Women are responsible too for traditional gender roles and sexist stereotypes.

[–]Rockmapper_ 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotSensitive101 -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]KDulius 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotSensitive101 -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brapapple 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NotSensitive101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m sorry for misrepresenting my views; I’m writing a lot of replies right now. My belief is more nuanced than this. I’m saying that hunter-gather roles were different than power roles. I hope it’s ok if I copy and paste a response I made to another person in this issue:

In terms of gender roles, it’s an oversimplification to say all roles come from the same place. Women bearing children? That’s evolution. Foot binding? Definitely not. You have to take it case by case, but in terms of power structures there’s an argument to be made that it came from the advent of agriculture. Once nomadic tribes became sedentary, women would stay home more to take care of children, while nomadic societies didn’t have this degree of separation. Here’s an interesting article by NewScientist:

“THE vast majority of cultures are patriarchies, where men are more likely than women to hold positions of social, economic and political power. So it is tempting to assume that this is the natural state of affairs, perhaps because men are, on average, stronger than women. But a study of humanity’s roots suggests this answer is too simple...

The same is true in human societies: in places where women move to live with their husband’s family, men tend to have more power and privilege. Patrilocal residence, as it is called, is associated with patriarchy, says anthropologist and primatologist Sarah Hrdy at the University of California at Davis. For most of our history, we have been hunter-gatherers, and patrilocal residence is not the norm among modern hunter-gatherer societies. Instead, either partner may move to live with the “in-laws”, or a couple may relocate away from both their families. According to Hrdy, a degree of egalitarianism is built into these systems. If they reflect what prehistoric hunter-gatherers did, women in those early societies would have had the choice of support from the group they grew up with, or the option to move away from oppression. According to one school of thought, things changed around 12,000 years ago. With the advent of agriculture and homesteading, people began settling down. They acquired resources to defend, and power shifted to the physically stronger males. Fathers, sons, uncles and grandfathers began living near each other, property was passed down the male line, and female autonomy was eroded. As a result, the argument goes, patriarchy emerged. This origin story is supported by a study published in 2004. Researchers at the Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, studied mitochondrial DNA (inherited from mothers) and genetic markers on the Y chromosome (inherited from fathers) in 40 populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This suggested that women in hunter-gatherer populations, such as the !Kung and Hadza, were more likely to remain with their mothers after marriage than women from food-producing populations. It was the reverse for men, suggesting that agriculture is indeed correlated with patrilocal societies.”

The whole article is a good read, but obviously not all gender roles fall into one box. This is why it’s so important to have this conversation and decide what is and isn’t right.

[–]xNOM 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotSensitive101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rockmapper_ 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ausgamer529 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotSensitive101 -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

This is where men’s rights and feminism needs to come together. I’m a feminist, and I believe that feminism should and doesn’t enough take into account the struggles that men face.

Pertaining to your disagreement with a patriarchy, let’s look at the definition for Wikipedia: “Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.” Political leadership? Check Moral authority? That’s a bit of an ambiguous claim that I won’t defend. Social privilege? People tend to take men more seriously than women. Check. Control of property? Absolutely.

As you can see, stemming from this definition, I would certainly argue that a patriarchy exists in the developed world. Here’s the key thing to consider: it’s larger scope problems. It’s about the distribution of wealth and power in society. There’s also a point that gender roles, while perpetuated by women, were STARTED by men, but I won’t make any substantial claim about that.

On a smaller scope, both men and women have problems. This is where I think both Men’s Rights Activists and Feminists need to understand each other more. You bring up good points about the perpetuation of gender roles. Both men and women perpetuate harmful standards towards one another and themselves. Working together will help us create an equal and understanding world.

The last thing I want to say is that you claim “Feminists say” this and that. It does seems to be a strawman. Most feminists are quite understanding and will sympathize with men’s problems if you give them the chance, but men have to sympathize with the problems of women.

It’s a two way street.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Social privilege? Just because men are taken "More seriously"? What gender has to simply accuse another of rape to be believed? Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to those situations, that doesn't sound to me like a social privilege. Or how about the lack of fathers getting to see their children after a bad divorce? or absurd child support males have to pay for a child that they didn't feel ready for but didn't have a choice in? Sounds like a privilege to me.

You refer to political leadership solely in the US. There are many more countries in the world. Women hold significant positions, such as angela merkel. It may not be perfectly 50/50, but you skew the perspective when you leave out other countries.

You refer to the control of property by addressing billionaire property, the property distribution amongst the 1 percent. There is 99 other percent of people around, so I don't agree with you on that.

And one last point. At the end of your last paragraph you say, and I quote, " Most feminists are quite understanding and will sympathize with men’s problems if you give them the chance, but men have to sympathize with the problems of women. " You are putting the blame on men by stating that feminists will not care about men unless men care about them first. That doesn't sound like equality. That sounds like all the situations like "Teach men not to assault" or "Train your man to respect you."Rings too many bells of similarity to ignore.

[–]NotSensitive101 -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You’re absolutely right on your first point. There are a wealth of contexts in which women hold a position of privilege over men, and women need to understand this. My reference was more towards the general context. In a general context, men are taken more seriously. But you’re absolutely right that there is a very considerable and impactful number of situations in which women hold power.

In terms of political leadership, you take it by country. Here is a useful index for it. While it’s getting much better, on a global scale, men have the advantage. But in a considerable amount of Western countries this holds true as well. Just because it isn’t ubiquitous doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address it as a real problem.

It terms of economics, you’re missing the point. When I talk about power structure, I’m not talking about wages. I’m talking about in which demographics are concentrated capital: land, production, and distribution. In this way, men run our economy by controlling capital.

On your last point, you put words in my mouth. I never said “first.” You could swap the genders and I’d make the same statement. Both sides must simultaneously agree to understand each other in order to create a more fair society.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In regards to your last point, you are right. I am used to hearing some people always argue that, and I apologize for the manipulation of your argument. I agree with your point.

In regards to your point about the economics, it is not only wealth that I meant, but the fact that judging distribution of land, production, and distribution based on the billionaire's holdings is a skewed way to look at it. There are just over two and a half thousand billionaires. Sure, the majority are men, but that doesn't mean all men have it easier. No one can compare to the billionaires unless they are one themselves.

Your point about men running the economy is a little bit out of context. "Billionaire men" run the economy, yes. But that can affect men as much as women. Don't define or describe a group, any group, based on its one percent.

[–]NotSensitive101 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You’re right. This idea that all men get together and collectively rule over women is bullshit. The reason I bring up power structures is because it is two fold. First, it is a barrier to women entering business. If women have to deal with men that don’t take them seriously (which is very often is business deals), that’s an example of inequality. Secondly, and perhaps a weaker point, it means women’s interests are not taken into account as much. Exactly what these interests are, I’m not 100% sure because I’m not a woman. But there are certainly things to be gained from diverse perspectives.

Lastly, not just billionaires but all sorts of corporate leaders are very disproportionately men. Although this has had a lot of progress recently due to business incentives to create a meritocracy.

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotSensitive101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I agree with your concerns. Your point on evolution I’ll address later in this comment, but otherwise, I don’t see much to disagree with. Here’s the thing: I said men are taken more seriously quite often, not men’s rights groups are taken more seriously. MRA groups are taken as jokes and aren’t even given a chance. This is unacceptable to just take one side seriously and I understand your concerns. I’m talking about men and women. If I’m working in the lab, it sadly makes a difference whether I say something or my female colleague does. I will be taken more seriously. I think a lot of issues you bring up are indeed a fault of women. I did say come together. But many feminist causes such as the ones I presented are legitimate. These causes should be taken seriously.

In terms of gender roles, it’s an oversimplification to say all roles come from the same place. Women bearing children? That’s evolution. Foot binding? Definitely not. There’s nuance, but in terms of power structures there’s an argument to be made that it came from the advent of agriculture. Once nomadic tribes became sedentary, women would stay home more to take care of children, while nomadic societies didn’t have this degree of separation. Here’s an interesting article by NewScientist:

“THE vast majority of cultures are patriarchies, where men are more likely than women to hold positions of social, economic and political power. So it is tempting to assume that this is the natural state of affairs, perhaps because men are, on average, stronger than women. But a study of humanity’s roots suggests this answer is too simple...

The same is true in human societies: in places where women move to live with their husband’s family, men tend to have more power and privilege. Patrilocal residence, as it is called, is associated with patriarchy, says anthropologist and primatologist Sarah Hrdy at the University of California at Davis. For most of our history, we have been hunter-gatherers, and patrilocal residence is not the norm among modern hunter-gatherer societies. Instead, either partner may move to live with the “in-laws”, or a couple may relocate away from both their families. According to Hrdy, a degree of egalitarianism is built into these systems. If they reflect what prehistoric hunter-gatherers did, women in those early societies would have had the choice of support from the group they grew up with, or the option to move away from oppression. According to one school of thought, things changed around 12,000 years ago. With the advent of agriculture and homesteading, people began settling down. They acquired resources to defend, and power shifted to the physically stronger males. Fathers, sons, uncles and grandfathers began living near each other, property was passed down the male line, and female autonomy was eroded. As a result, the argument goes, patriarchy emerged. This origin story is supported by a study published in 2004. Researchers at the Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, studied mitochondrial DNA (inherited from mothers) and genetic markers on the Y chromosome (inherited from fathers) in 40 populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This suggested that women in hunter-gatherer populations, such as the !Kung and Hadza, were more likely to remain with their mothers after marriage than women from food-producing populations. It was the reverse for men, suggesting that agriculture is indeed correlated with patrilocal societies.”

The whole article is a good read, but obviously not all gender roles are natural. This is why it’s so important to have this conversation and decide what is and isn’t right.

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotSensitive101 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotSensitive101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NotSensitive101 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Hey /u/NotSensitive101, thank you for coming onto this sub and giving your honest opinion. That takes real balls especially when you know your opinion isn't the one most people reading this will take.

I see you have received downvotes, and I'm sorry you had to experience that. The thing is I know people here feel strongly about some of these issues, and so it is only to be expected really :/

I just want to reply to your first points on patriarchy. All of this comes directly from: https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-feminist-faq/

Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.” Political leadership?

The idea that men as a group “have power” is common among feminists. University of Michigan feminist legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon wrote in her 1987 book on feminism and the law that “women/men is a distinction not just of difference, but of power and powerlessness”. Feminist author and academic Michael Kaufman says “[i]n a world dominated by men, the world of men is, by definition, a world of power”.

It’s not hard to see how this applied in the past: women were largely excluded from direct involvement in politics, their indirect involvement (voting) came later, and in their daily lives they were expected to obey their husband, who was considered head of household. But we don’t live in that system anymore.

First, women aren’t actually excluded from politics. Not just that they’re allowed to run, but when they do run, they have just as much chance of winning as a man. This has been found by “study after study”, according to a 2012 report from the Women & Politics Institute at American University (see also this 2008 report). Women are less likely to run because they’re more likely to have an aversion to aspects of campaigning (like fundraising and voter contact), less likely to be confident, competitive, and take risks, and less likely to be encouraged to run, among other factors.

Second, if we’re talking about the power of men and women as groups, we need to keep in mind that the vast majority of people exert political influence by voting. Here, each woman has the same power as each man: one vote. At the group level, due to differences in voter eligibility, demographics, and turnout, women are a small but significant majority of the voting population (enough to decide elections). I don’t care to use this to argue for “female power”, but it is evidence against “male power”.

Social privilege?

The most commonly-cited fact for why women are much worse off is that they’re less common in the visible and desirable positions of prestige and power in the “ruling class”: politicians, business executives, media moguls, etc.

This disparity is real, but men are also more common in the undesirable and out-of-sight positions of marginalization in the “underclass” of society. George Orwell writes in his 1933 book Down and Out in Paris and London that one might expect the sexes to be balanced among the destitute, but “one can almost say that below a certain level society is entirely male”. This remains the case to a large extent. Men are disproportionately likely to be homeless, and the gender gap is larger for more severe types of homelessness.

A comprehensive report on homelessness in the United States (2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Report) found that males are a majority of the homeless population (60%), and an even larger majority of the unsheltered homeless (70%). In the United Kingdom, a report found that 86% of “rough sleepers” (unsheltered homeless) in Greater London were male (2019 Q2 CHAIN report). There appears to be a large disparity in homeless deaths too—counting John Doe and Jane Doe entries in the Toronto Homeless Memorial has men making up 86% of homeless deaths (as of October 2019).

It’s not just homelessness. Men are overwhelmingly the ones to die on the job; the male workplace fatalities in Canada in one year (2005) were more than double the female workplace fatalities in the whole 12 year period of 1993-2005 (“Five Deaths a Day: Workplace Fatalities in Canada, 1993-2005” by Andrew Sharpe and Jill Hardt for the Centre for the Study of Living Standards). Men are also a substantial majority of prisoners (96% in England & Wales in 2013; see “Prison Population Statistics” from the British House of Commons Library), and they’re at the bottom of a 4-5 year life expectancy gap.

Minority men are especially common in the marginalized underclass. The New York Times gives the shocking statistic of 1.5 million “missing” black men in the United States, who are out of public life through incarceration, early death, etc. (It’s related to both their gender and their race. If it was only race, black women would be doing just as badly.)

The OECD Better Life Index gives us a relatively comprehensive appraisal of well-being between genders, using various metrics. Men’s and women’s scores are essentially the same, with disparities in certain categories (accessed January 2017).

It’s not a perfect benchmark. Part of its measure for safety is “feeling safe walking home at night”, which often doesn’t line up with actual risk. From British data:

"Put most simply, young men in areas of higher deprivation are the most likely victims of crime. Old ladies living in the same areas – among those who are most likely to fear crime – have a lower risk."

But assuming the Better Life Index isn’t wildly wrong, it’s probably safe to say that neither gender is much worse off.

Many arguments for women being much worse off simply ignore men’s issues. “On Female Privilege” from Feminist Law Professors picks free dinner as representative of women’s advantages and evidence for why “every important real privilege is reserved for men”, while leaving out women’s higher life expectancy, their lower likelihood of homelessness and incarceration, etc. (see sections 3.2 and 3.3 if you are wondering whether this is to do with just biological factors/personal choice.

Control of property?

I'm no longer quoting the blog, but there's something to keep in mind here (something that someone else has actually said already). The fact is the most successful people do tend to be men. But saying that 0.01% or however much it is represents the whole of society is absurd.

Also some other things which weren't said are that just because men make up this 0.01% doesn't mean they are going to use their wealth/position to benefit other men. In fact, numerous sources ~~(which I literally can't find at the moment because it's 06:01 am and coronavirus has messed up my sleeping schedule)~~ say the exact opposite (see edit)

I hope all of this information is useful. Also I recommend the documentary "the red pill" by the former feminist Cassie Jaye.

And yes once again thank you for listening and conversing with the "opposite side" as it is so often viewed.

Edit: I found the source. It was from the same fantastic blog I have been using:

A 2017 article in The Telegraph explains how, for some time, the main parties in the U.K. have specifically set out to address women’s issues and to appeal to female voters, with no comparable efforts for men’s issues:

"[W]hen was the last time you heard any leading politician – male or female – call for urgent action on say, fathers’ post-separation relationships with their children, or the disproportionate number of male rough sleepers [unsheltered homeless]? Meanwhile, there’s an array of mechanisms and institutions specifically aimed at addressing issues faced by women and girls, from the Commons’ Women and Equalities Committee; to the Government Equalities Office; through to the Minister for Women herself."

In Canada, the government is undertaking an official inquiry into the issue of “missing and murdered Aboriginal women”. This is despite the fact that Aboriginal men are almost two-and-a-half times more likely to be murdered in Canada than Aboriginal women, and (according to data from the Northwest Territories and Ontario) four to five times more likely to go missing. This is also unexpected for a government that prioritizes men.

--> Does this mean that the demographics of politicians don’t matter?

No. I understand why, as a matter of principle, we might want to make sure the political class isn’t too “removed” from the general population in terms of demographics. Most democratic systems try to ensure regional representation, for example. I just think that the particular consequences of men’s current predominance in politics are generally overstated, in terms of giving power or advantage to men as a group.

[–]NotSensitive101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for addressing me respectfully. I also made a post on this subreddit similar to the original comment, if you want to look at that thread.

In regards to politics, we cannot start this conversation without acknowledging that women are severely underrepresented in politics worldwide. This is where I don't understand your argument because you don't make a claim pertaining to a patriarchy. I don't really understand what your evidence is trying to prove. I feel like the problem merely existing shows a patriarchy. This doesn't have to mean women are even restricted from office. The fact that women are underrepresented is evidence to the existence of a patriarchy because regardless of the reason, they make less choices politically. This is part of the definition of patriarchy. This is also where I think pointing the finger is pointless (no pun intended); solving the problem is what I and what I think feminists should do. In regards to what this solution is, you're source provided 7 reasons women run for office less often:

Women are substantially more likely than men to perceive the electoral environment as highly competitive and biased against female candidates.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin’s candidacies aggravated women’s perceptions of gender bias in the electoral arena.

Women are much less likely than men to think they are qualified to run for office.

Female potential candidates are less competitive, less confident, and more risk averse than their male counterparts.

Women react more negatively than men to many aspects of modern campaigns.

Women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run for office – from anyone.

Women are still responsible for the majority of childcare and household tasks.

All of these can be addressed by men and women alike. We need to shed light on this. Pertaining to your second point about how everyone can vote, again, I still don't understand the point. Even if ONLY women were the reason for more men being in office, it would still be a legitimate problem that would require being addressed.

In terms of social power, I do agree with a lot of what you say. Men dramatically comprise a majority of the least fortunate in society, and this is a problem that needs to be addressed. This, however, does not change the fact that men also constitute much of the ruling positions in our society. Again, I don't understand the claim you are making here. I think both problems are real and should be addressed. As a note on the Better Life Index, I had a hard time accessing the data for men and women, but it is noticeable that there is a general trend of men having a better life than woman. However, my point was not that women have a worse quality of life. This again runs into my criticism where I don't see a claim or see this as a rebuttal to a claim I made.

I also think I was unclear about my point on control of property. This is about control over capital: land, production, and distribution. In this sense, given that the extremely rich transnational corporations control most of this (where do you do most spending nowadays), it's a reasonable statement that men run the economy. Although I didn't originally make a claim about average women, there is one to be made. I know the wage gap and wealth gap are often cited with flaws, but they very much exist. One way or another, wealth is disproportionately in the hands of men. Your edit doesn't really say much about wealth distribution, but I would contend that wealth is contributed in the hands of men. Citing Mariko Chang, PhD:

We all know that the middle class is shrinking and wealth inequality has been growing. Perhaps what is less known is how wealth inequality affects men and women differently. Analyses of the newly released 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances data reveal that during their working years, the median wealth for single women is $3,210, whereas single men have a median wealth of $10,150. Single women have only 32 cents for every dollar of wealth owned by single men.

Couples, especially those who are married, are generally wealthier than singles, in part because higher-income people are more likely to marry and because of the wealth-enhancing benefits of marriage such as economies of scale, and more favorable tax treatment. However, low-income couples do not reap the same level of economic benefits from marriage as higher-income couples and marriage is not the remedy for the wealth gap. Women now spend more years single than married. Even during marriage, women have less control over wealth. To understand the economic situation of women, we cannot assume that marriage will solve their financial struggles. This is especially true for low-income women who are the most financially vulnerable and who are less likely to reap the same wealth-enhancing benefits of marriage as those with higher incomes.

The gap gets especially wide when we get to ethnic minorities. In general, I think we agree on most things. I may have been unclear in my claims, but I believe that from what I wrote that women also have problems that need to be addressed, the same way men do. I'm not going to preach to the choir and list all Men's problems, but there are plenty, and the same goes for women. Thank you for your respect and thorough comment.

[–]LolwhatYesme 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

we cannot start this conversation without acknowledging that women are severely underrepresented in politics worldwide

This is actually something my post acknowledged. See the last part in particular:

I just think that the particular consequences of men’s current predominance in politics are generally overstated, in terms of giving power or advantage to men as a group.

The point is that, yes, there are more men in political positions, but that doesn't really give men as a whole "power" at all. In fact, several sources I cited directly show that females, rather than males, are exclusively benefited (even when the majority of a government is made up of men). So how are men more powerful by comparison when women can still reap a lot of the rewards? To my mind, there isn't anything which really makes one group more "powerful" than the other group.

Also, my argument is this: patriarchy doesn't cause women to be underrepresented. My post has proven that women who run for "positions of power" have as much of a chance at winning as men. In other words, there simply isn't some invisible force which is barring women from entering these positions. Not convinced? Emphasis on see my response to this:

regardless of the reason, they make less choices politically. This is part of the definition of patriarchy

There is another thing to bear in mind here: cause and effect. I could just as strongly argue that we live under a matriarchy because it is overwhelmingly men who go to war and who lose their lives to protect those back at home. But just because I have outlined this effect that men are more disposable doesn't necessarily mean that I have also correctly concluded the cause (in other words that our society is matriarchal.)

The thing is, women face discrimination in various areas of life, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole of society is just some massive patriarchy. That is a massive extrapolation, much like how the pseudo argument I came up with is an extrapolation/wrongful linkage of cause and effect. I mean try this: rather than blaming it on some invisible force, on "patriarchy", try blaming it on something much more concrete.

Anyhow, to make the argument stronger, I could in fact list a bunch of issues men face and claim that they are all because we live in a matriarchy (I could even make political points because women are privileged in the justice system [men receive harsher sentences for the same crimes/family court/ etc. etc.] and they are privileged by governments where men are even the majority (even see how the UK government agreed in law that only a man can be said to commit rape - "there was a considerable amount of agreement that rape should remain an offence of penile penetration"). But of course, despite the argument's apparent merit at first blush, that doesn't mean we live in a matriarchal society. These issues, such as the first one I raised, arise because of much more concrete reasons. For example, men have traditionally been seen as being more disposable (even consider the phrase "women and children first"). Alternatively, perhaps it is because men's traditional gender role is that they are strong and robust - they "don't cry". And therefore it makes sense why they are sent to war because these just seem to be characteristics of a typical warrior.

(Also, as to the definition for patriarchy, the one widely used is about a society in which men hold the "power". I think in these cases, even though it is true that the demographic is largely male, it is certainly not men who are more powerful or who are really benefited from these systems any more than women. In fact, I've listed many examples now where governments filled with males are very capable of favouring women over men. )

This is also where I think pointing the finger is pointless (no pun intended); solving the problem is what I and what I think feminists should do.

I actually disagree with this. See I'm not trying to point the finger here really. You have your views, and it is clear to everyone reading this that they come from a very heartfelt place. No one wants to be hateful.

However, hate is the outcome here. Patriarchy places the blame on men. To draw upon feminist discourse which constantly points out the importance of words, such as how "firemen" and "policemen" can discourage women from entering these fields, it needs to be pointed out that patriarchy means paternal - it means man. By constantly saying that it is "patriarchy" that is the problem, people are really saying that man is the problem. Man is the problem for all of the suffering and oppression in the world, whilst females (feminists) are the cure. So saying that patriarchy is the problem is giving into pure misandry, and this is a problem that obviously needs to be fixed. Without even talking about what it can obviously lead to, bigoted hatred is bad in and of itself.

This, however, does not change the fact that men also constitute much of the ruling positions in our society

it's a reasonable statement that men run the economy.

the median wealth for single women is $3,210, whereas single men have a median wealth of $10,150. Single women have only 32 cents for every dollar of wealth owned by single men.

Source I'm going to use here:

"FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot."

Men don't have control of the economy. This actually takes the same form as my power argument (which I think you said you did not quite grasp the gist of).

Here's the thing. Just because there are more men in political positions/men who are rich doesn't mean that men as a whole are richer/more powerful than women as a whole. These few rich men, the 0.01%, can really skew statistics.

If you're going to take that small, small percentage and apply it to the whole of society to say that patriarchy exists, I urge you to reconsider your position. This is again a fallacious line of reasoning because it so extrapolative. Do not let a tiny speck represent a whole group of people.

I may have been unclear in my claims, but I believe that from what I wrote that women also have problems that need to be addressed, the same way men do.

Agreed. What I also want is a change in rhetoric however. It's just not good for a man's mental health if they constantly feel as if they are the source for so much suffering. And make no mistake about it, that's what happens (however subtly) whenever someone blames "patriarchy" (man/paternal/father). Additionally, men as a whole are just construed so often as being the enemy, as being creepy weirdos and the sole perpetrators of vile deeds, and that needs to stop. Not saying you did this last part, but that is what (again however subtly) a lot of feminist discourse has descended into.

...

But yes I agree that both genders face discrimination in very harmful ways in various areas of life.

[–]NotSensitive101 -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I understand that you acknowledged it; I shouldn’t have phrased it that way.

I understand that your point is that patriarchy doesn’t stop women from holding political office, but this isn’t responsive to my argument. I didn’t argue that it was because of patriarchy, but that it IS patriarchy. The state of our political office is part of hierarchy. This is why I related it to the definition of a hierarchy. As to your comment about matriarchy, I would say that that hierarchy is about who is in power. Men going to war doesn’t mean that women are in power. It is men who are in power. This is the patriarchy, I believe. The reason why society as a whole is a patriarchy isn’t about discrimination in any one context; it’s about who fundamentally runs society. Men are in positions of power, and this is what feminists refer to when they say patriarchy.

I think you misinterpret what people mean when they say patriarchy is a problem. Take it literally. Educated feminists say that the patriarchy is the problem, not men. These two things, patriarchy and men as a whole, should not be conflated. Patriarchy is a hierarchy of men in positions of power. Saying a patriarchy does something bad does not at all imply that men are bad.

Pertaining to wealth, you cite a criticism of a gap in wage, not wealth, but I’ll still address it although it doesn’t really attack my argument. I too hate it when people advertise the wage gap as pure prejudice. It has a lot to do with job choice. However, this doesn’t take away from the fact that women are paid less than men. This could be due to how underpaid certain women’s professions are, such as social work. It could be due to a variety of other things, such as gender roles. One way or another, it exists. Women do have 32 cents for a mans dollar, and that is evidence of control of property, a part of hierarchy.

As to your argument about my sample choices, politically it only makes sense. Our representatives make our laws, so it only makes sense that a lack of female representative shows a lack of females in the decision making process. As to economics, again, the top 0.01% of people control a substantial amount of capital. Even if all other wealth were equally distributed, this still mean amen would control much of economic decisions. Again, however, women have much less wealth than men. These are problems that need to be addressed.

As a summary to my points, men do hold more positions of power in society than women. As to the rhetoric, you’re completely right. Way too many feminists dismiss men’s rights as a joke which has real consequences.

I’m glad we agree that both sides have their problems. I think both sides need to work together to solve them.

[–]LolwhatYesme 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Men are in positions of power, and this is what feminists refer to when they say patriarchy.

I've been editing my comment over the last 20 minutes. I anticipated this comment and directly referred to the definition in some parentheses to make things clearer.

Saying a patriarchy does something bad does not at all imply that men are bad.

How doesn't it? Here's some definitions from google:

"a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line."

"a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it."

To ignore the word's obvious etymology for a moment, this is all about men. To blame "patriarchy" is to blame men. The misandry is clear-cut here.

you cite a criticism of a gap in wage, not wealth, but I’ll still address it although it doesn’t really attack my argument.

Actually it does address your argument. The reason these statistics are skewed (whatever financial metric one uses - wage gap or wealth gap) is because a very, very tiny percentage of men are very rich.

However, this doesn’t take away from the fact that women are paid less than men

Yes it does because it skews the average. Women are paid the same amount as men.

It's a mathematical problem. Statistics can be misleading. Imagine there are a ninety-nine numbers, and all of these numbers are one. Then imagine there is a hundredth number, but this number is a billion. Suddenly the mean of all these numbers soars up gigantically, so that the average is not 1 but something much higher. It is the exact same thing happening with these statistics. I am sorry that you had to believe this lie, and I know how misleading statistics can be because I also used to believe in this stuff.

Again, however, women have much less wealth than men. These are problems that need to be addressed.

These aren't problems though. You are taking such a small percentage of the population and applying it to the population as a whole. Can you not see the fact that you are extrapolating things here? You just can't do that, I'm sorry, but you can't. You can't take what such an overwhelming minority have and make it represent a whole group of people such as all men, and all women.

As a summary to my points, men do hold more positions of power in society than women.

See my last point, you are again extrapolating. You are also not at all addressing the fact that even when men hold "more positions of power", women can (and are) still favoured in many ways. In view of this, men don't really have the "power" at all (no reason they should have any more "power" than woman at any rate). The actual policies which are enacted are more impactful on people's lives than the question of whether it was a man or a woman who enacted them.

Look, I've got to sleep its 09:08am. Thank you for listening to our side. That takes real guts because these issues we are discussing are issues of ideology. They form the foundations of our beliefs, and for these beliefs to be challenged can hurt. Night~~

[–]NotSensitive101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm confused what you meant by the definition thing in the beginning. Could you clarify?

In terms of whether it's an attack on men, I disagree. It's an attack on the system of a select few men who hold positions of power. I would say that the real problem isn't really any individual men, but rather the inertia any society will inherently have. Men used to be very dominant, and it takes time for a society to rebound form that. This societal inertia, as I would call it, the tendency to preserve the status quo, is what creates the modern patriarchy. I agree that perhaps a mean wouldn't accurately portray wealth distribution. Still, if you go back to the (report I used)[https://assetfunders.org/wp-content/uploads/Women_Wealth_-Insights_Grantmakers_brief_15.pdf], on the bottom of page 6 you can find a graphic which shows that across all age groups, women have less income for the median measurement, which avoids your statistical criticism.

I think there are a lot of positions where women hold the power. However, this should not take away from the fact that men hold most political office and wealth (in reference the median measurement). This goes both ways. Just because men hold more positions of power does not mean that all men do. It especially does not mean that men can't or don't have problems unique to them, that women cause and perpetuate. Again, I think we need to foster understanding.

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

I'm confused what you meant by the definition thing in the beginning. Could you clarify?

I'll explicitly outline the edited section from the earlier comment which I thought would be interesting for you to read:

There is another thing to bear in mind here: cause and effect. I could just as strongly argue that we live under a matriarchy because it is overwhelmingly men who go to war and who lose their lives to protect those back at home. But just because I have outlined this effect that men are more disposable doesn't necessarily mean that I have also correctly concluded the cause (in other words that our society is matriarchal).

The thing is, women face discrimination in various areas of life, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole of society is just some massive patriarchy. That is a massive extrapolation, much like how the pseudo argument I came up with is an extrapolation/wrongful linkage of cause and effect. I mean try this: rather than blaming it on some invisible force, on "patriarchy", try blaming it on something much more concrete.

Anyhow, to make the argument stronger, I could in fact list a bunch of issues men face and claim that they are all because we live in a matriarchy (I could even make political points because women are privileged in the justice system [men receive harsher sentences for the same crimes/family court/ etc. etc.] and they are privileged by governments where men are even the majority (even see how the UK government agreed in law that only a man can be said to commit rape - "there was a considerable amount of agreement that rape should remain an offence of penile penetration"). But of course, despite the argument's apparent merit at first blush, that doesn't mean we live in a matriarchal society. These issues, such as the first one I raised, arise because of much more concrete reasons. For example, men have traditionally been seen as being more disposable (even consider the phrase "women and children first"). Alternatively, perhaps it is because men's traditional gender role is that they are strong and robust - they "don't cry". And therefore it makes sense why they are sent to war because these just seem to be characteristics of a typical warrior.

(Also, as to the definition for patriarchy, the one widely used is about a society in which men hold the "power". I think in these cases, even though it is true that the demographic is largely male, it is certainly not men who are more powerful or who are really benefited from these "systems" any more than women. In fact, I've listed many examples now where governments filled with males are very capable of favouring women over men for some issues. )

Hope that clears things up somewhat, and I also hope it makes it clear why I find people blaming "patriarchy" to be absurd. I think this line of thinking has been brainwashed into some folks, and they kind of just go along with it because they believe that if they go against the ideology they must not be egalitarian. That is, the fear of thinking critically allows them to believe in nonsense.

It's an attack on the system of a select few men who hold positions of power.

Which is it to be though? Do only a small, small minority of men hold the power, or do men as a group hold all the power?

I would say that the real problem isn't really any individual men, but rather the inertia any society will inherently have.

But the problem is "men having power" - so how could the problem not be to do with "any individual men"? If men aren't the problem, then there isn't a problem. The logic is totally flawed here.

I get that you are trying to deflect the blame onto a structure more than you are trying to blame men, but the inescapable fact is this structural framework is one of misandry which blames men as being the root cause for all issues women face. It's just total misandry. It's line of reasoning is just "men are the problem, they are the issue."

Men used to be very dominant, and it takes time for a society to rebound form that. This societal inertia, as I would call it, the tendency to preserve the status quo, is what creates the modern patriarchy

See my edited comment quote. Also, the "status quo" now is feminism. Feminism is the mainstream ideology. I won't pretend for a minute that the past wasn't different, but we're not living in the past.

on the bottom of page 6 you can find a graphic which shows that across all age groups, women have less income for the median measurement, which avoids your statistical criticism.

Not sure why you believe it avoids the blatant flaw in the statistics just because it demarcates between different age groups? The fact is my point still applies. If there's a small minority of men in these age groups who are immensely rich, it skews the statistics.

However, this should not take away from the fact that men hold most political office and wealth (in reference the median measurement).

I contest the "wealth" part, but I (as I have done earlier) agree with the "political office" part. The demographic is largely male, and yes I think it's essential to have representatives from both genders. But that's not really my argument (again see the edited comment I retyped in this comment).

Just because men hold more positions of power does not mean that all men do.

Thank you. That's a massive step towards agreement. That was actually one of my main points that I wanted you to appreciate.

It especially does not mean that men can't or don't have problems unique to them, that women cause and perpetuate

I feel like we shouldn't blame women (or men for that matter). Because doing that is kind of misogynistic/"misandristic" (don't think that's a word)

Thing is, most men and women are wonderful people. But a few individuals do certainly perpetuate harmful forms of discrimination for both genders.

[–]Oncefa2 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

To add to what u/AkwardBee55 said, in the US, 60% of all wealth, meaning cash, bonds, stock ownership, and real estate, is owned by women.

In Britain it's 50%.

Women also control 80% of all discretionary spending.

And women have more votes and a larger lobbying industry. Men often get elected but they represent the interests of women.

Likewise men often run companies as CEOs but the stockholders and the customers are usually women.

So who really holds power? The male CEO is beholden to his female stock holders and the male political is beholden to the female majority public.

Your point about who started these gender roles is also questionable. One theory found in Marxism is that women not only created gender roles, but also created class, by trading sex for food in early agricultural societies (like during times of famine where men tended to starve, and not women).

It's hard to prove what actually happened but there's no reason to place the blame unilaterally on men. I don't know why feminists are always trying to point fingers everywhere. I'd argue that it was probably a combination of men and women who were responsible. And that the question itself is rather pointless and probably comes from a place of hatred.

[–]NotSensitive101 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I keep seeing this 60% figure and I find it rather intriguing. Do you think you could provide the study? I found a contradicting study , but science isn’t perfect. Perhaps you are correct and I am mistaken.

I’d also like to see the political evidence. The women’s power index shows a heavy shift in the balance of men. I’d also think that both men and women have the right to vote, so I’m a bit confused there. Next, you are correct, women do vote in men, but feminists would argue that this is because it is instilled in us that men are more competent. It’s symptom of a larger problem.

In terms of stockholders, the rich still control their companies, but I genuinely want to see the study that found that woman hold more shares. I never considered this.

You’re right about pointing fingers. It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. Maybe I shouldn’t have made the argument.

[–]Oncefa2 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Here are the sources about wealth:

COMTEXT (2016, April 2). BMO Report: Despite Controlling $14 Trillion in Wealth, American Women Still Have Challenges to Overcome. MarketWatch. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/bmo-report-despite-controlling-14-trillion-in-wealth-american-women-still-have-challenges-to-overcome-2015-04-02-13173119

Gunelius, S. (2010). Women Making Economic Strides and Not Slowing Down. Forbes / ForbesWomen. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2010/07/28/women-making-economic-strides-and-not-slowing-down/

Note that there's probably a big difference between mean and median. Women have more wealth because of how marriage and divorce works. For every Elon Musk there are several Justines and Tululahs. Men work to build things but women are the ones who largely benefit from the fruits of their labor.

There are also significantly more men who are destitute and homeless. Because as a society we let men fail and don't pick them up with our safety nets.

As far as political power goes, have you never heard of the gender ratio gap? Men work harder, more dangerous jobs in order to earn enough money to satisfy the (often abusive) demands of the women in their lives (least they become single and lose everything in a divorce). As a result, more men die every year, leaving their wealth to their wives and slowly changing the ratio of men and women in society.

Women also work the kinds of jobs that have benefits like holidays and paid time off. So while men are stuck working away from the polls, women are able to relax and head out to their polling stations.

Center for American Women and Politics (2019, September 16). Gender differences in voter turnout. Available at: http://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf

Also interesting is that when women run for office, they're more likely to get elected than an equivalent male candidate. Fewer women are interested in putting in the hard work to be a politician though. Most would rather sit back and mary a man who puts in all that work. In fact many women will encourage the men they're with to do things like that instead of doing it themselves.

Men by and large are the beasts of burden in society. Sometimes that confers benefits, especially, perhaps, for the most successful 1% of men. Sometimes it means things like wealth initially accumulate in the hands of men because they are the ones busting their butts to put in the necessary work to do that. But on average you're much better off being a woman. You'll live longer, you'll be happier, you'll have more disposable income, and you'll have a better work life balance. Mainly because most women use men to subsidize their lifestyles.

The idea that men are somehow privileged because of this arrangement is as ridiculous as saying the donkey is privileged over his master because he gets to be out front and decide which steps to take (while the master decides where they actually go and could care less where her donkey steps).

[–]NotSensitive101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Neither of your articles state that women hold 60% of wealth in America. Both sources say that women still face disadvantages. I want to take a look at a demonstration of the wealth gap.

While wealth generally increases with age, a wealth gap persists across the life cycle. Moreover, young women are now being hit especially hard. Millennial women have a median wealth of zero and women ages 35-49 have a median wealth of $1,000 (only 4% as much as men ages 35-49). Millennial women are more likely to have education debt than millennial men (49% versus 32%, respectively) and more likely than men to be custodial parents, limiting their ability to build wealth. The wealth gap appears to narrow substantially for women in retirement, but this is deceptive—reflecting more of a byproduct of demographics. Because women generally live longer than men, the composition of single women in the older age group shifts to encompass a higher percentage of widows, who generally have higher wealth than divorced and never-married women because they have inherited the wealth benefits of marriage. Thus, it is a mistake to conclude that all women in retirement are faring as well as men.

As to your rebuttal of political power, working worse jobs isn't a political power, but I agree that it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Fewer women are interested in putting in the hard work to be a politician though. Most would rather sit back and marry a man who puts in all that work. In fact many women will encourage the men they're with to do things like that instead of doing it themselves.

I don't really know how to respond to this besides saying that you clearly haven't met a lot of the hard working woman that I have. Maybe this comes from a place of anger, who knows.

Edit: I had to do some formatting.

[–]Oncefa2 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure what you think this means, but I read it as "women hold 60% of the wealth in America":

For example, back in 2008, U.S. News and World Report released data telling us that women controlled 60% of the wealth in the United States.

(Emphasis added).

The other source does say 51% instead of 60%, but neither actually show women having less than men.

As for your study, I have to ask again, do you understand the difference between a mean average and a median average?

When we talk about controlling wealth in terms of who holds power in society, we're looking at the mean, not median.

I don't really know how to respond to this besides saying that you clearly haven't met a lot of the hard working woman that I have. Maybe this comes from a place of anger, who knows.

Yeah sure call me names instead of being honest with me.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that women use men for money and status. All I'm doing is speculating that this happens with politicians as well.

To the same extent that women prefer to marry high earning men instead of putting in the hard work to earn that money themselves, women probably prefer to marry politicians more than they desire to become politicians themselves.

Ex:

Women actively look for men who make more money. Married men make more money not because the wife is cooking and cleaning which somehow helps them earn more, but because their wives saw that they were on promising career trajectories before marrying them. The incentive for men is therefore to earn more money to attract a partner:

Ludwig, V., & Brüderl, J. (2018). Is there a male marital wage premium? New evidence from the United States. American Sociological Review, 83(4), 744-770.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122418784909?journalCode=asra&

This study shows that a lack of men will cause women to focus on their careers instead of finding a husband. The effect is weaker for women who are more attractive and therefore have a better chance of finding a high earning husband. This indicates that "husband hunting" comes first and "career hunting" comes second, as the obviously less less desirable option:

Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Cantú, S. M., & Tybur, J. M. (2012). Sex ratio and women's career choice: Does a scarcity of men lead women to choose briefcase over baby?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 103(1), 121.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22468947

A man's wealth is directly correlated with how women rate him. A similar effect the other way around is small to non existent. Men select for looks and personality. Women select for looks and money. Thus putting more pressure on men to earn money compared to women:

Wang, G., Cao, M., Sauciuvenaite, J., Bissland, R., Hacker, M., Hambly, C., ... & Speakman, J. R. (2018). Different impacts of resources on opposite sex ratings of physical attractiveness by males and females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(2), 220-225.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X

A loss of income is the single largest predictive factor for a wife wanting to divorce her husband. The same is not true the other way around. And interestingly, a wife's inability or refusal to "cook and clean" does not effect a husband's willingness to divorce her, either. Indicating that neither side of this is enforced by men, even indirectly.

I'm not sure if this study goes into this, but my guess is personality issues, things like nagging and harassment, might be the biggest factor for wanting a divorce for husbands:

Killewalda, A. (2016). Money, Work, and Marital Stability: Assessing Change in the Gendered Determinants of Divorce. American Sociological Review, 81(4), 696-719.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/akillewald/files/money_work_and_marital_stability.pdf

[–]NotSensitive101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Clearly our evidence is directly contradictory.

Median. Mean. Learn the difference. 🤦

Like you're just being sarcastic at this point.

Get back to me when your study looks at this from the top down instead of the bottom up. The influence of the bourgeois 1% is missing from your analysis.

It may very well be that if you pick a random woman and a random man, the woman is statically likely to have less money than the man.

That does not mean that a majority of wealth cannot be owned by women though. That's what makes mean and median different. It's what makes a top analysis different from a bottom up analysis.

Normally median is actually a better metric to go by but here we're talking about things like media and lobbying influence. The MacKenzie Bezos's and Grimes Musks of the world are more important than the unemployed Susie Homemakers of the working class. And there happens to be more MacKenzie Bezos's in the world than Jeff Bezos's.

Does this make sense to you?

I’m not calling you names, but saying that all women just hunt down the men rather than working on their own is accusatory in it of itself.

It is also backed by empirical evidence.

[–]NotSensitive101 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Dude, for the love of god it’s median AND mean. You clearly didn’t read the comment. Women fall short in both median and mean.

No I read your comment.

You are either being purposefully facetious or you plain don't understand the distinction that I'm making.

A better way to describe the difference is looking at it from the top down, meaning the economy as a whole, compared to an average Joe / Jane in the economy.

60% of the capital in the US economy is owned by women. Mostly by the 1% of the 1%, through marriage, and through divorce. People like Elon Musk end up getting married and divorcing several times in their lives and it leads to more women having these vast amounts of wealth compared to men.

For example if you look at any list of the wealthiest men in the world, they all have wives who are also equally wealthy, and many have ex's who are considerably wealthy as well.

Your study doesn't have the sample size, or even really the proper methodology, to capture this.

[–]accidental_me 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link