Killed her six children in a fire. Only served 7 of 17 years in prison and is now released.

[–]Battleship1239 462 points463 points464 points 5 years ago (138 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime 112 points113 points114 points 5 years ago* (137 children) | Copy Link

I know you're being facetious, but this IS the patriarchy.

The patriarchy would imply that men are the dominant sex with more agency than women. Which means women are the simpler, gentler, LESS ACCOUNTABLE gender.

Our justice system penalizes men and goes easy on women because our society systemically has less respect for women than it does for men. That lack of respect means we can easily dismiss their actions, like we would the actions of a child.

We exist in a patriarchy and in many ways it HURTS men and benefits women.

Edit: A whole bunch of you seem to be triggered by the word patriarchy. I'm using the word as it is defined: "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." Since exactly 0 women weighed in on the US constitution and very very few laws have been written by women, and men hold almost every position of power and control almost every cent of capital on earth...it seems accurate and impossibly ignorant to refute.

[–]LieutenantLawyer[🍰] 91 points92 points93 points 5 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]gi_m3lo 86 points87 points88 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rbrockway 36 points37 points38 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LieutenantLawyer[🍰] 19 points20 points21 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]destarolat 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LieutenantLawyer[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]gi_m3lo 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]gi_m3lo 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TryToDoGoodTA 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DetectivePokeyboi 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]LieutenantLawyer[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DetectivePokeyboi 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I interpreted the “equality” being equality where things are unequal for women and not all parts of inequality in society. They are trying to even the playing fields in locations where it’s uneven for them and not make it so women have more power over men. Complaining about feminism is the wrong thing to do. Let them do their thing and we step up to bring equality in aspects where it’s uneven for us. It’s completely wrong to expect the women to fight for male rights when they are comprised of almost entirely females. We need to be the ones who fight for male rights and I hate how we always look to hating feminists for fighting for their own rights. Why can’t we both fight for our own rights?

Also I’m pretty sure feminism doesn’t blame all men for the inequality and moreso the (previously) male run society that has created the inequality.

[–]LieutenantLawyer[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DetectivePokeyboi 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean yeah they should fight for equality everywhere but as females don’t you think it makes sense for them to prioritize equality for issues where they are disadvantaged? It doesn’t make sense for them to lobby for women to get more jail time and for men to get more recognition. They can support our efforts in doing so but it’s not their job to raise the issues for us.

Also, you definitely have met feminists who don’t have a disdain towards men. Most of the female population falls under this category. It’s just that most feminists don’t yell out at the top of their lungs that they are feminists. They lobby in the background and push for more female opportunities instead of falling into old gender rolls. The only way I can imagine you thinking most feminists have a disdain for men is if the only people you consider feminists are the nazi feminists. I guarantee your female friends do not think of you as a lesser being and I also guarantee they are feminists.

My statements are not going to change your mind though and neither will your arguments so we can leave it at this if you want and agree to disagree.

[–]LieutenantLawyer[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

They ARE fighting for what is just and benifits society at large, but the scope in which they are fighting in is recognition of women. It is not their job to fight for our rights. It is our job to do that not theirs. They can support us and join us in the fight but it is our job to start the fight, which frankly we aren't really doing. We need to convince other men to fight against the injustices we face just as women have done to gain their rights. Women didn't gain the ability to vote and increased bodily autonomy in relation to abortions and birth control by complaining amongst themselves. They marched and lobbied. They made their issues public and wide known, which we are currently not doing. For some reason I sense a decent amount of people on this sub, instead of fighting for mens rights, are dismissive of efforts against the feminist movement.

Tl;dr We need to be the ones to take charge in fighting for our rights instead of expecting others to do it for us.

[+]LiquidDreamtime -82 points-81 points-80 points 5 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

Because its real. You think the US has had 46 straight men as president because no woman has been qualified? Why are 463 Fortune 500 CEOs men? Did men protest for the right to vote? Were they always allowed to open bank accounts?

If you really cannot see the countless ways men are privileged in society over women, you're not looking.

The patriarchy exist and by and large, benefits men. But there are cases and situations where it hurts men. The justice system (men are held accountable), parental rights (women are nurturers), war (men are protectors), and suicide (emotional issues are a weakness). These things exist and are perpetuated by the patriarchy.

Ignorant men like to simplify the patriarchy as "men always have it better". But that over simplification only serves those who wish for this imbalance and unjust system to continue.

Equality should be our goal. We need to recognize how our society benefits and hurts people based upon their sex alone, and end those things.

[–]foxyramirez 31 points32 points33 points 5 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[+]LiquidDreamtime -52 points-51 points-50 points 5 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onithyr 16 points17 points18 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MillionWilliam 30 points31 points32 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]LiquidDreamtime -22 points-21 points-20 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MillionWilliam 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Recognizing the underlying theme of our society, how it hurts men, and why it hurts men; is critical for the necessary change that can help men.

A lot of the arguments about the word "patriarchy" are pedantic. Call it whatever the hell you want man. But our society, its laws, and our social structure has been run by men for thousands of years. The systems that prevent men from pursuing their passions in order to provide, are the same ones that prevent women from pursuing their passions in order to nurture.

You seem like a good dude. But honestly the majority of my interactions here are with misogynists who are completely ignorant of all and every social issue we face as a civilization. Its mostly "well I think..." followed by ill informed opinion and or straight up conspiracy theory nonsense.

There is a lot of thinly veiled misogyny amongst MensRights advocates and until we do a better job of calling out our own, and educating ourselves, we'll never be anything more than the joke we currently are.

[–]redlobsterbiscuits1 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]foxyramirez 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I suppose it depends on what we're talking about, doesn't it? Men and women aren't biologically identical, or even necessarily programmed on an instinctive level the same. There are notable differences that can express themselves as advantages in modern life.

For instance, bell curve data is pretty solid, and it's pretty obvious testosterone offers incredible physical advantages.

No, I believe in acknowledging our biological differences and understanding how they express themselves in modern life, and it isn't sexist to do so, it's just being academically honest.

And if you really wanted my academic opinion as somebody that studied the human brain, human behavior, the development of human behavior historically, and animal behavior as my university focus, it's that we actually live in a matriarchy.

Matriarchy itself lends to evolutionary survival in mammals, which is why it occurs so frequently. Biologically, males are more disposable and easier to produce, requiring less genetic material with higher rates of survival, thanks to testosterone. In fact, in many species, draught and food shortage leads to a massive increase in male birth rates. It's more energy intensive to give birth to females, and nature's mechanism of changing birth rates is a device that keeps populations stable, even as the population totals fall due to environmental causes. In a more harsh environment, males must compete and evolve faster and harder in order to provide survival to their species, and so, matriarchy serves as a mechanism in nature to ensure a species can adapt to environmental changes more rapidly. Most species that didn't naturally practice this, died out as a matter of competition with the more genetically advanced species that did.

It falls on males in countless species, to impress the female and provide for her in order to win mating rights. Women have the hard biological duty of making and raising children, which requires the male's attentiveness in order for her and his prodigy to survive. He must bend to the knee if he wants his bloodline to survive. Human society is no different. Man has created the modern world we live in today, purely and expressly out of the single minded motivation of getting his dick wet.

The reality is, women stand on top, live longer, easier, and happier lives as a result of holding all the mating cards. Everything and anything men do, including the pursuit of power, is in service to the matriarchy and ensuring the safety of that slice of society's womenfolk.

[–]HeForeverBleeds 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

More likely the reason why it's mostly been men becoming CEO's is because men historically have been and still are expected to be the breadwinners / providers (sometimes sole providers, esp. historically). When it's only men who have been pressured to work and make money, it's no surprise that there have been many more men who felt the need to pursue top high-paying positions compared with women

A woman can choose to pursue a high-paying position if she wants to, but she doesn't have to. She can just as well choose to find a man who's willing to take care of everything, or at least the majority of the expenses. Conversely, a man who doesn't want to work hard and instead wants to marry a woman who does the earning is seen as a lazy deadbeat. So ultimately, there's a lot more pressure for a man to earn money and get top positions than for a woman to

It's all apart of gender norms. And before you say the inevitable, the "patriarchy" (men having the power) isn't solely to blame for this. Women perpetuate this gender norm just as much when they refuse to date low-income men and / or strongly prefer wealthy men

[–]LiquidDreamtime 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]HeForeverBleeds 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]LieutenantLawyer[🍰] 19 points20 points21 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rreot 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Jepekula 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rreot 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The justice system

Which got worse as feminism got more widespread

parental rights

It was pretty equal, until feminism came through

war (men are protectors),

That's straight up realism. Tribe or nation defended by women would get quickly conquered by outsiders who use males

suicide (emotional issues are a weakness)

Aand that's mostly perpetuated by women

Why are 463 Fortune 500 CEOs men?

Why are 80%+ of homeless men?

You think the US has had 46 straight men as president because no woman has been qualified?

Its interesting question : why women vote in male politicians? Hint : women are majority of population

Did men protest for the right to vote?

They were given it by ancient regimes, so they can continue to wage wars

Were they always allowed to open bank accounts?

No. Up until modern era there was feudal system under which 80%+ of population was semi-slaving away in agricultural fields. And that feudal system was much better than what it replaced tbh

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

One thing to consider is Fortune 500 companies CEO's tend to be older, and thus were being educated when there was still a definite bias towards men being bread winners and women homemakers, meaning fewer women would have been qualified. We can't look at todays stats and graduate rates of men and women and compare them to an outcome that started 40 years ago from today.

I would be surprised if with the initiatives universities have taken that we will see more women CEOs in the future.

Another thing is that to get to the 'top' pregnancy DOES get in the way. It's not something that can be overcome that if I women wants to be a mother she will have to sacrifice some of her career where as a man doesn't necessarily have to. This is a biological truth, not something men have 'created' or have the power to reverse.

[+]piratesec -19 points-18 points-17 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]LiquidDreamtime -10 points-9 points-8 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]UncivilPizza 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mk_dudy 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LieutenantLawyer[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jecter 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lhwing 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm a man. You're choosing to be offended on my behalf and I give you the right to not be.

We live in a male-dominant society. This is indicated by the fact that our entire history is almost 100% governed/shaped/controlled by men; and the current state of the world is nearly 100% governed/shaped/controlled by men.

We all, humans, have a social responsibility to improve our civilization. A system that is unfair to anyone due to an intrinsic attribute they posses should be changed to NOT be like that.

Men have more opportunity in life than women. The wealthy have more opportunity than the poor. In the US/Europe/AUS/SA, whites have more opportunity than POC (Asian/ME countries have racial stratifications as well). Able bodied people have more opportunity than disabled people. Straight people have more opportunities than LGBTQ+ individuals.

These inequalities all suck. We should strive to eradicate them all.

[–]DankVapours 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Having read all of your above posts, I don't wish to come across as dismissive, but simply offer an opportunity for discussion.

I would argue that historical facts and figures are largely irrelevant when discussing modern society. History has of course shaped modern society, and it is perhaps the echo of the 1950s that propagates discrimination in the modern world, passed along by discriminatory parent to child. However, the laws and fabrics of a society can and do change overnight, with resistance, as evidenced by COVID. A history of sexism does not evidence sexism now.

Also, "unfair" is an awful term. Do you mean, equal opportunity? Equal outcome? Equitable outcome? As decided by whom? I'm going to assume you mean opportunity.

Firstly: To me, a patriarchy implies the fundamental written laws of a society are prejudiced. In the UK, this is not the case, or certainly not very often given the antidiscrimination laws of employment etc. Hence, discrimination is advocated by individuals, or collections of individuals and bluntly, in the real world, that's only going to change with time and better education. There is no patriarchy, no secret society of nasty people plotting evil deeds. There's just a lot of nasty men and women and everything else in between, but they'll die eventually, and be replaced by a better educated generation that have had access to the Internet and the whole sphere of human knowledge from the moment they opened their eyes... uh oh.

Secondly: I too would happily advocate for equal opportunity, through free education and so on. However, equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome, and we should never strive to aim for equal outcome either. It does not matter whether there are equal numbers of men, women, white or coloured, lgbtq or hetero people in a job, just that the best candidates for the position get the job, and there are no discriminatory barriers to application. There is still alot of discussion about nature vs nurture, with relevance to the number of applicants to STEM subjects, or nursing etc.

In some jobs, the "best candidate" will naturally or unnaturally favour one group and not another. Example: Construction worker or front line soldier: strength, size and logistics are all considerations. Equal outcome would be moronic.

Thirdly: The US now has a woman vice president, multiple women CEOs out there, I've met some very successful women at NASA, etce etc. How would you respond to "if they can do it, what's the problem?".

If you think the successful rate of attempts to achievement is vastly different between groups, I would love to see cited studies that also explore the reasons. In my experience, every job has unique and often very practical discrimination, and occasionally, some very nasty discrimination (see male babysitters experiences) but again, that will only change with time and education. Not by fighting some... difficult to grasp idea, with a ludicrous name, that is "the patriarchy".

Fourthly: You make an interesting point that alot of the people in high places are men and therefore it is a patriarchy. Some notable exceptions to inspire women would be Merkel, or the US VP, or the NZ President, or even Greta Thunburg! I expect this to change with time. But I'd argue that if it were a true patriarchy, these exceptions would not exist. I'd also point out that influence and power is not in "titles". I remember reading that women have 80% of consumer spending, despite their lesser earnings. In our mostly capitalist societies, spending money is true power, and we vote with our wallets.

For context: I'm in the UK. We have free education with a government loan system for University and free health care. I think, here, we would struggle to point at majorly discriminatory laws, but easily be able to point at many unorganised individuals being discriminatory.

[–]Knight_of_Inari 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Knight_of_Inari 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]LiquidDreamtime 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lhwing 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fine, i will remove you from the list then.

Men as group definitely have a huge chunk of power, namely at least. Do you think if women wanted to riot all together men wouldn't help? Do you believe if women were to riot men would still be able to live as nothing happend?

We could say we shape our society on two ways socially and legally.

Socially women have at least as much power as men otherwise feminist or consistent groups who support women's right wouldn't exist or at least be able to grow.

Legally there more men in position of power than women that's true. But those men have as much power as they have over women as they do over men in that case is it really fair to call patriarchy? By calling patriarchy you're not only citing those men in position of power but you're also citing those men not in a position power.

I don't think it's right to put us together in the same boat when no one of us chose our gender that we were given so by genetics.

Men have more opportunity than women? That depends on which nation we are talking about but for western countries I would need some sources.

This is not an issue about improving our society I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the word patriarchy. Are you assuming that people who are against the word patriarchy are also against social progress? Is that why you put all of that stuff about inequality? That's quite the leap...

Wouldn't it be better to use a gender neutral term and try to get everyone in the same boat instead of using a term like patriarchy? Or do you think you're right to blame is more important than that.

[–]Starmind0 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Starmind0 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]LiquidDreamtime -8 points-7 points-6 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Starmind0 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Starmind0 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]deusxpst 22 points23 points24 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onithyr 22 points23 points24 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]LiquidDreamtime -10 points-9 points-8 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onithyr 15 points16 points17 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Onithyr 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rbrockway 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]mk_dudy 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

Why don't you believe that? Men control most of the money, most corporations, and every military on earth. Men have never had to protest for the right to vote, or the right to drive a car or own property. Men have never had to allow a woman colleague to take credit for their scientific work.

Recognizing the privileges of men does NOT mean that men do not suffer. I'm a man. I've had trials in my life, I have accomplishments I am proud of, i have enormous amounts of privilege that have afforded me countless opportunities. But I chose to act upon those opportunities, I chose to accomplish things and follow through and I'm proud of those things.

Privilege does not strip me of my accomplishments. But recognizing the circumstances that have allowed me to succeed put my feet firmly on the ground, and make me grateful for the gifts I've been given.

[–]mk_dudy 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Do all those privileges outweigh the burden that has been placed on almost every single male to this day, to be a provider, a soldier, an emotionless robot, and a tireless employee? Why do you think women worldwide outlive men? Do you think it's because of some inherent ability to live longer? Why do you think men have higher rates of suicide, homicide, and disease? It's because men have been conditioned to put themselves at risk rather than be indifferent. "Never touch a woman" "man up" "don't cry" serve your country" These sayings are found to be non-problematic today. Why? Because men have had the rights that women have today for centuries, so who cares if they die, right? It's just one more deserved victory for women, right? Listen, I know you addressed that you know that men have problems and they need to be acknowledged, but we both know that the majority of developed countries don't think of the rights of men nearly as they those of women's. And again, if you say that's because women are discriminated against in the system, can you please list down any laws that discriminate against women in a developed country and are talked about just as often as men's rights

[–]LiquidDreamtime -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]LiquidDreamtime -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Gotcha. I do disagree with that. If you were correct, the balance of power in the world lean toward women. And since men are in control of almost every aspect of every society on earth, it seems like men are benefitting.

But the issue of sexism is intersectional with many other "ism's". Classism, sexism, racism, ableism, etc all have interactions across their respective "-ism's".

A physically disabled black woman who's father is a senator is likely going to have a better life than a white msn born to a meth head single mother.

"Man or woman" is not a question that exists in a vacuum. But all factors being equal, men are more likely to be presented opportunities than women. If this claim were false, we would see women represented equally across all fields of work and financial compensation. But the reality is that women represent the majority in only a few fields of work, and the most lucrative jobs are held by men.

[–]matrixislife 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"balance of power"?
I've never seen that balance, so I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. It's demostrable that the huge majority of men live in a disadvantaged situation compared to women. There are a few men who hold power more than 99% of other men and women, but there are also women who do the same. Do you think we should lobby to have women removed from positions of authority because of the men who don't have the same? Nope? So I consider those at the top irrelevant, part of a different argument/class war. Comparing the very few men to the majority of women is duplicitous.

What we're talking about is the average man compared to the average woman. And yeah, that way the "balance of power" really swings pink. I can quote a ton of stats showing men are disadvantaged compared to women there, including prison sentencing/arrest rates, deaths at work etc, but we both know you'll hand-wave them away.

But all factors being equal, men are more likely to be presented opportunities than women.

Bunkum. Where that is actually the case in Scandinavia, women have been shown to prefer more traditional roles seeing as they have the choice. Simply put, in general they do not want to go out to work, and would prefer to remain at home looking after the kids. This isn't all of them of course, but it is the majority. I don't blame them, I'd prefer to do that as well.

And finally, the "wage gap" that's been debunked time and time again? Gibberish. The most lucrative jobs held by men? When you add in the "deaths in the workplace" numbers I'm guessing most women don't want any part of those. Or are you just talking about the top 0.01% again?

The argument is great rhetoric, sounds wonderful when you're talking to news reporters in a 30 second soundbite, but falls miserably on it's face when anyone actually looks at the details.

Btw, regarding your earlier "partiarchy is where women are excluded" comment: the judge in this case that sentenced here Mrs Justice Thirlwall, a woman. The MP complaining about it, Pauline Latham, Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire, a woman. The sex that seems to be excluded from this is men. Not much patriarchy there, more a matriarchy.

[–]Knight_of_Inari 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]friendofalltehworld 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It seems impossibly ignorant to look at the US or indeed any democracy on earth today and conclude that women are 'largely excluded' from power. We do not exist in a patriarchy, most of us are lucky enough to exist in a representative democracy with universal enfranchisement. Women hold many positions of power and have huge institutional clout. The only people 'excluded' from power are convicted criminals. Only a fantasist could conclude there is a tyranny of men in western democratic countries.

You could reasonably conclude that US society is more patriarchal than for instance, UK society. But neither constitute 'a patriarchy'.

Women do write laws, they sponsor bills and pass them in the house and senate. They are not excluded from the process. Women are strongly represented in the upper echelons of the civil service and dominate several professions.

Separately, accusations of 'patriarchy' imply a collective malfeasance on the part of men to deliberately prevent women from taking office. This is understandably consided a slanderous accusation considering that the lives of men are blighted by suicide, homelessness and poor health outcomes at much higher rates than women. Hardly proof of the malignant self interest implied in 'the patriarchy'.

A woman's vote counts the same as a man's. If women did not vote for Mrs Clinton in sufficient numbers, which seems to be the immediate source of much of these recent claims of patriarchy, take it up with them. Perhaps you could come up with a similarly insulting collective noun for them?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tgunner192 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tgunner192 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tgunner192 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Tgunner192 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]friendofalltehworld 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rbrockway 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

First off let's be clear that we are talking about the feminist definition of Patriarchy, not the one used by anthropologists and sociologists. Although definitions vary a little they are typically along the lines of "A society in which women are *systematically* oppressed by men".

Every feminist definition of Patriarchy asserts that it is set up for the benefit of men over women. This is the key criteria. A Patriarchy that harmed men would be, at best, dysfunctional by definition.

If you assert that women have been oppressed by The Patriarchy for thousands of years or more then you are asserting that women were unable to break free of a dysfunctional system. That's the prejudice of low expectations.

The feminist idea of The Patriarchy is a fantasy. Society is much more complex than that. I discussed this at length during my ICMI20 speech but my book will contain a lot more information on this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR-9U3-iBR4

[–]LiquidDreamtime 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rbrockway -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Timemaster4732 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Timemaster4732 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]thisismenow1989 -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HeForeverBleeds -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A whole bunch of you seem to be triggered by the word patriarchy. I'm using the word as it is defined: "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it."

Even by that definition, this is not the patriarchy. You're pretending as if "political positions" = social power. The problem is that politicians don't control all of society. Most people's beliefs and ideas (e.g. the idea that women are less accountable) don't come from politicians telling them to think this way

They come from how they're raised in general (the ideas instilled in them by their family, friends, teachers, media, etc.) People don't believe the way they do because of the law; if anything it's the opposite and the law is a reflection of how the general public believes. Laws wouldn't be voted into being if the majority of people didn't already agree with it

That being the case, social norms are not dictated by politicians. Politicians are a product of society, and women--mothers, female teachers, female relatives, wives, girlfriends, etc.--contribute to this society and these social norms just as much as men do

goes easy on women because our society systemically has less respect for women than it does for men

That's complete nonsense. Women getting away with crimes is not because people don't respect women. If disrespect resulted in getting away with crimes, then Black people in antebellum times would be getting away with crimes left and right, not be getting lynch for them

[–]__pulsar -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WTFDadToss -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lifeISprettyok -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AyyoLiz22 -7 points-6 points-5 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]AyyoLiz22 -9 points-8 points-7 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LiquidDreamtime -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Mens rights are a 'laughing stock' in academia because the prevailing radical orthodoxy in many institutions is so grossly sexist towards men, that any issue affecting men predominantly is either dismissed as 'men's fault' (problem solved!) worse, considered a heresy and those found guilty of such are fired, as with the Eton Teacher this week.

Your comment amply illustrates that you are not arguing in good faith and are here with the sole objective of insulting and belittling those of us concerned with the increasingly poor educational attainment of boys, or the increasing difficulties faced by men seeking employment.

I see nothing in your comments to indicate a genuine concern for unfortunate men, your strident claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Moreover your claim that it is our collective distain for women, rather than alarm at the treatment of men in recent years echoes the claims made by radical feminists whose #killallmen sentiment gives us such pause.

[–]Mystical__flame 143 points144 points145 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 64 points65 points66 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mystical__flame 28 points29 points30 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MadGeller 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Andrewcoo 74 points75 points76 points 5 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 35 points36 points37 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoneyInAMoment 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MoneyInAMoment 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 18 points19 points20 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]The_Queef_of_England6 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

They mean she put her husband first by going along with his plan to set the house on fire. They thought the kids would get out (idiots). She put her husband first by letting him set the fire even though her kids were inside, so she sacrificed their safety for his plan. She didn't rescue anyone from the fire.

[–]Brusanan 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MoneyInAMoment 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NerdGuyLol 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]whats_she_up_to 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NerdGuyLol 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]friendofalltehworld 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jmacamillion 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

since when is 7 half of 17.

She was sentenced a year after the fire I believe, so my guess is that she spent that year on remand in custody awaiting trial. Time on remand counts towards your sentence, so it would actually be 8 out of 17. I know that still isn't half but there's probably a combination of (1) longer than a year on remand, (2) longer than 7 years in prison but the articles is rounding it down, and/or (3) less likely but slightly less than a 17 year sentence and the article is rounding it up. Hope that makes sense.

Seems like he got off way easier than her.

He got a life sentence with a minimum term of 15 years, she got a 17-year sentence.

Basically, in the UK you are (normally) eligible for release half way through your sentence, but you are 'on licence' for the remained of the sentence. That means you are released on strict conditions (e.g. not to meet or talk to certain people, not to go to certain places, etc. etc.) and if you breach those conditions or commit a further crime, you go straight back to prison for up to the remainder of your original sentence.

So here, she gets a 17 year sentence but gets out 'early' with these conditions for the next 10 years. He however gets a life sentence with a minimum term of 15 years - that means the earliest he is eligible to get out is in 15 years (not half), at that point only if a parole board is happy it's safe for him to be released, and even if he is released he'll be under conditions for the rest of his life.

[–]jmcsquared 19 points20 points21 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]west_pac 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]whats_she_up_to 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 32 points33 points34 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Herdo 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jackcos 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jtreferee 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VerdantFuppe 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mythron95 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlbertMendez442 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]X9enigma4life 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]blaizken_420 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

To be honest it's all thanks to the fucked up UK penal system.

15 years minimum sentence? Possibility of an early release? 17 years for 6 lives because they didn't really want to murder the kids, only wanted to gain back custody and mooch off of the welfare system? No wonder these people don't give a fuck, they should have been hanged.

But no, they gave them what they really wanted: mooching off of the system again, free living conditions, free meals, entertainment (TV, Internet) and now an early release.

I bet she also got some taxi money when they released her. When is the husband going to get out? Probably soon.

It's not really about who got out first but the fact that they were never in any danger of spending their entire lives in prison.

It's also a message to other criminals: don't worry about prison, a few years and you're out! Just act like you are deeply sorry and it's done! Enjoy your free meal!

And then they wonder when surviving relatives take the law in their own hands and serve the real justice to these scumbags themselves.

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

[–]bruhicantfindaname12 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SultanSaatana 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jaheiner -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]pm_cheesecakes -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ThirdPersonRecording -10 points-9 points-8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]VulgarGenes1 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Toxic masculinity

[–]DarkWizard2207 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]VulgarGenes1 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Bruh, I was being sarcastic

[–]DarkWizard2207 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]VulgarGenes1 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Why would anyone write toxic masculinity seriously and not defend it in some twisted ways?

[–]DarkWizard2207 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Killed her six children in a fire. Only served 7 of 17 years in prison and is now released.
Author	jackcos
Upvotes	2020
Comments	170
Date	November 29, 2020 4:15 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/k3bzbm/killed_her_six_children_in_a_fire_only_served_7/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/killed-her-six-children-in-a-fire-only-served-7-of.839472 https://theredarchive.com/post/839472

Comments