What is Patriarchy?

Post Reply New Topic

combining everything into one response for succinctness.
Note that I'm not going to respond to youtube arguments, per the usual, nor to leading questions with no answers or data given to support the track.

edit, since I know you're probably going to ask why and/or claim that it's because I can't respond to the youtube arguments: It's because this is a print medium, and one cannot fisk a video in a print medium. I'm sure that there are plenty of videos on youtube that have fisked the vids that you linked to, so go there if you want to see responses to youtube claims.

Two important points about Dr. Capaldi's work: First, her research was with a specific group of low-socioeconomic, high-risk people, and she does not (contra the MRAs who cite her) claim that it represents all, or even most, domestic violence patterns; second, and more importantly, Capaldi's definition of 'severe violence' does not jibe with that of most researchers and reporters in the area. The activities of women who 'initiate violence' in her study may have been as innocuous as expressing discontent, expressing disrespect, or yelling at their partners, which their partners responded to with physical violence. In addition, the statement that '67% of women had reported violence toward their partner' does not distinguish whether that violence was in response to violence from their partners (i.e., fighting back).

http://www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/stu ... estic.html
quote:
"According to a U.S. Justice Department study, two-thirds of violent attacks against women are committed by someone the woman knows. In the United States, one of the most dangerous places for a woman is her own home. Approximately 1,500 women are killed each year by husbands or boyfriends. About 2 million men per year beat their partners, according to the F.B.I.
...According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 95 percent of the victims of domestic violence are women. The National Crime Victimization Survey consistently finds that no matter who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured than are men. It's important to realize the climate of intimidation and control that occurs in abusive families. Most men will say they are not afraid of the woman with whom they live, even if they had also been hit, scratched, or punched by her. However, you'll often hear that women are terrorized and live in constant fear of being battered by the man with whom they live. The difference in strength and physical size puts a woman at more risk than a man."
(bolding mine)
Also:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... r-partners


Yeah, there's not much I need to add to that. It doesn't really support your case that men are the real victims.

This is a genuinely bad thing, which leads me to wonder why MRAs don't do anything to actually help men who have been battered and/or raped, choosing instead to spend time whining about and harassing women over the internet. Actually helpful orgs like Male Survivor and Just Detention, which actively work to help men, deliberately distance themselves from MRA groups.

Hmmm, how many times have you seen (and contributed to) the 'feminists are ugly, strident, and need to get laid' meme?

Because grocery shopping and gift-giving are chores relegated to women.

Great! That sounds like a good thing for everybody. I wonder what the rates are for women being granted start-up loans for similar businesses, with similar qualifications, vs. the rate of men being granted start-up loans for the same?

The data do not support that claim.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... 69439.html
http://mariko-chang.com/shortchanged.html
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... and-women/
http://www.stanford.edu/group/knowledge ... ealth-gap/

Last edited by LKL on 31 Dec 2013, 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

There's actually very little to respond to, leaving out the hours of MRA youtube vids.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EHfZP93kU0[/youtube]

Condensed version of the existing Reproductive Rights film, focusing on the male pill and it's potential meaning for the future of family and the freedom of men. Includes some new footage of Steve Moxon, author of The Woman Racket

I don't really get this. I've heard many of these things from MRA-like types of guys before, sort-of MRA's and anti-feminists etc, but I don't get the point.

If men are more likely to get killed, what in the world does that have to do with feminism or women? Is it that if you oppress women more, less men will die from violence committed by other men?

And things like less mental illnesses, less drugs, etc: What's the point? I asked it to such an MRA-like guy and he just said men suffer too.

Oh yes? But how do you explain this?
''Men suffer more in certain instances''===> 'as a ''comfort/compensation'' they get the right to oppress women and have a docile, obedient punching bag wife'

I don't even-

Okay now.

''Circumcision is illegal''. Yeah, it's bad enough that it's happening to baby boys, but still there's quite a difference between the foreskin being removed (which I do not support) and having the clitoris cut out.

''Reproductive rights'' how do you mean? I don't get this one.

''Hypergamy''. I'd be more hypergamous if men weren't so selfish in bed. But really, if you openly say you enjoy sex and especially with more than just 1 man you're a slut and whatnot. Your respectability as a person is removed yet when a guy is a total slut he's ubercool.

''Women's shelters''. Wow okay. So ehmmm what do these women need to be protected from….? Should we just leave them with no aid at the hands of their abuser? That's sick.

''Gynocentrism''- care to elaborate? Is that a new word?

''Positive sexual encouragement'' well no, not here at least. We're a modern country but it's not like we're positively sexually encouraged. It's not about exploring our own sexuality, but more about catering to guy's needs, it's not like girls are being told ''care for your own satisfaction, too, you're not overly demanding if you want orgasm''. But maybe it's different in the USA. I really hope so. I don't see how this is female privilege at all.

''Safer work conditions'' because we choose other jobs than men?

''More, better contraceptive options''. D'oh. There've been several attempts at making a pill for men, but it's almost impossible thus far due to biology: women have 1 cell to think about, men have millions (sperm cells). Besides, something like that already exists but men don't want to take it.

''Not assumed to be a pedophile around kinds''. Maybe that's because most pedo's are men.

''Not avoided by strangers of the other gender''- you can say that again. Great fun, PUA's harassing you or muslim men thinking you're a cat or a dog.

''Less likely to be homeless'', is that female privilege? Privilege is about institutionalised benefits, I don't see this one. Besides, homelessness is a complex thing and many factors are at play.

''Less likely to abuse drugs'' how is this related to any form of privilege?

''More likely to be helped/treated like a victim''. I agree with you on that one, male rape/violence victims need the proper treatment and help. However, that too is a consequence of patriarchy. Men are too often culturally denied the right to express their feelings and pain, they're just to suck it up and be macho.

''Given extra attention in class'' is not true, it's known that boys get to talk a lot more than girls, and when a girl talks as much as a boy, she's being seen as annoying.

''The Sisterhood''- what's that? And why is that privilege?

''Less pressure for financial achievement'''- a direct consequence of patriarchy.

''Punished less for changing your mind'' what on earth is this referring to?

''Less likely to transition gender identity''- huh?! What does that have to do with privilege in any way? Is it the suggestion that men change because of that female privilege or something? Right now, this one seems absurd.

''General immunity to sexism allegations'' that one can easily be solved by going to L&D here, and have a look.

''Less likely to be killed in war'' Sigh.

''Having it all'' I don't own a glass orb and I can't read bird intestines so what this means…. no idea. What is he referring to?

''Less enforcement of heterosexuality''- lesbian girls face so much stupid behaviour. Same as asexuals, bisexuals etc. Besides, the homophobia is a typical patriarchy thing.

It's ludicrous. If there're valid concerns about discrimination against men I'm on your side, but this is ridiculous.

Actually, we Patriarchs often find bisexuality in women to be rather cute. At least it arouses hopes of a threesome.

Yeah, and lesbian girls too apparently ^_^ I know a lesbian couple, and the more 'feminine' one (the other one's butch/androgynous) says guys think they can 'convert' her to heterosexuality, and apparently some people bother her with all kinds of unrealistic phantasies and assumptions. Like a bisexual girl I know: Some guys apparently think she's bisexual to make them horny!

Gay men meet violence, hatred, disgust, bullying etc, but gay girls get sexualised, being asked stupid things, having stuff assumed about them, etc. In the end it's all ignorant people who can't deal with anyone being 'different', especially not in a sexual manner. I personally don't think it's wrong to think that bisexuality in a girl is hot, just don't treat her in such really outlandish ways

you have access to google use it

Gynocentrism (Greek, gyno-, "woman, female") is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of asserting a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view and placing it at the center of a political, social, family, or gender context, potentially to the detriment of non-females.[1][2][3] The perceptions, needs, and desires of women have primacy in this system, where the female view is the reference point or lens through which matters are analysed.[4]
It is the reverse of androcentrism where the male view is the central reference point.[5]



Finally from the horse's mouth



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVc2Z13uxV8[/youtube]


anti-feminists critics have been saying this for years. feminists view men as rapists and all vaginal sex rape. the same is said in the manwomanmyth videos they view men as the oppressor. despite denials from the feminists themselves. one of them finally admitted. this not suprising

the blog in question

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/ ... s-rape-ok/

notice the tag "men are violent"



comments from the readers show that this view of men is normal in the movement. feel free to look around this is no diffferent from a white supremacist/racist website they say the same thing about non-whites


i already report this to wordpress
http://wordpress.com/abuse/

Being anti-PIV is generally considered radical even within radical feminism. I know some claim it as a cornerstone of their ideology (mainly Americans) but most of the British rad fems I've come across think that idea is stretching the definition of rape too far (sorry if there was a horrible pun there) even if they are mostly critical of how PIV has become the default way of having sex, and that women are always pressured to have it. Most of them don't actually make the leap from that into saying that all PIV is rape, the ones who do are in the minority.

Disclaimer: I'm not a radical feminist, but I do value some of their ideas and theories. I've always thought two of them were rubbish though: anti-trans and anti-PIV.

There are lots and lots of American rad fem blogs on the net that focus on these two things and it's misleading. The grassroots second-wave-influenced feminist movement in my own country doesn't discuss those ideas much because whenever they do, it just leads to too much dispute because most of them disagree. Okay, most of them are critical of the idea of transsexualism but they aren't transphobic like the American bloggers are. The don't ever bother with the PIV thing because some of them are in hetero relationships. They have more practical things to do.

For the record, I think PIV can be a great way to have sex and that trans people have a legitimate medical condition and deserve protection and treatment.

And honestly, the rad fems who criticise PIV aren't oppressing men, they just have an opinion that's unpopular even within the feminist movement. And yes, I know Dworkin was anti-PIV, but she's not the ultimate rad fem, even if she is highly respected by them.

According to AP, I'm one of the more "strident" feminists here and I definitely don't have a problem with penis-in-vagina sex.

^ Don't mean to sound macho, but I think I could win the stridency competition if I could be bothered (and if it was even a competition.)

Another note on what I wrote (not aimed at LKL - just more info.) I didn't stop associating with radical feminism because they kicked me out over the trans and PIV issues. They wouldn't kick me out over PIV, though some of them would think I was brainwashed over it. They would probably kick me out if I claimed that trans women were categorically more oppressed than cis women, but I wouldn't claim that, anyway.

They would also kick me out if I said that feminists needed to fight for the rights of transwomen because we're feminists and because trans women are hurt by patriarchy in sometimes similar ways. I might think something like that in a nuanced way, but I wouldn't say that in front of them

I wouldn't try to suggest that they stop having groups that are for cis women only, but mainly because I don't think that the trans rights movement and the feminist movement need to be one and the same, and that some separate groups is beneficial because each group has different issues that the other doesn't face. I don't think trans women are hijacking the movement or that they have a secret patriarchal plot to undermine cis women - just that there are limits to how much help we can be to each other. I don't believe feminism needs to be this massive umbrella movement for every social justice cause on the planet (sorry.) So they haven't kicked me out over that.

Basically, I left radical feminism because I stopped agreeing with one of their actual key tenets: that men oppress women because they're men. I came to the conclusion that men oppress women because they've built these power structures (the dominant one right now is capitalism,) which they enslave even themselves to, but which they enslave women to even more. I became a Marxist feminist. I find the Marxist and the feminist descriptors are as important as each other in describing my ideology because they're intertwined.

I figured that it could be possible for men to not oppress women just like it could be possible for the current ruling class in society to not oppress people. It's not likely to happen, but it's not impossible.

I got a bit more faith in men's potential. I got a bit less faith in the notion that if women separated themselves from men, then utopia would occur. It wouldn't unless they got rid of the mental vestiges of the power structures that exist in society, which aren't intrinsic to men for having y chromosomes,. I believe the power-structures have become their own monster independent of their creators (men, admittedly) and I believe the power structures are the real enemy.

Ugh, sorry this was long. At least it didn't have any Youtube clips in it.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 01 Jan 2014, 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

It takes a very stupid person to think women are any better than men, I'm sorry. Stick testosterone + physical superiority into women, and you get the same thing.

You put transwomen and ciswomen into the same room, and you have ciswomen oppressing the transwomen. What a shocker...

It all comes down to who has the power. The ones with power = wield that power to oppress the weak, be the powerful black, white, man, woman, gay, straight, rich, or poor. Fin. Done.

It is simply human nature to oppress those weaker than ourselves. Welcome to humanity, boys and girls.

part 1
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO44_1-5vTA[/youtube]


"More details on where Feminism came from and how it significantly pre-dates the 1960's. How radical Feminism attached itself to true Feminism such that they became one combined ideology. How women have been fooled by Feminism and how it has been used to steadily dismantle family. Featuring Stephen Fitzgerald, Angry Harry, Erin Pizzey and Michele Elliott.

• Leaders of the women's movement
• Making the personal, political
• Feminism use of Domestic Violence to generate income
• Women in the Second World War
• The EOC - Equal Opportunities Commission (now called EHRC)"





part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvLarCqo3Y0

actual quote from the the minister of women at 2:09

"Men who work full-time still earn 40% more per hour than women who work part-time"

is she saying that women working part-time should earn equal amount of money as men working full-time?



part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h640uWnzepk

What is it that you want, sephardic-male? I mean, in a positive way? (not ''no more x and y'', but ''we should get/improve/etc'')

And I don't really understand the gynocentrism thing. How does it show itself? Are there examples of this gynocentrism to make it more 'real'?

stop labeling women as victims and men the oppressors

I know you want us to get rid of the idea of patriarchy, but we need a convincing counter-argument (as well as reality to align with what you say.) We've read most of the counter-arguments before and we still think patriarchy exists. You're using other people's sources to do most of your arguing, when we've already rebutted those arguments in some form in another place before. Taking those arguments apart again is boring for us, but you are here with the ability to engage us with a sustained analysis and synthesis of all the sources you're linking to, should you wish to do that.

If you did do that, I would be a good feminist if I responded to your analysis and theories. Only I'm not a good feminist and I can't be arsed, so LKL will have to do it.

Going up to a group of people with specific beliefs (e.g. atheists, Christians or Dr. Who fans) and expecting to convert them is a waste of time, but it's even sillier if you think not even coming up with enough of your own argument can do that.

What are you sorry for? I don't think that.