And here's where I stopped reading: "The Green Party deplores this system of male domination, known as patriarchy"

[–]Furah 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Telekinesis 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 15 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]BinaryShadow 16 points17 points18 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gamedude999 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]lightspeed23 -16 points-15 points-14 points 15 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]numb3rb0y 18 points19 points20 points 15 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Not necessarily quotas. Other measures could be taken. But why not quotas? This way us men are protected when the women take over in 10-20 years time.

Because it's insulting, not to mention inaccurate, to suggest that because I have a penis, I'm incapable of comprehending womens' issues as they relate to politics. Because in a democracy, the people should be able to elect whoever they want, not whoever they want of an pre-determined gender. Because getting into Congress should be a matter of competence, not genitalia. Because quotas are incompatible with a first past the post system with constituency links.

Why? All they're saying is that you shouldn't be allowed to oppress and abuse..

No, they're saying they support censorship when they feel expression is oppressive or abusive, and they have the gall to praise free speech immediately prior to that. Perhaps it's not appropriate to call them crazy, but it is appropriate to call them hypocritical, authoritarian, fascistic, and illiberal, and for many people those things can be synonymous with "nuts".

[+]lightspeed23 -15 points-14 points-13 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You might not be incapable of comprehending womens issues, but you (as a man) might decide not to do anything about those issues because you're not a woman.

However, women control more than 50% of the vote and elected representatives have a vested interest in getting re-elected.

In a real and ideal democracy, all the different groups are represented.

No, what you're describing is corporatism. In a real and ideal democracy, all the different individuals have a say in their government...whether that be through direct means or indirect means.

Maybe not enough women run for office because of male cronyism? if that's the case how would you propose to avoid this?

...stop the cronyism.

Free Speech doesn't mean you're allowed to say whateverthehell you want.

Actually, it does...but we've already limited it when it comes to making threats, harassment and for issues of "national security".

[+]lightspeed23 -10 points-9 points-8 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do women have equal opportunity to get nominated for election in the parties?

yes, they do...remember in that other comment how I mentioned Hillary Clinton? She lost in the democratic primaries.

How, if not for quotas?

...determine the root cause.

Exactly, so it doesn't

No, "Free Speech" does...what we have isn't 100% free speech, but my country values "free speech" despite the few restrictions we have...and those restrictions are all related to bodily harm or, well, harassment (threats having an implication of harm, "national security" having an implication that lives will be lost). Look up "westboro baptist church"...these people say horrible things, but we allow them to continue because we value the ideal of "free speech". In fact, it's one of the few values that are shared almost universally throughout the US.

[–]Godspiral 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Telekinesis -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Have you ever thought that just by men's nature of being leaders and, very competitive and highly valuing honor and other such tendencies (and woman demand these qualities in their mates as a rule) make it more common to be in jobs that need those abilities? For woman they say "their good teachers, etc, etc" becuase of qualities that are common to woman. Only in the areas where woman consider it convenient or beneficial to them do they want artificial things in place to help them (quotas, ect). But all the other jobs, being a garbage man, drywallers (ridiculous amounts of other dangerous and demanding jobs) women want no part of, why aren't they screaming for 'equality' in that? Men are generally in those positions more becuase we tend (not concrete) to have qualities suited for the job and we are not chosen we chose ourselves for those jobs, work hard for them, and seek them out (including the 'bad ones'). Men and woman are different, end of story. There is mixing of course but over billions of samples there is a very statistically and sociologically clear trend for the qualities of the genders.

You've been living on this planet how long and haven't noticed this? Feminist hypocritical and fascist brainwashing at its best.

[–]Godspiral 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightspeed23 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Telekinesis 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are free to sign up, there are no rules against it. But just as more men will sign up for the 'bad' jobs more men will sign up and see the ability in them to be in politics, and those very qualities that make them work to their goals to being a politician, woman demand in their mates thereby agreeing that they are masculine qualities. So by that nature I don't see why there will ever not be a majority of males in those areas of expertise, just as I don't see there ever being a majority of female brick layers over males, ever, but they don't want equality in those areas, no, and don't argue my point in that area (pure hypocrisy). There is equality in Western nations but there is and will always be fundamental differences between the sexes and that will statistically lead to obvious trends in the spread of professions. There is no 'patriarchy', if woman want it they go get it and many women do.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightspeed23 -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Telekinesis 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightspeed23 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]numb3rb0y 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightspeed23 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]numb3rb0y 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cl3ft 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cynwrig 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]junkeee999 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thesmos -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ma99ie 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gaso 10 points11 points12 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightspeed23 -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 15 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]katt_the_katt -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fondueguy 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Over and over and over you call women the victim, you must be a feminist.

Historically male jobs are, as a general rule, much harder for women to break into than are historically female jobs for men to break into.

Where on earth did you pull that from. There are organizations to vouch for women In the workplace but not for men. Women have ben catapulted into careers they like that were once areas for men. There are now many female lawyers, females getting PhDs, and females in medical school on their way to becoming doctors. If the discrimination you talk about is even at all true then it is only allowed because these loads of women's groups don't care about equality in such areas as they are clearly ok with the status quo of male disposability.

On a side note, maybe even more frustrating, is that every salute to the forces, the national, the police, or any other life risking service must be made to men and women to make things sound equal even though their not. Have you ever noticed the media will over represent women in military ceremonies to make things appear more equal then they are. This only has the effect of giving women credit for something that comes at an extremely high and disproportionate cost to men.

[–]thetrollking 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]lightspeed23 -15 points-14 points-13 points 15 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]AussieSceptic 13 points14 points15 points 15 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+]lightspeed23 -12 points-11 points-10 points 15 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]AussieSceptic 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AussieSceptic 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]lightspeed23 -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AussieSceptic 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]lightspeed23 -9 points-8 points-7 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AussieSceptic 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightspeed23 -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightspeed23 -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Telekinesis 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]numb3rb0y 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]lightspeed23 -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]numb3rb0y 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]lightspeed23 -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AussieSceptic 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]blinderzoff 21 points22 points23 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]lightspeed23 -12 points-11 points-10 points 15 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]lightspeed23 -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I DON'T agree that people should vote solely along gender lines. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

You're claiming that, because the voters didn't elect a female president, that they were wrong. The only way to be right, would be to elect a female president. The only way to ensure that happens is for them to vote based on gender alone.

If only few females get the opportunity to be nominated

Here's all that needs to happen by law:

A candidate decides they want to run for office.
They collect an assload of signatures in each state to get themselves on the ballot for those states.
The people vote and decide on a candidate.

It's a bit different when it comes to one of the big parties (DEM/REP) and they have their own procedures (which is their right btw)...but to get a DEM/REP nomination, one still has to win in that party's primary elections. In 2008, the democratic primary was between 1 man and 1 woman...Obama and Clinton.

[+]lightspeed23 -10 points-9 points-8 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You're claiming that, because the voters didn't elect a female president, that they were wrong. The only way to be right, would be to elect a female president. The only way to ensure that happens is for them to vote based on gender alone.

No, you're getting it backwards. I'm saying that because no female presidents have been elected there is something wrong in the system. I am not saying that they should vote based on gender alone. If all the people on the ballot are men then this wont change a thing, see? So you need to make sure that there are an equal amount of women and men on the ballot (and this can happen if they have equal opportunity)

It's a bit different when it comes to one of the big parties (DEM/REP) and they have their own procedures (which is their right btw)...but to get a DEM/REP nomination, one still has to win in that party's primary elections.

oh, so you're ok with it that it's different when it comes to the only two major parites?? They have their own procedures, sure, but that doesn't make those procedures right. They need to be changed.

In 2008, the democratic primary was between 1 man and 1 woman...Obama and Clinton.

Wooptidoo. How many times has the primary been between 2 women and how many times between 2 men?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 15 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm saying that because no female presidents have been elected there is something wrong in the system.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. You're inferring a cause from an effect...it's the same as our ancestors watching the sun travel across the sky and assuming it must revolve around the earth.

Show me the problem with our system, other than democracy itself, which is demonstrably blocking women, as a gender, from taking the presidency. If you can do that, then you would convince me that a quota system is worth considering.

If all the people on the ballot are men then this wont change a thing, see?

But all the people on the ballots AREN'T men. I don't see how you're not getting this.

oh, so you're ok with it that it's different when it comes to the only two major parites?? They have their own procedures, sure, but that doesn't make those procedures right.

I'm neither democrat, nor republican, so I have no say in how they run their party, just like I have no say in how your family runs its household. ...they are not governmental organizations, they are political parties, and they draw legitimacy from the number of their party members. If their party members have an issue with their procedures, they'll bring it up to them...and there are plenty of female democrat and republican party members to influence change within those organizations.

They have their own procedures, sure, but that doesn't make those procedures right. They need to be changed.

Well let's use your inductive reasoning on this problem. You said earlier that, the lack of a female president indicates that there is something wrong with the system. Scaling that down for a moment, wouldn't having a female candidate in the primary prove that the system is okay? ...because, again, I point to hillary.

Wooptidoo. How many times has the primary been between 2 women and how many times between 2 men?

How is that relevant? I'm not trying to argue that the system wasn't historically sexist...because I believe it was. I'm arguing that it isn't sexist now.

EDIT: apparently there have been a good amount of female candidates though, going all the way back to the 1800's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightspeed23 -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightspeed23 -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]lightspeed23 -10 points-9 points-8 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuteman 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]pythiowp -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fondueguy 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The duplicity is almost comical.

People paint the picture of female oppression as a wife existing as subservient to her husband, beholden to his command, and basically a slave. And the duty of raising children falling to the woman as an aspect of male privilege. He is privileged to not be required to raise those children.

Women's choices have been limited in the past. College? No girls allowed. (You're supposed to get married, why do you want college?) Join the army? No way. You should be at home having or taking care of children. Vote? Your husband will choose what is best for your household.

Sounds shitty, right? This whole business of keeping women from doing certain things sounds terribly oppressive.

What a shame that such zeal about uncovering womens oppression was not at least partially directed toward men and their expectations in society. For just as the women were chained to the proverbial stove and expected to raise a man's children and fulfill his needs, so were men chained to their jobs, expected to protect, defend, provide, and sometimes sacrifice his life in order to assure his wife and child's survival.

[–]thetrollking 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pythiowp 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To your first point: I actually think what feminists call the "patriarchy" is a system of gender roles that oppresses men too, and men who want to be stay-at-home-dads but fear condemnation are in that group. But those gender roles do have the consequences of leaving men in the positions of power (CEO, Judge, President, etc) and part of getting to those positions of power is not taking years off work to raise kids. So perhaps I shouldn't have called it privilege as such, but it's still patriarchy.

To your second point: What do you mean "she is a single mother"? We're talking about general cultural issues here, not hypotheticals, so the statistical question is relevant. As of 2006, only 7% of households with children were single-mother households, and the proportion of those who have chosen their single-motherhood (as opposed to being forced into it by abandonment/death in the family) is likely to be even lower. So you are focusing on a marginal case so as to knock down a straw man.

[–]cuteman 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pythiowp 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's telling that you assume I'm a woman... I'm not.

Your argument suggests that most wives put their interests above those of other family members, a contention that is not supported by the empirical evidence: families in which women control the finances are much more likely to be families in which those women go short (eating less, delaying personal purchases, etc) in order to ensure that there is enough for the husband and children.

This selflessness is not found in families where husbands control finances, in which a comparatively greater share is spent on the husband's personal consumption. (J. Pahl. 1993. Money, marriage, and ideology: holding the purse strings? Sociology Review, September p. 8).

Also, what the hell does minimum wage have to do with anything? Are you implying that motherhood should be thought of as a minimum-wage role? Would you trust an apathetic 16-year-old to raise your children?

[–]thetrollking 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fondueguy -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lightspeed23 -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fondueguy 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vacax 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Krase 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AntiFeministMedia -16 points-15 points-14 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ma99ie -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Ma99ie -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ether_reddit 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]xixie -12 points-11 points-10 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	And here's where I stopped reading: "The Green Party deplores this system of male domination, known as patriarchy"
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	52
Comments	115
Date	November 3, 2010 11:03 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/e0ka7/and_heres_where_i_stopped_reading_the_green_party/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/and-heres-where-i-stopped-reading-the-green-party.1046261 https://theredarchive.com/post/1046261

Comments