Does the "Patriarchy" Harm Boys?

[–]The_Glass_Arrow 74 points75 points76 points 2 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[+]Lolocraft1 -16 points-15 points-14 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Glass_Arrow 16 points17 points18 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Lolocraft1 -6 points-5 points-4 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Low_Philosophy_8 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lolocraft1 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -33 points-32 points-31 points 2 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]63daddy 33 points34 points35 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -25 points-24 points-23 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrSaturn33 18 points19 points20 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -22 points-21 points-20 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrSaturn33 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

No, I just explained what he meant by "naturally" in the sentence. He simply said "and naturally men socially are encouraged to work the ladder" because it's expected of men, and something obvious that we are all aware of, that men are expected to work and prioritize careers and money over their interests in a way that women are not. That was why he wrote "naturally." He didn't mean it's a "natural choice for men" (as you said in your reply) in the sense of something to simply be affirmed as a positive, because it's clear from his comment that he's criticizing the fact things are like this. This is torturous.

He also already responded to you and reiterated what he meant:

System encourages and men are in general pushed for this direction. People who push against this flow trend to receive negative outcomes.

Again, making clear that he wasn't saying it was merely "a natural choice for men" in an isolated, affirmative sense as you said, but is obviously criticizing the system for being this way. I don't know why you insist on thinking otherwise.

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MrSaturn33 12 points13 points14 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Glass_Arrow 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -7 points-6 points-5 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Glass_Arrow 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrSaturn33 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Read this.

No one person "made" it. It arose due to historic and material necessity, but we are still living in it because the ruling-class wants to consolidate their exclusive wealth and power. And it's not merely a nebulous "system," capitalism is a mode of production that pervades everything in society. It's the means of production and distribution of resources, so defines how every person living in it lives, shaping both their lives and themselves as individuals. Capitalism is defined by private interests, (for the ruling-class that accumulates capital through exploiting wage labor and profiting from the market of goods, each with a set valued price) but at the same time social needs and wants define it, so there is a constant contradiction between the individual and the rest of society.

Despite industrialism making this possible for the first time in history, and the obvious material wealth and abundance in the first-world developed nations in particular, capitalism necessitates that people do not have their basic needs guaranteed by the society as a whole. (instead, they are deprived of them unless they work, their family has sufficient wealth, they are on government welfare, homeless, institutionalized, or imprisoned.)

Men are generally expected to work and be the providers, so women have more intrinsic worth in society. And are the privileged sex biologically, socially, and economically speaking. Sexism is reproduced in the structure of society both to men and women, but in this case, the double-standards are such that men are subject to more criticism for being out of work or not earning more money, (but of course nothing is never good enough, because the conditioned standards are always going to be set above where most men can afford to be at the moment) whereas for women it's generally more sufficient in the eyes of society for them to simply exist, especially if they are attractive and have a man who provides for them.

This is also why especially in the west in modern times, women's standards often get so skewed and picky, as blackpillers have often criticized and riffed on. (with their concept of "hypergamy" there is much truth to it, though they can be reductive and simplistic and I don't always agree with them.) As the article I shared above states though: "...this is in no way a criticism of the conduct of women. We desire to lay no stigma upon them. We lay no stigma upon any class or sex or group, for down at bottom, men and women do what they do because they have to do it. The more we understand the economic and biological status of any group, the more we see they are compelled to act, under the circumstances, and in the environment they occupy, precisely as they do act. In the struggle for existence today the laurels are only to those who use any and all methods to save themselves. We only want to point out that women are able to save themselves because of their 'favored' position in the biological world." The article also explains why women will never be honest about society and the system that governs our lives. "...the preferred class, the biologically and economically favored class, or sex, has rarely been efficient-to-do, has never been revolutionary to attack a social system that accords advantage to it."

All of this is historically conditioned, and will eventually change. But as long as we do not live in a society where people's needs are guaranteed by the society as a whole, these issues will continue. Only the communist mode of production could do this. (which has nothing to do with the Soviet Union, China, or any other historic state-capitalist country. These countries were capitalist and did not guarantee necessities to people, which is why they were so authoritarian and oppressive, to control and exploit the laboring population, like any capitalist country.) It would allow people to maximize their time and energy for their own interests, creative pursuits, and leisure, and would abolish obligatory work. Timed work would still exist, but this is completely different from wage labor as it exists in capitalism, which defines how everyone works, and would be abolished. (the value form determines their salaries, and the prices of goods, and the relationship between both. Communism abolishes this.) It doesn't mean people everyone is equal, that their needs are met equally; and social hierarchies would still exist. But class hierarchy and exploitation would not.

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -8 points-7 points-6 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MrSaturn33 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a product of human activity, and nature, as is everything, but usually when people say "capitalism was "made" by all of humanity" they are just trying to level ruling-class interests as the same as the interests of the majority of people, implying it was not only merely "made" by "everyone" but also perpetuated evenly by everyone, to conflate ruling-class interests and responsibility to that of everyone, when this is not true. Marx begins the Communist Manifesto by explaining that the bourgeoisie under capitalism were a continuation of the wealthy class under feudalism, plus the people in the position to become a part of the newly forming bourgeoisie, and that they are obviously the ones who control production and everything and shaped it into what it is now.

Of all things, the only “real freedom” that humans can obtain through the purposefulness of their productive activities appears to those who regard the mastery of nature as a philosophical program, as submission and heteronomy!

Secondly, however, the dogma is “The more WE invent apparatuses, the greater our self-submission.” Which society is this expertise actually about? This WE is a plain invention of the great masters and their disciples. As little as assembly lines, computers, and combat bombers serve the innocent purpose of mastering nature in general, just as little is their patron a collective subject made up of me and you and all of us. In the capitalist world of private property in land (= nature!) and in the means of appropriating nature (= the so-called apparatuses!), it is surely forbidden for normal citizens of the earth to simply to intervene in the world of nature for their benefit, to change it and to use it. Rather, this is done under the command of the state force and according to the calculation of profits, i.e. according to the exclusive purposes of business & power, for which the majority of the people simply have to answer with a lot of effort, exclusion from the wealth they produce, and patriotic duties on the front! The allusion to the capitalist factory, in the wage workers do in fact function as mere appendages of machinery, is not at all suited for the false conclusion that “society” is to blame for all of this because of its selfish hubris. People do not become appendages of machines because of technology, but because the simplification of labor is used against the worker. Hence, because the productivity of the workers is organized as the productivity of capital.

The 10 favorite dogmas of critical theory

[+]DescriptionGeneral25 -10 points-9 points-8 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Glass_Arrow 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DescriptionGeneral25 -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Being a stay at home mom is a personal choice

Yeah, a personal choice that involves living off a man's hard earned money who has to work all day while she doesn't do shit and as soon as he stops earning she ditches him, any woman who does that is objectively scum of the Earth and I will not discuss it any further, period.

When me and my wife start planning to have kids, I would be more then excited if I'm a stay at home dad

Well, of course you would, you'd be getting the easiest part which is why women do it in the first place, but it's not comparable at all because men don't have an entire culture and system supporting their decision to be parasites, it's all of the opposite actually. Don't get me wrong, I think any man who does that is an asshole too, but it's worse when women do it because they're taking advantage of the system, the very few men in the entire world who live off a woman's money like parasites at least had to do some effort to get there first.

[+]Killsomefool 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DescriptionGeneral25 2 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

This is hilarious because i see alot of mem saying they want a stay at home wife but here you are shit talking them amd calling them parasites

They ARE parasites, and I don't give a fuck that a lot of "men" agree with it, they were all raised by women who were other pieces of gynocentric scum and put those ideas inside their heads, and most men who end up with a worthless whore like that end up regretting it and saying they wish they never got married in the first place.

Has it ever occurred to you the stay at home wives have discussed it with their partner and he also wants her to stay at home

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE FUCK THEY DISCUSSED, a woman sayig "Honey, I wanna be a worthless parasite who does nothing all day while you spend the entire day working your ass off like a slave and if you don't do it I will l ditch you ☺️" is WRONG!!! She's taking advantage of him! Do you really not see the problem in all of this? Jesus fucking christ!

Let me guess, you're one of those parasitic stay at home wives and you don't like men like me questioning your bullshit, right?

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

[–]63daddy 41 points42 points43 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Blanco_ice -25 points-24 points-23 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]63daddy 35 points36 points37 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]63daddy 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Low_Philosophy_8 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tiny_Professional358 40 points41 points42 points 2 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]63daddy 24 points25 points26 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -15 points-14 points-13 points 2 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]sakura_drop 34 points35 points36 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Apex Fallacy has entered the chat.

patriarchy

noun

a society in which the oldest male is the leader of the family, or a society controlled by men in which they use their power to their own advantage

Women:

Longer life expectancy (not purely down to biological factors)
Small minority of homicide victims
Tiny minority of workplace fatalities
Less likely to be victims of violent crime
Less likely to commit suicide
Less likely to be homeless
Receive more lenient treatment in the criminal justice system across the board including for serious crimes like murder and rape, the latter not even being legally recognised in many parts of the world
Receive the majority of funding for health, social, educational, and economic issues
Have more legal rights and privileges in the Western world, and are consistently the majority voting block in elections

Must be the most ineffectual, self-defeating '''patriarchy''' in history. Trying to use it as a catchall term to explain how it "harms men too!" is akin to blaming the Illuminati or the Devil.

Male advantage? Patriarchy.

Female advantage? Patriarchy "backfired."

Violent men? Patriarchy.

Violent women? Patriarchy (made her do it).

Women without rights? Patriarchy.

Men without rights? Patriarchy.

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -8 points-7 points-6 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not the apex fallacy at all. It's not a fallacy to point at the vast majority of powerful figures in politics, the economy, etc., because that is obviously the product of a patriarchical system that has traditionally excluded women. Seriously, how can you claim that its a fallacy to point out that there has never been a woman president and a vast majority of CEOs are men? The apex fallacy is about overgeneralizing based on the those at the top and most visible, but when you are talking about political and economic power, obviously those at the top would be most relevant. Do you get that? Do you get that when you are talking about power, it's not a fallacy to point to the most powerful figures, especially when they overwhelmingly reflect clear biases in society?

But really, you don't seem to understand the concept of patriarchy at all. Patriarchy, of course, does not equally benefit all men. Class, race, religion, etc. all still exist. That's pretty obvious. No one who is seriously considering the concept would think about it in such an overly simplistic way.

[–]Low_Philosophy_8 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duhhhh 19 points20 points21 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]duhhhh 17 points18 points19 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EccentricBonnieLass 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Psychology is the short answer. Men’s and women’s brains are wired different. Women are more people oriented while men are wired to work on things/problem solve. Running a country takes a lot of management of people and being able to solve issues fast and effectively. CEOs have to play number games with their money and move in smart critical ways.

Men and women are different. I’d say honestly society is Egalitarian right now. Hopefully feminist don’t get their way and push it into a matriarchy. I much prefer the egalitarian. Everyone gets to choose how to live their lives according to what they want. It’s a win win in my opinion. In an egalitarian society you can have a modern take or a traditional, the whole point is neither has to be forced on you. I hope that never changes. I hope there is push back of the feminists soon because they are no longer a movement for egalitarian society. They are now fighting for a matriarchy.

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EccentricBonnieLass1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Itsdickyv 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Itsdickyv 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

I’d say that isn’t what most women want. It definitely isn’t what I want. A lot of women want a family to raise. As for feminists they are too entitled to get there. Also look at what men go into as CEOs and what women go into. Women usually don’t pick the huge money makers. My sister runs her own business. It’s a fashion business and making it big in something like that is really hard. I wouldn’t say she stands out. She has an interesting twist, but she would have to do a lot more than she is now. She also has an accountant job and a son. She doesn’t have the time even if she wanted to. Her husband on the other hand chose to start his business in tech (repair, installing, etc.). Huge money maker in comparison 🤷🏼‍♀️.

I’d say the exceptions are models and actors. Singers…kind of. Depends on if their parents helped them or not. Ariana Grande grew up rich and basically kept living that lifestyle with everything handed to her.

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Itsdickyv 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Itsdickyv3 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BeardedBill861 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DoctorUnderhill971 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BeardedBill862 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]LiquidDreamtime -17 points-16 points-15 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]63daddy 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punder_man 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s a poor understanding of the word. The patriarchy exists and it still hurts most men.

Your denying it only perpetuates it, and prolongs the ways it hurts men.

Is it though?
We constantly hear feminists drone on and ON about how "The Patriarchy exists to serve / benefit men"
But if that's the case then how could a system specifically designed to "Benefit men" be so fucking incapable of doing so and epically failing in that regard?

If we lived in a "Patriarchy" as defined / explained by feminists then the following be what we expect to see in such a system:

Women would not have ANY rights at all
Women would not be allowed to vote
Women would be incapable of falsely accusing a man of rape because it would be a woman's duty to submit to the needs of men
Men would not get harsher prison sentences for the same crimes
Medical funding would prioritize male health needs / problems
Male homelessness would be an issue that gets a massive spotlight shined on it
etc

But when we examine reality.. that's not how any of those above examples play out..

Women have the same and in many cases more rights / privileges than men do today
Women can and are in fact the largest majority of voters
Women can throw out false Sexual Assault / Rape accusations with near immunity because even if it gets found out she lied she is unlikely to face any sort of consequence for trying to send an innocent man to jail
There is a MASSIVE bias in favor of women in the criminal justice system, women are flat out 50% less likely to be given a prison sentence for their crimes and, when they do it is on average 60% shorter than what a man would get for the same crime.
Despite prostate cancer killing as man men as breast cancer does women, Breast cancer receives on average 2x the mount of funding prostate cancer does.
When men are made homeless they are told they failed society, When a woman is made homeless she is told society failed her...
Not only that but there are massively more societal safety nets available to homeless women than there are for men..

If we lived in a "Patriarchy" then why would they have EVER let women have the rights they have now?
Does that not seem counter intuitive to the purpose / goal of "The Patriarchy"?
If the idea behind the patriarchy is to keep men in control and oppress women then they clearly failed the moment the let women vote and allowed women other rights / privileges correct?

Ipso facto, we DO NOT live in a Patriarchy...
Stop spreading bullshit based on imagination and fantasy..
Wake up and look at reality...

[–]Tiny_Professional358 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gabriel-kornilov 39 points40 points41 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrowMagpie 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -14 points-13 points-12 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reasonable-Wealth647 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sea_Blackberry5839 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Freethinker608 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]coming2grips 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SlowLearnerGuy 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pale-Reserve-568 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SlowLearnerGuy 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pale-Reserve-568 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Pale-Reserve-568 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

TL;DR: Yes, I don't like this article and time is better spent elsewhere. Stop making gender issues a contest.

I'd say yes, the system and societal expectations that benefit the men already in power at the cost of everyone else includes boys.

I also find it hard to take an article seriously when,

Its no longer news or even actual opinion pieces. It’s all agenda driven propaganda written to pander to their base.

and,

It’s more about changing minds than informing minds, no longer rooted in facts but in manufactured feelings.

are right next to each other, so much for having self awareness. Additionally, for someone trying to "debunk" things with facts the article that is written comes across as pretty emotional to me.

But all of that is besides the point as patriarchy isn't even discussed in this article and what it actually "debunks" is toxic masculinity... but not really because it pretends to do that but shifts the focus on fatherlessness instead, continuing the ongoing blame game on whose fault toxic masculinity is.

We did it guys, we debunked the existence of the patriarchy by calling headlines stupid without looking into them and pulling up statistics, that will show them! /s

And while it might be the case that the articles that are talked about have nothing to say and it wouldn't surprise me, I wouldn't know. Because with how the response was written I doubt that the articles were even read.

All in all I don't really see much purpose in this article other than it being ragebait. Fatherlessness is an issue as well as toxic masculinity. And while it lists statistics and problems that come with fatherlessness it is used as a 'gotcha'.

And that touches on, what I feel like are, the underlying issue within gender discourse in general... which is everything needing to be a contest. Can we stop making it about whose fault it is or who has it worse? Because it isn't but despite that it is a mindset I keep seeing in both men's issues discourse and women's issues discourse.

[+]I_Use_Dash -21 points-20 points-19 points 2 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present_League9106 27 points28 points29 points 2 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]EloquentSloth 35 points36 points37 points 2 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present_League9106 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]I_Use_Dash -21 points-20 points-19 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]pilotIet 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]I_Use_Dash -16 points-15 points-14 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]I_Use_Dash -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pilotIet 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]63daddy 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]I_Use_Dash 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]63daddy 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]I_Use_Dash 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -17 points-16 points-15 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrowMagpie 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrowMagpie 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

I can assure you, that's false.

You've been trolling this sub for, what, a few months now? (I've noticed your name, but not given you much attention; you're hardly worth it.) That's asshole behavior.

You're using the old 'if you're not guilty you wouldn't object ot the accusation' argument, which combines the worst of gasslighting with kafka-trial-logic. That's asshole behavior.

You're doing it to defgend a sweeping, sexist generalization of men. That's asshole behavior.

(I'm going to assume you're one of those 'you can't be sexist against men morons, but I don't know for sure, so I won't add it to the list of charges.)

You've stolen a name from Professor Tolkien's work to do it; that just adds insult to injury.

I"m assuming you don't mind being called an asshole, right? You're either guilty or you'll accept the charge, right?

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I"m assuming you don't mind being called an asshole, right? You're either guilty or you'll accept the charge, right?

See, this is what you don't seem to understand. The "if you're not guilty you wouldn't object ot the accusation" thing doesn't apply because you personally are not being accused of something. As I said, you are taking things personally that are not. Now, that is notably very different from you directly calling me an "asshole," which is a clear personal attack. You see the difference?

But no, I don't mind you calling me an "asshole," because I have no respect for your opinion. It's clear that you have deeply engrained biases that make you incapable of understanding the actual issues at play.

You've stolen a name from Professor Tolkien's work to do it; that just adds insult to injury.

Nope, not referencing Tokien here. You seem to have a problem with going of half-cocked on things you don't actually understand.

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

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

[+]I_Use_Dash -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Present_League9106 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]DoctorUnderhill97 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]I_Use_Dash 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EloquentSloth 16 points17 points18 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]I_Use_Dash -6 points-5 points-4 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Cold_Mongoose161 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Gender Equality Paradox

Can you explain this phenomenon using the patriarchy theory? According to gender equality paradox, the more egalitarian the society becomes, the more common the stereotypical differences between the sexes are. If the patriarchy theory was true then this should not be the case as the patriarchy theory states that the differences between men and women are socialized and not biological.

Moreover if the patriarchy is so powerful that it held gender norms within our society for thousands of years (as feminists claim) and is still powerful enough to uphold gender norms in 2024 then why did the feminist movement happen freaking 100 years ago, that would be impossible in a patriarchal society and the word patriarchy wouldn't be used in such a way as we do today.

Did the Germans know that what the Nazis were doing during their rule? was the word 'Nazis' used as it is used today in the rule of Hitler? Did Germans know about the oppression of Jews during Hitler's rule? Did the Germans view Nazis as evil during their rule? No

If the patriarchy existed then the word patriarchy wouldn't be seen as evil and no one would have known about the patriarchy.

Seeing that you are from Argentina, Messi is very disappointed from you.

[+]I_Use_Dash -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Punder_man 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]I_Use_Dash -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elegant_Mission_7310 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]I_Use_Dash 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]hendrixski 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]I_Use_Dash 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hendrixski 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Title	Does the "Patriarchy" Harm Boys?
Author	Blanco_ice
Upvotes	90
Comments	125
Date	June 19, 2024 6:04 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1djppbl/does_the_patriarchy_harm_boys/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/does-the-patriarchy-harm-boys.1522048 https://theredarchive.com/post/1522048

Comments