes, I've called out the actions of certain femenists and femenist publications (including Jezebel, which was the original topic). I've agreed with many of the MRA criticisms.
Your claims are equaly anecdotal; so I'm not sure what your beef is.
1) There are real issues facing men.
2) Some vocal advocates of men's rights have campaigned for these issues.
3) #1 and #2 is true for women and femenists as well.
4) There is, however, a great deal of male bashing and ridicule of the entire idea of #1 coming from some vocal elements of the feminist community. Not crackpots on 4Chan but Time, Jezebel, Youtube bloggers with 10s of thousands of followers.
5) #4 is true for men as well.. .except I'm not aware that any are nearly as mainstream and they are certainly not getting the press.
If you couldn't link you to over a dozen feminist organizations that are not anti-masculism it would not matter; but if I cannot link to non-anti-feminist MRA organizations it does?
That's not the definition of patriarchy, and it's also not true. Women are the deciding vote in government which wields all power.
Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, leader of the DNC, and like 3 SCOTUS judges. All you are missing is a POTUS and, if the DNC can win next election you'll likely get that too.
GM. The largest American car maker? Woman CEO.
HP The largest american computer maker (Apple is larger as a company, but doesn't make more computers)? Woman CEO.
Xerox, Locheed Martin, General Dynamic. Women CEOs.
No.. .they don't have parity. I addressed that already in a previous post; but you are propagating a myth.
It is almost certainly true that there are organizations that do keep women from power. But it is also certainly true that there are organizations that keep men from power. I've worked for two. I've told you this before?
Then you are doing a terribly job of showing it.
"Patriarchial legal system"? So the oldest men are in charge of the legal system?
Obama has appointed 307 judges. 129 of them were women. That's about 43% and far too close to parity to call "patriarchy" with a straight face.
US Department of labor.
Because I'm more likely to get a job in middle management than upper management.
Because middle management affects more people than upper management.
If I can be in a group where 50% will be elevated to the top 2% of earners, or a group where 1 person will become the richest person in the world, I'll take the former (unless the group size is "2").
Then tell your fellow women to stop electing them.
The people of the senate are employees of the people.. and it's not men getting them in office.
Yes. We are definitely failing our boys when it comes to peer pressure to "buck up and be a man". I think some MRA groups may have mentioned that as well.
OK
So that 50% number you put up earlery. You agree it wasn't even close to the national statistic?
Go up in this post to every example you gave around your "glass ceiling" comment. Women have leaped in every one of those since the 70s, haven't they?
And I've never spoken for the "whole feminist movement". I've given specific critiques of specific groups.
dust1n
Zindīq
I know what they are. The fact that there are American and European males claiming that today is a matriarchy, are doing so in basic rebuttal to the feminism's claim to the existence of feminism. Despite the fact that:
"Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe that exceptions are possible, some of them in the past. Matriarchies may also be confused with matrilineal, matrilocal, and matrifocal societies. A few people consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, thus including genderally equalitarian systems, but most academics exclude them from matriarchies strictly defined."
I was neither joking nor mocking. You noted that when feminists call MRA members whiny it's not joking or mocking. Mocking someone is just making jokes specifically to offend someone. Joking could be the same thing, depending who the person listening is for. Either way, people are going to mock people they disagree with. If you happened to notice my post in which I quoted the most populated MRA forum on the internet and posted some of the information, there are were all sorts of jokes and mocks.
Frequency Weekly
Total circulation
(2013) 3,286,467[1]
Time (magazine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4Chan and Canvas founder Christopher Poole (Moot) took the stage to talk to Erick Schoenfeld about creating vibrant online communities. Poole revealed that that the eight-year-old 4Chan is averaging 8 million users according to Quantcast and 18 million monthly users according to Google.
4Chan Has 18M Uniques A Month, Canvas Participation Is Optional | TechCrunch
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
I remember you stating you couldn't read that link in the op. Have you yet been able to? Perhaps this is where I am getting confused.
I think that historically 4 has been true but it has fundamentally changed over recent years. And #4 has never been a part of feminism as an ideology. If you have a problem with specific feminist and feminist groups then that is understandable. However do you separate them from the rest of the larger group? If we are still doing full anecdotal evidence it has been my experience that 100% of feminists I have come across have not denied that men have issues that need to be addressed. But again anecdotal.
This is not remotely what I had stated. I had stated that general "feminist views" are not represented in many of your anecdotal examples. But the larger portion of what I said is that even if feminists were just as bad as many people say and I couldn't come up with a dozen "good" feminist groups it wouldn't invalidate my criticism of the MRA group that I had mentioned. The inverse is true and its why I haven't made a single negative comment against MRA movements.
Two things.
1) I posted the definition of patriarchy so to me its not up for debate. If you disagree then we disagree. I am not going to waste time trying to change your opinion of the definition of a word.
2) In government women do not. There are drastically fewer women representing.
Its great that those companies are forward thinking. But isolated cases do not change the statistics being drastically against women. Currently they only hold 14.6% of executive offices in the private sector and only 8.1% of top earners and only 4.6% of the fortune 500 CEO's. It has been changing and working for the better as all three of these stats have gone up over the years. However we aren't there yet.
I am sorry you had an isolated incident where men were kept from power. However the overall statistics have not changed. Our society is far less favorable of women in upper management and high earning positions.
I get the feeling you didn't correctly read what you quoted in this snipit.
I don't understand your discontent. Women make up 52% of the work force and hold 51% of middle management. Is there some sort of misrepresentation of men I should know about?
I think I have explained before that women does not mean feminist.
As have feminist groups and as do I. I don't think we are against each other here and feminist groups are not against men in this regard. I don't believe that feminism is against men in general but promotes equality. We may squabble about how that is done and where the line of equality is but I don't think there are any feminists that want women in a superior position to men. If they do then they are not feminists by the definition of the word.
This is the second time it is obvious that you have misread one of my statements. I have never inclined that the ICU of the hospital where I work now is a perfect representation of male nurses on the national level. I am however stating that I have witnessed change in a large hospital over the course of half a decade.
Women have improved in statistics over the years. Men have in many ways as well (nurses for example) and that is the goal and tells me that it is working. I don't think we are there but I would like to think that the hardest battles are behind us. I think MRA and the individuals who support men's rights do have a long battle ahead. I personally am supportive and I know that feminism should be an ally not an enemy.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Patriarchy? Yes. The root of thinking that it is impossible for men to be abused comes from the idea that they are inherently stronger than the weak women. A worldview where women are just as capable as men spawns the idea that men can also be abused. The article didn't mention a single thing about any kind of counter-movement or protest to his proposal. Just apathy. No one cared enough to help him fund it. That is sad.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Or instead, does it come from the idea that men are disposable? I think most gender issues can be explained in either patrirchal or gynocentrist terms, which be a fun idea for another thread, but IMO that's BS. If something effects both genders it's dumb and a little sexist to say it's patriarchy or gynocentrism and not just society as a whole is messed up.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
I disagree. Sociological phenomenon where men are not victims is an entirely patriarchal construct. The apathetic approach we take usually isn't ingrained in the idea that men are less valuable as that would be full recognition of these problems and then disregarding them. In general we see a lack of conviction to fix these problems because of a belief that it is either incredibly rare or the worse case "they deserved it for not being enough of a man". The latter is far to often the case and comes directly out of sexism. I also don't agree that my assertions is sexist.
Would the converse be true.....sociological phenomena where women are not victims is an entirely matriarchal construct? If so then the US selective service system & military draft are matriarchal constructs. Reductio ad absurdum, eh?
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
No. It is not a logical necessity but one based upon evidence and history. The draft also had to do with sexism against women. It is my personal opinion that women should be included in the draft (actually it is my personal opinion that there should not BE a draft. If a war is so unpopular that they cannot get enough soldiers to fight it then they shouldn't fight it). They didn't want women in war because they thought them incapable. It has never been because women were in charge and decided men should go die instead of women. Women had to fight for the right to enter warfare.
If we lived in a matriarchal society where women held the majority of power and we set unfair restrictions against men based upon beliefs about their incapability then it would be the same. There is a huge disconnect in this thread so far about issues involving men and this somehow being an argument against a patriarchal root of problems.
Thus, neither is " Sociological phenomenon where men are not victims is an entirely patriarchal construct." a logical necessity.
I was addressing your post that being a victim was what determined "patriarchy". Women are the opposite of victims regarding the draft, ie, they're "privileged", along with transfolk, clergy, & the infirm.
My approach to recruiting soldiers is twofold:
1) They want to join because defense of the country is just.
2) They're paid attractive compensation.
The draft is naught but a time share approach to slavery.
The notion that we have a 100% patriarchy until women exercise 50% of power has problems:
- How is power measured? Women are the majority of voters now, & determine who wins office. That women choose mostly male leaders doesn't indicate a lack of power...it's merely a result which the feminist segment of womenfolk dislike.
- If women gain 50.1% power, does the status change to 100% matriarchy?
It someplace like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, the claim of "patriarchy" would be defendable, but in the US, it's a buzzword wielded without justification by analysis & evidence.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Yes. Which is exactly why I stated that in my previous post.
I never stated that. You seem to have misread it.
I can agree to that.
I don't agree that it is 100% patriarchy. Patriarchy is a construct of society or an ideology that crafts society depending on your personal view. The construct is in the process of being deconstructed and it isn't that we are at any percentage patriarchy at any given point in time. In fact even when the patriarchy has been fully dismantled there are ways to maintain that equality which would be fighting the patriarchy even if the patriarchy isn't the driving force anymore.
I seem to be misreading a lot!
If it isn't 100% patriarchy, would the balance be matriarchy? (Feminists here have scoffed at the idea that there is a matriarchal component in Americastanian government & society, so be careful how you answer. You wouldn't want to be seen agreeing with a misogynist & rape apologist.)
Let's go to Dictionary.com.....
patriarchy
1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.
The word simply does not currently apply in countries such as Americastan, where women clearly wield great power (as detailed in other posts in this thread). So why do feminists rail against this faux institution?
1) It serves leaders to preserve a strong sense of powerlessness & victimhood for rallying purposes.
2) It exculpates women from responsibility for societal & governmental problems.
The label of "patriarchy" as the cause of all injustice is illusory at best, & deceptive at wors. But is it useful or detrimental? If it fuels the feminist echo chamber to inspire solidarity & action, then it's useful (provided it doesn't serve injustices such as denial of due process to accused males). But can it be harmful by giving women a sense of powerlessness, or by driving away some who might become feminists, but are repelled by the SJW atmosphere?
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Just a little.
Equitarian would be the best situation. Matriarchy and patriarchy both exist as concepts and to what extent they configure our society is what the problem is. I wouldn't want a 50% matriarchy and 50% patriarchy (as you cannot put percentages on them as I have stated earlier) but neither.
I think it still applies to America. I have stated before it is not inherent in our laws in any pervasive sense. It is a construct of our soceity and our social norms. The terms "man up", "don't be a *****", "You throw like a girl", and the like all have to do with it. The fact that we have a drastically disproportionate amount of women in high earning positions and government posts are evidence of this. The "majority" of power lay in the hands of men. If you recall I posted my own definition from google. We are currently in the 2nd definition of patriarchy. Though again I have stated it is a construct that can exist in ideological form as well which is the true enemy.
I don't recall stating it was the cause of all injustice. Though it can easily be linked to specific cases. I think there needs to be a better education of what feminism is, what patriarchy is, and what the goals and ways to obtain those goals are for the movement. There is an awful lot of misunderstanding and general ignorance even within the ranks of self proclaimed feminists.
In countries where power isn't overwhelmingly with one gender or the other, the terms serve no meaningful purpose.
A herd of popular sayings which variously disparage both genders isn't indicative of power. Power is about being able to freely vote, to have equal protection & benefit under the law, to have equal access to public accommodations, to equal opportunity in society & commerce. The fact that some gal or guy might call either of us a "dick" or a "*****" is irrelevant when compared to power as I enumerated above.
Such a disparate effect is due to discrimination & other factors such as tendencies of people in groups to make different choices. Are these disparate results due solely to women lacking power to choose otherwise? No. Women voting (the ubiquitous example) mostly men into office is due to their freedom to vote. Feminists will decry the choices made by women as a group, but if they're freely made choices, then this simply cannot be blamed on "patriarchy". Perhaps it might be seen as a cultural vestige from real patriarchy from a century ago, & that women are changing in how they choose to exercise their power. Perhaps they'll eventually vote for more women instead of men....or perhaps they'll vote 50/50....but their vote is their own.
You haven't, but it's a popular refrain among many vocal feminists.
I am here to educate & to correct misunderstandings.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Equestrian retains value hopefully but patriarchy and matriarchy still are ideological constructs that can exist as such even if there is no distinctive presence in said society.
The statistics on representation and high earning positions in upper management are the evidences of the power difference. The ability to vote was the single most important victory ever attained that much is true. But to say that men and women have equal power in this country would be objectively false. The rest of this instance has to do with the sexist mindset that has protruded out society because of the pre-existing and somewhat existing patriarchy today.
Again I have not stated that everything can be blamed on patriarchy. In one example here just blatant sexism (which is often a component of patriarchy) can be to blame. Feminism also fights against this. Hopefully they fight against sexism in two way street.
Some freely made choices are decided by our society and when we have statistics as disproportionate as we currently have it isn't just an anomaly caused by "free choice". Surely you can agree to that.
I can honestly say I have never heard of it before. I think you have misunderstood or they misspoke. For example racism is an injustice that has nothing to do with patriarchy.
Good to know.
You're doing great, MR.
We have a local group that does a lot around our metropolitan area, from fundraising for building a fence around a reproductive health center to having coasters put in local bars and pubs that say "Got consent?" We also have volunteer lists for local rape crisis centers and shelters.
I would still like to offer time or money for men's concerns. Like you, though, I'm still searching for groups that are organizing for these projects that aren't anti-feminist, spell out why the VAWA discriminates against "traditional family paradigms that are biologically based on fact", or has targets of local feminists or women who they claim made a false rape accusation with pictures and addresses for vigilante purposes.
It's sad. At our feminist group, every now and then self-proclaimed egalitarians and MRA's will enter the group, join discussions, then say the reason they are in the group is so that they can "expose feminism for what it really is", and we have had problems with members such as these sending threatening messages to me and to other members. Not just the typical "**** you" messages, but messages revealing they know where I work, my family members names, when they last saw me out and about, and messages of how they plan to kill me.
I have their threats on file.
I'm not the only one either. Plenty of outspoken feminists have shown that they have been targets of threats that impact their lives financially and socially. They need security, attorneys, time off work, and every now and then must relocate.
All threats come from people who are hostile to feminism and/or the various feminist movements.
Still waiting for MRA organizations that are for funding male victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and for fathers custodial rights. Or are in people's opinions painted unfairly by the Jezebel article.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
This is also an inherent problem with the issue at hand with the MRA groups. So far we haven't seen a tremendous amount of effort put in place for masculine but an incredible amount of effort put into anti-feminism. I don't think that the whole movement has to be this way but it just appears to be this way in every group I have found.You're doing great, MR.
We have a local group that does a lot around our metropolitan area, from fundraising for building a fence around a reproductive health center to having coasters put in local bars and pubs that say "Got consent?" We also have volunteer lists for local rape crisis centers and shelters.
I would still like to offer time or money for men's concerns. Like you, though, I'm still searching for groups that are organizing for these projects that aren't anti-feminist, spell out why the VAWA discriminates against "traditional family paradigms that are biologically based on fact", or has targets of local feminists or women who they claim made a false rape accusation with pictures and addresses for vigilante purposes.
It's sad. At our feminist group, every now and then self-proclaimed egalitarians and MRA's will enter the group, join discussions, then say the reason they are in the group is so that they can "expose feminism for what it really is", and we have had problems with members such as these sending threatening messages to me and to other members. Not just the typical "**** you" messages, but messages revealing they know where I work, my family members names, when they last saw me out and about, and messages of how they plan to kill me.
I have their threats on file.
I'm not the only one either. Plenty of outspoken feminists have shown that they have been targets of threats that impact their lives financially and socially. They need security, attorneys, time off work, and every now and then must relocate.
All threats come from people who are hostile to feminism and/or the various feminist movements.
Still waiting for MRA organizations that are for funding male victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and for fathers custodial rights. Or are in people's opinions painted unfairly by the Jezebel article.
And in general there are very real dangers and threats processed by the counter feminists often in name of the MRA that have caused great harm as you have shown from your personal experience.
Equestrian? It's not my cup of syrup, but I've no objection to the sport.
Anyway, inapplicable ideological constructs should be the province of academics looking to over-complicate simple concepts.
I don't say power is equal....only that women wield great power. (I don't want the false-equivalency-club to pounce upon me.) I've also read over the years various analyses of the pay disparity, & it is real, but it's causes are not solely discrimination. (It's beyond the scope of this thread to explore that issue) Nonetheless, pay disparity does not defeat the claim of women's great power. It does point to potential to improve things.
Again, I agree that you have not. I'll try to be clearer when I'm addressing your claims vs others'.
It's good that feminism fights sexism. It's good that masculinism fights sexism.
I cannot agree. I don't see a freely made choice as something imposed by society. Example:
When a person goes into a voting booth, they'll do as they please with no one even watching. Certainly, society influences our decisions (even ;us privileged menfolk). But when women (as a group) chose Obama as prez twice, they dictated the course of the country to a very large extent. Would you deny that this is great power?
Here's a rare moment where I, not you, lay blame at the historical feet of patriarchy. When men were in full control (ignoring the occasional queen in England), the institution of slavey blossomed. But I agree with you regarding racism in 21st century Americastan.
You get a frubie for this mirthful response to my little joke. Your equanimity & civility are praiseworthy, given how contentious these issues are, & how annoying I can be.
Last edited: