New study unpacks why society reacts negatively to male-favoring research

[–]White_Immigrant[S] 85 points86 points87 points 2 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]rammo123 87 points88 points89 points 2 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]MajesticGarlic999 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Fruity_Pies -20 points-19 points-18 points 2 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]StarZax 38 points39 points40 points 2 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't argue that as a whole the patriarchy does overall benefit men in tangible ways.

The basic principle of patriarchy is that it's a system that benefits men at the expense of women, a system made by men for men. Except that's not the case.

As others have said, and as is becoming increasingly clear: there's no such thing as brotherhood.

Just because we all live in a capitalist system in the West and men have certain advantages in society doesn't mean we're "overall" advantaged. Women also have advantages in society, but who has quantified that it's men who have better advantages? No one that I know of. And even if men had a few more advantages overall, it would never be enough to say that THE system is made FOR us, that we hate women and see them as objects if we don't "fight patriarchy".

The truth is, you're using the term patriarchy to describe a vague capitalist system. It just allows you to portray the powerful and wealthy, those with real decision-making power, as "men" instead of portraying them for what they really are. It allows us to have men and women hating each other for nothing, blaming each other for the ills of society, when these ills are intimately linked to the neoliberal economy instituted by these "rich and powerful" people. Basically, to speak of patriarchy is to play into the hands of power.

So I'm not saying you're doing it on purpose, that it's your intention to play into the hands of neoliberals because you're a capitalist through and through. But you're doing it regardless. The link between what we experience as men and women and the economy is pretty clear and is even much more relevant than how egalitarian and progressive society is (yes it is) but it's better to keep voting for the same buffoons while screwing each other over than to have the bottom end of the scale pulling itself up, trying to change society in a profound way. And the best way to do that is to make us fight against a chimera.

E.g. Patriarchy benefits an upper class man who runs a bussiness, dealing with an overseas client who expects the representative to be male and would probably believe a male rep to be more knowledgable.

So patriarchy is just worldwide ? Damn, I guess we're really just that good. Can't achieve world piece but can achieve brocode apparently.

I'm being a bit sarcastic, but it's just that this is a very old-fashioned example, we're not in the 60s anymore. Women are everywhere in business, it doesn't really shock anyone anymore. There's easily a lot more racism than sexism in this kind of environment. I can already guarantee that this is the case in IT.

Then if you want, I can take more current examples of how "patriarchy doesn't favor men": all fathers' rights, men's mental health, the leading cause of death for men under 50 is suicide, if you like looking after children you're seen as a pedophile.

In fact, there are plenty of reasons why in men's spaces like LWMA, the idea of patriarchy is completely rejected. I say idea because it's really nothing more than that.

I honestly think that if it were true, at least we could say "yes, it exists, but we'll try to show you why it's good and the best system", but no, we're killing ourselves (literally) telling you that it doesn't exist.

Sorry for the long post, it's just a bit triggering to me especially in here and I'm a bit autistic (mb, won't remove it tho, I spent time on it)

[+]Fruity_Pies -23 points-22 points-21 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Just because we all live in a capitalist system in the West and men have certain advantages in society doesn't mean we're "overall" advantaged. Women also have advantages in society, but who has quantified that it's men who have better advantages?

Historic masculine dominance in all seats of power- capitalistic, morarchistic, sexual and religious. I would argue that is a fairly obvious quantifiable measure of advantage don't you think?

The truth is, you're using the term patriarchy to describe a vague capitalist system.

Capitalism and patriarchy are intertwined in many ways and I think my first example is a very specific sliver of that reality, so I dispute the notion I am describing something vague. I explicitly mentioned intersectionality previously and I think it's that nuance that is missing in your response.

You are correct that women have made great gains recently in some parts of society. It is true that in mostly Western countries women are free to get a job, live independantly and become succesful. In my example I specifically mention our imagininary male company rep meeting an oversees client, I think you would find it hard to disagree that many countries still have sexist views when it comes to the workplace, go read some of the horror stories coming out of Japan.

[–]Punder_man 26 points27 points28 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Historic masculine dominance in all seats of power- capitalistic, morarchistic, sexual and religious. I would argue that is a fairly obvious quantifiable measure of advantage don't you think?

Sure.. but at the same time that does not automatically equate to ALL men being at the Apex of society..
You seem to be hyper fixated on the fact that the apex of society was / is controlled by men.. but happy to ignore the fact that the nadir of society is also dominated by men:

Homelessness
Suicide
Life expectancy
etc

So why is it we only focus on the top 1% of men but ignore the fact that other men also make up the bottom 5-10% of society as well?

This is part of the reason why we find it hard to accept the feminist concept of "Patriarchy"
Because they keep telling us about how "The Patriarchy" is a system designed to benefit / privilege men.. yet they clearly ignore the majority of men who clearly DO NOT benefit / are "Privileged" by this system..

If their Patriarchy theory was based upon facts, evidence and what we actually witness in reality.. I'd be a believer..
But clearly it's based upon feelings, emotions and what they witnessed in the past..

[–]Song_of_Pain 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Fruity_Pies -8 points-7 points-6 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BigBeardedOsama 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Fruity_Pies -8 points-7 points-6 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am not equating all men to being the apex of society, I was replying to somebody who said there is no quantifiable measure of advantage by providing one of the most obvious examples. Also I didn't ignore how men can be negatively effected by this, which is why I originally provided the example of the working class man.

I don't disagree with you that men suffer more from the issues you stated, these issues are tied into the system of patriarchy and the existance of these inequalities is not proof that the patriarchy doesn't exist, quite the opposite.

I think the disconnect we have here is you and others equating 'The patriarchy' as something that only provides advantages to men with no down sides. The truth is that it impacts both men and women in negative and positive way. The more negative of these tend to disproportionatly effect people the lower their rung in society.

We could take suicide as an example of these negative effects men- In a patriarchal society men are traditionally expected to perform the duty of the stoic provider, to not show any emotions other than anger, only allowed to cry during traumatic events such as the death of a loved one. This often creates a situation in which men are afraid to reach to to friends or loved ones for fear of being rejected and can be a stepping stone to the decision of suicide.

On the flip side in these traditional roles, women maintain a better support network and are allowed to share those feelings emotionally, are allowed to cry in public without fear of ridicule etc...

I think the problem I have with the discussions being had here are the same problems I have with the discussions happening in feminist spaces- it lacks nuance. Too quick to infer from a reply that I must believe all these problems are binary, and their answers are similarly simple. Class plays a huge parts in these conversations, moreso than gender at the extreme ends and women can benefit from the patriarchy just as men can lose benefits. Please for the love of god read up on intersectionality people.

[–]Punder_man 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry.. but from my experience "Nuance" and "Intersectionality" only exist when it comes to discussing issues women face..

Most of the time when we try to inject "Nuance" into issues men face we are met with the claim "Its because of The Patriarchy!"

I don't disagree with you that men suffer more from the issues you stated, these issues are tied into the system of patriarchy and the existance of these inequalities is not proof that the patriarchy doesn't exist, quite the opposite.

The problem is that the definition of "The Patriarchy" does not make sense..
We are constantly told we live within a "Patriarchy" which is commonly defined as:

"A system designed by men, for the benefit / protection of men at the cost / oppression of women"

Now, in of itself there is nothing wrong with this definition..
But when we raise examples of how men are clearly NOT benefited by / protected by this apparent system..

We get told "That's because The Patriarchy hurts men too!!"

But that doesn't mesh with the definition..
No where in the definition does it mention that "Men are also harmed by this system"

The other major issue is the fact that this system is deliberately gendered as a "Patriarch" by definition is a MALE leader of a family group, religious order etc..
So when people blame "The Patriarchy" its equivalent to saying "Men" are to blame.

Finally, as mentioned.. there is ZERO nuance or intersectionality when it comes to "The Patriarchy" as regardless of what issues men face their gender is the sole defining line of nuance..

At best you will get an acknowledgement that as a man you can face prejudice or have struggles but because of your gender you are inherently "Privileged" and so because of that, any suffering you may experience is "Lesser" compared to women who due to their gender lacks the same "Privilege" you do as a man..

But yes.. please DO go on about how we need more nuance / intersectionality...

[–]Song_of_Pain 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]White_Immigrant[S] 18 points19 points20 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Fruity_Pies -13 points-12 points-11 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is a shame that some people here are arguing in such bad faith and ignoring what I've stated in both my comments. If, historically speaking, women had the same chances as men to reach their 'apex' within society then why are the vast majority of the seats of power held by men? It is precisely because the apex of womens efforts have historically been minimalised, to point that out isn't an example of the apex fallacy and your supposition that it is shows that you don't understand either the concept of the fallacy or my argument.

Furthermore, to call patriarchy as a whole a conspiracy theory and somehow conflating my reasoning with that of anti-sematism shows to me that you are willing to conflate anything I say to a degree that trying to hold a conversation with you is meaningless, you are assured of your stance and nothing will change that.

[–]Quinlanofcork 22 points23 points24 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Historic masculine dominance in all seats of power- capitalistic, morarchistic, sexual and religious. I would argue that is a fairly obvious quantifiable measure of advantage don't you think?

This does indicate that elite men are advantaged in the system, but it does not indicate that men generally are advantaged.

If, historically speaking, women had the same chances as men to reach their 'apex' within society then why are the vast majority of the seats of power held by men? It is precisely because the apex of womens efforts have historically been minimalised

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that women have historically had the same conditions as men have, but again this only indicates that elite women are disadvantaged relative to elite men. It really makes no difference to you or I that only 12% of billionaires are women, neither of us are or ever will be a billionaire. If you are looking to establish that "a system that benefits men at the expense of women" exists you can't focus on the experiences of those at the "apex within society" because those experiences are not representative of the majority experience. One could try to build a case that male dominance of positions of power leads to male favoritism and privilege in society as a whole, but the mere existence of the gender disparity in positions of power does not constitute evidence.

[–]Song_of_Pain 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Song_of_Pain 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Johntoreno 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fruity_Pies 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Johntoreno 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Fruity_Pies -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It would be hard to explain the concept in it's totality because you could write a book on the subject, but I'll try and be succint as possible.

'The patriarchy' is a social system that is largely a holdover from the Victorian era of colonialism, at it's foundation is the Christian puritanical concepts of how men and women should behave in society. It's main concern is to keep people in their own lane and social strata and that includes conforming to gender roles, it has a mixture of benefits and down sides depending on your gender, social status, skin colour, etc...

So for our working class man he may have gained some advantages from the patriarchy and some disadvantages depending on the criteria listed above, plus a myriad of other affectors. For my examples I will base it off my perspective from England, if our working class man lives in Bangladesh it will be different.

Possible Negatives:

Boys in schools are falling significantly behind in attainment compared to girls and his teacher will assume he's naughty.
He probably doesn't have a good social safety net, he doesn't feel comfortable talking about emotional subjects with his friends.
He might even be scared to cry in front of his wife, because men aren't supposed to show emotion other than anger.
He is more likely to work in a dangerous profession, his body is seen as expendable.

Possible Positives:

If our man has a child with somebody, he is not expected to carry out the majority of the child care, and is more likely to keep his job. Now this has down sides as well if you actually want to see your child grow up, but it does offer financial stability.
He is more likely to get promoted at work over his female colleagues, he is seen as more capable.
He is less likely to have been sexually assaulted than if he was a woman.
If he goes into a trades job like bricklaying he will fit into the masculine culture.

[–]Song_of_Pain 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

'The patriarchy' is a social system that is largely a holdover from the Victorian era of colonialism

That's nonsensical, because that would imply it wouldn't apply to places that weren't affected by Victorian-era colonialism. Also, plenty of non-Christian societies display these traits as well; it sounds like you're trying to blame it on a particular group of people (white European men) and ignoring history.

Moreover, what you are describing is simply "gender roles" not a patriarchy.

Let's clarify your negatives:

Boys in K-12 education (or your equivalent in the UK) are discriminated against by their primarily female teachers, and graded lower for the same work as their female peers. Boys are punished more harshly for the same behavioral infractions.
People in his life don't reach out to him, they would rather reach out to women, and when he talks about emotional subjects with those close to him they distance themselves.
His wife will punish, shame, and lose attraction for him if he cries in front of her.
Yes, his body is seen as expendable.

Negatives:

He has less time to bond with his child and less parental leave. This means that in the case of divorce he will have less access to his children, and will likely have to pay child support. He is treated as a second-class parent compared to the mother.
Not true. In most cases these days, there is a significant bias in favor of women.
Not true. It's just that feminists in the UK and US (among other places) constantly try to redefine rape and other sex crimes so that men cannot be victims and thus can be ignored and disregarded.
Maybe; I have a cousin who's a union bricklayer, and she seems to fit in just fine.

All of these things taken together mean that we cannot live in a patriarchy i.e. a society that values masculinity over femininity, that advantages men over women, because that's just not true.

[–]standardtrickyness1 105 points106 points107 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]christina_murray_ 22 points23 points24 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clikx 29 points30 points31 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Martijngamerleft-wing male advocate 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]-SidSilver- 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]banjocatto -9 points-8 points-7 points 2 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rock_Granite 21 points22 points23 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MissDaphneAlice 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rock_Granite 35 points36 points37 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Manoj_Malhotra 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rock_Granite 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StarZax 33 points34 points35 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]country2poplarbeef 25 points26 points27 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]White_Immigrant[S] 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrankTooMuchMead 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	New study unpacks why society reacts negatively to male-favoring research
Author	White_Immigrant
Upvotes	200
Comments	42
Date	March 2, 2024 7:09 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1b4vzvm/new_study_unpacks_why_society_reacts_negatively/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/new-study-unpacks-why-society-reacts-negatively-to.1246913 https://theredarchive.com/post/1246913

Comments