~ archived since 2018 ~

Women’s prisons: The truth behind Canada’s utopia – Artefact

Fast-Mongoose-4989

July 22, 2022

43 upvotes

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Archived from /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates is a place for the discussion of men's issues from a left wing perspective.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Women’s prisons: The truth behind Canada’s utopia – Artefact
Author	Fast-Mongoose-4989
Upvotes	43
Comments	26
Date	July 22, 2022 4:34 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/w51dx7/womens_prisons_the_truth_behind_canadas_utopia/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/womens-prisons-the-truth-behind-canadas-utopia.1124699 https://theredarchive.com/post/1124699

Comments

[–]Fast-Mongoose-4989[S] 66 points67 points68 points 4 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]AvoidPinkHairHippos 27 points28 points29 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I really wish I could find that infamous screenshot of the SFU newsletter article from British Columbia, bemoaning how "1 in 4 homeless are women". Can't seem to find that gem

EDIT: i found it!!! : https://i.imgur.com/50Xxz98.png

BTW I like to use the following in my debates with feminists to prove their movement's very obvious double standards during covid and the year 2020 (pasting it here):

Lemme give you a covid example: you and I can easily, very easily, find journalistic articles, podcast episodes, YouTube videos, or social media posts from feminists (both famous and not so famous) that explicitly point out the disproportionately female gender of our healthcare heroes. In other words, they're saying "these are not just healthcare heroes..... They're female healthcare heroes". Now, how many articles/videos/posts can you find from these same feminists, that explicitly thanks the disproportionately male gender of paramedics?

Let's dig deeper: we know during the lock downs, our society heavily depended on frontline heroes for delivery of food (Uber eats, takeoff) , every day goods (USPS, Amazon, FedEx), and trucking and trains (for long distance shipping). how many articles/videos/posts can you find from these same feminists, that explicitly thanks the disproportionately male gender of these frontline heroes?

Let's go even further: we know during the lockdowns, we still need running water. We still need natural gas to heat. We still need electricity. We still need internet. So how many articles/videos/posts can you find from these same feminists, that explicitly thanks the disproportionately male gender of utility workers?

Getting tired yet? Wait, there's more! Later that summer in 2020, the entire West Coast was in serious trouble due to the greatest wildfires in all history in that region. How many articles/videos/posts from these same feminists, that are explicitly thanking the disproportionately male gender of those firefighters who continue to lose their health and lives to save our asses?

Wait one more: during those literally life-killing summer heat waves, you were absolutely in trouble if your job was outside a AC controlled building. how many articles/videos/posts can you find from these same feminists, that explicitly thanks the disproportionately male gender of outside workers?

[–]houseplanthider2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WhenIsItOkayToHate 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]InspectorSuitable407 -11 points-10 points-9 points 4 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Laser_Plasma 22 points23 points24 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]InspectorSuitable407 -8 points-7 points-6 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Laser_Plasma 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]InspectorSuitable407 -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Laser_Plasma 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Obviously nobody here thinks women are engaged in a conspiracy to oppress men.

But I don't know why we have to call it a patriarchy, either.

It is a social issue caused by the actions of everyone in society, consciously or not.

Men may run these prisons (more often than not) but they see their duty as keeping everyone, especially women and children, safe.

Ponting your fingers at these men won't fix anything because it does not address the root of the problem.

Demonizing men as misogynists / rapists / gangsters / criminals makes this problem worse
Profiling men for crimes that they may or may not have committed makes this problem worse
False accusations make this problem worse
A lack of mental health care, domestic violence services, and other forms of support for men in society makes this problem worse
Expecting men to be breadwinners makes this problem worse

Both men and women do these things.

And I'm sure that's just scratching the surface.

Society is a complicated place. You can't just blame things on "men running society" and call it a patriarchy. This rhetoric and theory has not worked historically, and is purposefully inflammatory. It offers no practical solutions, and as you yourself have alluded to, it gets coopted by radicals and misused anyway.

Do you want to know how we can actually fix this?

Tackle the problems that I bullet pointed above.

Increase funding for prisons.

Advocate for prison reform: rehabilitation over punishment.

When you just say patriarchy and leave it at that then you are detracting from the issues and preventing progress from being made.

[–]InspectorSuitable407 -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Neither Marx nor Engels wrote about a patriarchy, or white supremacy for that matter (they were European after all, and these are American problems / ideas).

In fact Engels seemed to think that both racism and sexism would be solved by class equality (he had some weird theories about pre-agricultural society also, some of which might actually be valid, but that's beside the point).

Feminists who try to appeal to Marxism are out of their league and don't know what they're talking about.

What you're going on about is called neo-marxism, which is a reactionary movement against the philosophies of Marx and Engels. Neo-Marxism was born out of the post WW2 reality where fascism was defeated, socialism seemed to be going nowhere, and all we had was capitalism dominating most of the world.

Marxists (American Marxists in particular) gave up and decided to make the best out of capitalism. Which as a movement mostly devolved into the pro-capitalist, liberal ideology that we call "wokeism" or "social justice" today. Where oppression is defined by the relative ratios of who our CEOs and politicians are (in terms of race / gender / sexuality), and not by the underlying class stratification that created oppression under Marxist philosophy.

In short, Engels would have disagreed with you.

So if you want to throw that kind of combative rhetoric around, it's really you who needs to go back and "open up a book".

[–]InspectorSuitable407 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

“Marxists are liberals” “neo Marxism”. No. you’re Just spouting Peterson rhetoric?

Literally Engels- “Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other, as the proclamation of a conflict between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous historic period. In an old unpublished manuscript written by Marx and myself in 1846 I find the words: The first division of labour is that between man and woman for the propagation of children And today I can add: The first class antagonism that appears in history coincides with that of the female sex by the male. Monogamous marriage was a great historical step forward; nevertheless, together with slavery and private wealth, it opened the epoch that has lasted until today in which every step forward is also relatively a step backward, in which prosperity and development for some is won through the misery and frustration of others.“

-Engels , “On family....”

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I've never watched Peterson in my life.

I am aware that he uses this term "neo-marxism", but this has also been part of the left for literally decades.

He didn't invent the term. And he's not the only person who dislikes liberals. Many on the left who are socialists also dislike liberals and neo-marxists.

And yes, that quote comes from his book about gender relations in pre-agricultural society. That division of labour he's talking about came about because of agricultural society, which created class stratification (the lower class were farmers who had to grow more food than what they ate for the upper classes to consume, and those farmers were men because it was work that women couldn't keep up with).

He also tried to make the argument that male oppression in the workforce affected women because it led to increased burdens on house chores. Basically, men can't come home to help with the kids because they have to work long hours in the workforce (or on the farms, in the context of your quote from On the origin of the family).

His argument was that if we got rid of class stratification, racism and sexism (and literally everything else bad in the world) would go away too.

He says this in The Principles of Communism as just one example.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[–]WhenIsItOkayToHate 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]InspectorSuitable407 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It’s a complicated topic but as I see it patriarchy is a structure built around ensuring that there are enough fresh bodies made to provide labor to the top. This involves ownership of women’s reproductive capacity by men, and all the gender roles associated with it. Social expectations of men’s responsibilities, shaming sexual openness, homophobia, misogyny, misandry etc. are all part of that system that keeps people in line and ensures they do what capital wants. It really only benefits those at the top but like white supremacy, some working class people will buy the lie that they’re on the same team because they share a race/gender.

The annoying thing is that in the west supposed feminists also misunderstand what it is. So it seems like no one ever intends to end gender norms, just be reactionary and advocate for themselves- making it men’s fault or women’s fault. It’s systemic though and it fucks us all over. Unless you’re enforcing those things, existing as aman does not make you responsible for patriarchy.

[–]OGBoglord 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]InspectorSuitable407 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is. It’s just called patriarchy because those gender roles were established through patrilineal inheritance and segregation of labor between men and women for obvious biological reasons. That’s just a fact. It’s clearly changed a lot since but we have vestiges of those gender roles. They came about for a reason and so those reasons must be understood for them to be erased.

And hypothetically there could be A matriarchal society like you describe, they do exist in some places actually there just isn’t on a large scale today as it simply didn’t develop that way. Sexual division of labor is more efficient for capitalism so that’s why it’s been more common.

Once again it has little to do with the individuals. A black president doesn’t eliminate racism just like a female ceo doesn’t help any one of us. Individual men have no control over women’s reproduction, and yet it’s still controlled by the state in America. That’s a result of the material conditions created by history.

[–]OGBoglord 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

So, because traditional gender roles were established within the context of a patriarchal society, our modern society is patriarchal so long as even vestiges of those roles still exist? If you define patriarchy as 'a society with patriarchal gender roles', you've created a circular definition.

"Patrilineal inheritance and segregation of labor between men and women" is, more or less, what I would consider to be a necessary condition for sustained patriarchy; the gender roles that were derived from that structure, however, can persist outside of it. For example, society can continue to shame adult men for living with their parents even without patrilineal inheritance or a gendered division of labor.

Yes, women's reproduction is controlled by the State in America, to a limited yet significant degree (a select number of southern states have imposed abortion restrictions and outright bans); however, the State is not 'men', neither individually or as a class. In fact, without abortion access men will have even less agency over their potential child then they had before, so men's reproductive capacity is being controlled by both women and the State.

[–]WhenIsItOkayToHate 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]InspectorSuitable407 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Phantombiceps 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link