When will we acknowledge sexism and violence against men is just as real?

[JerryL]

From etymonlinecom....
patriarchy (n.)
1560s, in ecclesiastical sense, from Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhes (see patriarch). Meaning "system of society or government by fathers or elder males of the community" first recorded 1630s.

I've been wondering for a while if the claim should be "fratriarchy"... since the voiced concerns are not restricted to older men.

 

[JerryL]

Words do have meaning. But I see that many are careless about their usage....altering meaning, & thoughtless about effects. The connection is that jargon unifies a group, & bespeaks shared attitudes.

I cannot give this phrase enough likes.

One of the many frustrating things about how these topics play out in RL interactions, the media, etc, is that terms are so often thrown around and mis-used and mis-understood.

This happens with "privilege". This happens with "patriarchy". This happens with "misogyny".

It's not that those things don't exist: it's that they are carelessly misused; and certainly over-used to vilify a group of people.

One of the things you see from Karl Rove's influence on campaigning is the realization that angering a base is more effective than appealing to a whole. There's been a real stepping up of exactly that sort of "war on Christmas", "take our guns", "rape-culture" (again: something I've no doubt exists, but is dramatically over applied and mis-used) language designed to instill FUD and make enemies of those who should be allies.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been wondering for a while if the claim should be "fratriarchy"... since the voiced concerns are not restricted to older men.

Frubal worthy term! It suggests togas, booze, irresponsibility & power.
I blame the "coedarchy"....or better yet, the "coarchy".
Or better still, I'll just say there are problems called "gender inequities".

 

[Revoltingest]

I cannot give this phrase enough likes.

One of the many frustrating things about how these topics play out in RL interactions, the media, etc, is that terms are so often thrown around and mis-used and mis-understood.

This happens with "privilege". This happens with "patriarchy". This happens with "misogyny".

It's not that those things don't exist: it's that they are carelessly misused; and certainly over-used to vilify a group of people.

One of the things you see from Karl Rove's influence on campaigning is the realization that angering a base is more effective than appealing to a whole. There's been a real stepping up of exactly that sort of "war on Christmas", "take our guns", "rape-culture" (again: something I've no doubt exists, but is dramatically over applied and mis-used) language designed to instill FUD and make enemies of those who should be allies.

It occurs to me that there are analogs between movements with jargon & boogeymen. Thinking of femdamentalists & fundamentalists, some terms correspond in function....
Patriarchy - Satan <--- The source of evil, but a non-specific general influence.
Male gaze - Sinful nature <--- Tendency to sin.
Privilege - Spiritual blindness <--- The foe is blind to the truth.
Misogynist - Blasphemer <--- One who denies the truth.

 

[Apex]

It occurs to me that there are analogs between movements with jargon & boogeymen. Thinking of femdamentalists & fundamentalists, some terms correspond in function....
Patriarchy - Satan <--- The source of evil, but a non-specific general influence.
Male gaze - Sinful nature <--- Tendency to sin.
Privilege - Spiritual blindness <--- The foe is blind to the truth.
Misogynist - Blasphemer <--- One who denies the truth.

This is the most brilliant thing I have read all day!

 

[dust1n]

As is a bed sheet with eye holes, such an artifact itself is innocent of any wrongdoing. But its very existence speaks to someone's attitude.

I'm actually not familiar...

I don't speak of you as not caring....but others on RF said so. We may be vigilant & vocal about our intent to defend ourselves, but we needn't say we're specifically out to kill, men, women, blacks, or groundskeepers.

Well, it would be one thing if the slogan actually implicated killing men, but it actually implicates a woman being read to kill someone trying to rape them.

As far as what others say... what can I tell ya? There are a million people out there who sympathize with feminism in various complex ways, and most people aren't the most diplomatic individuals in existence.

Trust me, associating in anyway with anarchism is inevitably sprinkled with intereactions with people with whom I agree on a number of things, but who possess poor communication skills, unable to deescalate a situation... heck ineffective or counterproductive even. I think all sorts of little segments of the population have fragments who get annoyed by people sort of representing our values by being complete douchebags or what have you. However, those people may have many other useful talents other than their social finesse.

I sympathize.....I recommend avoiding most TV & radio talk shows....& most electioneering. (As 2016 approaches, we're coming upon the dark days of communication.)

Necromancing posts & threads is weird to come across...the context has been long forgotten.

Agreed on four counts there. I'm not looking forward to this election, or particularly anything I see coming forward in America in the next couple of decades... but I might still be around unfortunately.

Words do have meaning. But I see that many are careless about their usage....altering meaning, & thoughtless about effects. The connection is that jargon unifies a group, & bespeaks shared attitudes.

Nah, words don't actually have meaning, but they have agreed upon meanings that are quite useful when people try to stick to them, or accurately define a specific function of a term when appropriate so that others can follow for the sake of argument. Which is why miscommunication is so easy.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is the most brilliant thing I have read all day!

This calls for a non sequitur!

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm actually not familiar...

KKK riders use sheets with eye holes. It's an example of a thing which in & of itself means nothing, but its existence speaks to its owner's attitude.

 

[dust1n]

KKK riders use sheets with eye holes. It's an example of a thing which in & of itself means nothing, but its existence speaks to its owner's attitude.

Oh I see. Yeah, no particular shortage of things like that where I'm from.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not one to laugh at people for being tiny or frail anyway. Still, I don't buy into the martial arts cliche that size doesn't matter.

I was referring to whomever it was that made the remark about women farmers and warriors.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was referring to whomever it was that made the remark about women farmers and warriors.

Non sequitur:
I prefer women farmers & warriors to women lawyers & marketing executives.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't think "patriarchy" and "mansplaining" are divisive; they are mere descriptions of issues that feminists are noting and challenging. I also think "male gaze" is a very precise and useful description of another social phenomenon.

You are free to point out where you believe anyone has misrepresented your intent.

But for a woman to say male gaze, which is completely rude anyway, she must have female gaze mustn't she.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Perhaps it should bother us to have the misandrist element of feminism proclaiming "Dead men don't rape".

I suppose we could equally say ''Dead women can't be raped''. Now that'll go down well. Just as offensive though. Iguess men must have the word 'doormat' written on the forehead.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But for a woman to say male gaze, which is completely rude anyway, she must have female gaze mustn't she.

"Male gaze" refers to the cultural tendency to view a lot of subjects, even in the entertainment industry, primarily from a male perspective (see also: Bechdel test). I haven't noticed a similar tendency to view different subjects from a female perspective only.

I don't think pointing that out using the term "male gaze" is rude for women or men.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The silly slogan doesn't implicate all living males as rapists, it indicates that attempted rape will be met with violence.

It might also mean that the violence might also be met with more violence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The problem with the feminist slogan "Dead men don't rape" is that it isn't about rapists...it's about men....dead ones....presumably making them dead so they won't rape. This is a problem I see with some highly visible elements of feminism....they say things like this, & they blithely defend them, unaware of the bigotry so apparent to others.

The "silly" slogans, along with vicious false accusations we endure, alienate people who don't identify as a feminist.

The thing is, it is hard to feel sorry for someone who thinks you're better off dead.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But I would recommend steering clear of my comedy routine,

You're a comedian? Now that is funny

 

[Robert.Evans]

Let's see......"misogynist", "rape apologist", lying, & psychological abuse by fraud ("gaslighting") come to mind. I don't think people grok that such rhetoric inspires loathing. (I have thin skin, you know.)

Just shows my ignorance of how women feminists hate men,... I don't even know half of these sayings. Now I see why there are men who argue with feminists all the time.

 

[Robert.Evans]

"Male gaze" refers to the cultural tendency to view a lot of subjects, even in the entertainment industry, primarily from a male perspective (see also: Bechdel test). I haven't noticed a similar tendency to view different subjects from a female perspective only.

I don't think pointing that out using the term "male gaze" is rude for women or men.

In short,
I think it is obvious to say a man will see it from his own perspective and a woman likewise. The woman might look at what the man is doing more, but that is only because it is a man's world. (men don't need women to survive, but women need men outside of the modern day false world).
But women must have an agenda in doing that, and I think it is about the gaining of power. Men have it so they attack them. There is definitely a shift now as more women get more power and men notice it. Women now are having to be more careful how they interact with men, now they realise they have feelings just like them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In short,
I think it is obvious to say a man will see it from his own perspective and a woman likewise. The woman might look at what the man is doing more, but that is only because it is a man's world. (men don't need women to survive, but women need men outside of the modern day false world).
But women must have an agenda in doing that, and I think it is about the gaining of power. Men have it so they attack them. There is definitely a shift now as more women get more power and men notice it. Women now are having to be more careful how they interact with men, now they realise they have feelings just like them.

Saying that women always need men is not only infantilizing but also utterly heteronormative. The main reason we live in a "man's world" is that women have historically been discriminated against, marginalized, and underrepresented in positions of power. That still happens in a lot of places today, but it has also been gradually subsiding in some places.

You are generalizing about women and men again, especially when you say that women attack men because men currently have power. Fighting for one's rights is not an attack on men, except perhaps misogynistic men who wish all women were subservient to them.

I hope more people realize that women have feelings and autonomous intellects, just like them.