~ archived since 2018 ~

[Feel-Good] "Men, often on a daily basis, risking their lives for their families back home."

EvilPundit

August 22, 2013

47 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://i-dont-need-feminism.tumblr.com/post/58913118482/human-planet

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	[Feel-Good] "Men, often on a daily basis, risking their lives for their families back home."
Author	EvilPundit
Upvotes	47
Comments	12
Date	August 22, 2013 1:43 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1kvg3f/feelgood_men_often_on_a_daily_basis_risking_their/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feel-good-men-often-on-a-daily-basis-risking-their.1165719 https://theredarchive.com/post/1165719

Comments

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]simulet -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]simulet 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Ok, sorry, I could've been more clear. You say the point is that

"they do it because they care for their families enough to go out of their way and do extra work for them, that they did not need to do."

That's what I meant by "work hard to provide for their families."

Made sense to me, but I can see how it got lost.

The argument is that a group of people oppressing another would not do such a thing, as it is at odds with the core concept of oppression.

I got that; my argument was that this is invalid, since men do both all the time. Lots of men who abuse buy flowers later...

Oppression and abuse are completely difference subjects that exist on their own and on completely different scopes of occurrence. One does not require the other to exist, nor are they linked by definition similarities. It's like you went from the subject of people, no matter where you go, will not hold the door open for you when your hands are full, too changing the subject to be about certain people who piss in your drink.

Ok, oppression and abuse are different things, so again I could've been more clear. I don't think they're nearly so separated as you claim, though. That is why I thought it relevant to point out that those men, taking cues from the oppressive nature of patriarchy, could also abuse their wives.

So, to be more clear, saying "This group of men is not oppressing women!" doesn't prove that oppression doesn't exist, or isn't widespread. It's just silly, and you know it.

EDIT: Formatting error

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]simulet 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]simulet 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

It is difficult to mind read intent and perspective without it being spelled out, when communicating through text.

I think this is our big problem here. You need things spelled out more than most people. You said:

Oppression and abuse are completely difference subjects that exist on their own and on completely different scopes of occurrence. One does not require the other to exist, nor are they linked by definition similarities.

I responded by saying they're not nearly so separated, saying that men who abuse individually are taking cues from larger systemic oppression. You may disagree with that, but it's hard for me to believe you couldn't understand what I was saying, and needed clarification on parts of speech.

And yes, what I am saying, and what I did say, was that this wonderful story about men doing nice things doesn't prove anything ("Does not follow." was the wording in my original post) about patriarchy one way or another. Thus, this article's argument that patriarchy is unreal because this happens in different cultures is incredibly sophomoric, which probably explains why you liked it so much.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]simulet 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

You are basically saying, how you feel in your head (concept) about two words means there is a connection between them and patriarchy is teh realz because of those ideas (concepts), and that men will abuse women because of your idea (concepts) on what you think (concept) they learn from oppression or patriarchy.

I am not saying any of that. I am saying, and have been saying, that individual acts of abuse are done in an environment soaked in patriarchy and oppression. Those acts of abuse are encouraged and protected by that environment, and thus the two are related. That is not at all a claim that the two words mean the same thing, or because I thought of them in my head at the same time they have become indistinguishable.

Saying "abuse and oppression are related concepts" is like saying "thunderstorms are related to cold fronts." Pointing out that they're not the same thing is beside the point, and really just semantic wrangling from someone who doesn't want to admit that this article has no merit. You're splitting hairs because you don't have an argument. The article is frivolous and doesn't prove anything about the worldwide existence of patriarchy, while claiming to do exactly that.

On the nature of concepts, read this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

(EDIT: Really just the first three bullet points and the picture should bear this out)

Concepts, as "abstract ideas" (as your definition states), can be similar and related to each other, as in the idea of "oppression" being related to the idea of "abuse." Oppression and abuse aren't physical things you can hold in your hand, or walk up to and touch. They are ideas, concepts, that represent realities. Oppression is sort of like "cold." You can feel it, and it is real, but it is not a substance.

Anyway, I am done arguing vocabulary and grammar at a 3rd-grade level. I'll respond to your question, since that is actually interesting, on-topic, and relevant.

Before we go any further, are you someone who believes patriarchy was an intentional construct, or something that just happened on its own without anyone aware of it?

That is actually a great question. I honestly think it's somewhere between the options you mentioned. I don't think anyone ever sat down and planned out patriarchy as such. I do think that lots of people have made decisions down through the years, intentional decisions, to disenfranchise women and put and keep men in power, which ends up being patriarchy, though often not under that name. So, I don't think some diabolical cabal of craven men sat down and said "Let's be jerks, you guys!" I also don't think it just happened on its own, like a random force of nature.

EDIT: Note on the link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link