A hatesub shared this.
What a great article by somone who calls violence and torture "fun". Doesn't surprise me, as 70% of students report at least some enjoyable experiences regarding school violence. It is fun, just not to the primarily (or in the places allegedly described in the article, solely) male victims. Who believes having to give all your money to the matriarch who then may hopefully allow you a fair share is "equality". As expected, many things here are either misrepresented, left out or euphemized. Such a system with men would be just as horrible, by the way. That being said, the system we live in is not a male equivalent to what is described there and in fact values the lives of women higher than those od men as well - including the horrible bias and abuse that leads to. Men are not just touched - unlike the women in the article, who are not even that - no, they make up the majority of victims of physical violence, physical bullying, murder, suicide, serious suicide attempts, robbery, physical discipline and forms of cyber bullying including physical aspects (like having videos of your beating shared to humiliate you for getting beaten up). All of this whilst inducing less concern, less guilt attributions to perpetrators, less interventions by bystanders, less ambition to report by bystanders, refusal of help by law enforcement, unfavorable evaluations by mock jurors, less suport services, less to no funding, less political attention (UN women etc.), societal ridicule and shaming, lack of equal criminal codes (rape; fgm), and less research whilst the research that is conducted is shown to be subject to biased evaluations as well.
Here is the worst part of the article:
Q: In your description of the Kashi in India, you recount that the love interests of young women can be beaten by her brothers, kidnapped and held prisoner at the home of the woman who wants to enter into a sexual relationship. Isn’t this a case of a power relationship that negatively impacts men?
A: (Laughs) What I described there is nothing more than a game among young people. It may seem brutal, but in reality, they’re having fun. Sexuality in these societies is experienced as a game. No one tries to make others feel guilty for having the desire to make love. Once a woman becomes infatuated with someone other than her husband, she separates from him, without creating a stir. Monogamy is considered a form of repression against women. They are not polygamous, but they do regularly change partners.
Q: Which in turn influences parenthood.
A: Absolutely. Women have several partners over the course of their lives, so when they do have children, it is not their biological fathers who take care of them, but rather the brothers of the women. Men become the fathers of their nephews and nieces. Of course, if a man requests to play a more significant role in the life of his biological child, the clan will implement a system that grants him that role. But it’s the mother’s bloodline that counts.
Q: You classify the Tuaregs as a matriarchal society, but women are the keepers of the familial tent, while men spend their days outside. Isn’t this just yet another variant of the patriarchy?
A: Not at all. The Tuareg women maintain control of the family finances. Everything men earn outside is brought back to the tent. The oldest woman divides and shares the money in equal parts. She is the holder of the clan’s fortune. She is the one who safeguards it, because she represents security, a guarantee. She does not own the house. Tuareg men attest that they give the money to the women because they are the givers of life and doing so secures their future.
Women at the same time, are never subjected to such gruesome treatment:
Q: Does prostitution exist in matriarchal societies?
A: No! Not in the least. The same is true for rape. Women, their sexuality and their power to give birth are respected. No man would dare touch a woman against her will. The clan system protects each woman.
No idea what kind of argument this article was supposed to be, but nothing in this article is desirable and it is filled with examples of misandry that are ridiculed, belittled, ignored or just combined with claims of equality and peacefulness, hoping that nobody will notice the inconsistency and incompatibility inbetween the given statements. Claiming misandristic communities to be egalitarian, leaving out or twisting misandristic pratices as shown in the article as well as misinterpreting and misreporting behavior due to the blatant and substantial biases of the author do not make these places any more desirable or less misandristic - that is, to the extent they even are matriarchies, as many of the statements made are simply incompatible with that claim. Conveniently, one can just redefine the term - or use it to describe a construct that one knows to be far from what people would intuitively believe:
[...] based on a new definition of «matriarchy» as true gender-egalitarian societies. Accordingly, matriarchal societies should not be regarded as mirror images of patriarchal ones, as they have never needed patriarchy’s hierarchical structures of domination. On the contrary, matriarchal patterns are socially egalitarian, economically balanced, and politically based on consensus decisions. They have been created by women and are founded on maternal values. This new perspective on matriarchal societies is developed step by step by the analysis of extant indigenous cultures in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287303726_Matriarchal_societies_Studies_on_indigenous_cultures_across_the_globe
The same would be true if the genders were reversed - it would be misogyny. I don't care if a patriarch eventually splits the money equally - if his wife has to hand him all the money because she is a woman, that is misogyny. If beating up and torturing women in various ways is considered "having fun" whilst men are protected from any unwanted touch, that's misogyny.
Women in the US and EU are absolutely allowed to and should earn their own money. In fact, young women outearn young men, which might be evident of our efforts having been overblown and there might be needs for readjustment in certain areas whilst others need more targeted approaches to actually benefit - not sure. Women receive special scholarships and have special opportunities like save havens, abortions and adoption laws to deal with unwanted pregnancies despite their usage of or in cases of sabotaged birth control - something even male victims of rape, who are widely not even recognized as such yet, usually do not have access to. Boy's educational deficiencies and biases against them are rarely, if at all, addressed and the higher rates of physical bullying against boys as well as its widespread enjoyment by peers make school an overall unsafe institution to male students - something that is, despite its inevitable consequences on health and opportunities, widely ignored. Quotas and special equal opportunities officers provide further evidence of how much society cared about women earning their own money and having equal opportunities in a variety of companies and fields. Often criticized is that the implementation of these efforts is regularily sexist, with men in certain places being denied to run and vote on equal opportunities officers (who widely ignore or deny the widespread and deadly discrimination against men) over the belief of them being biologically incapable of experiencing inequality as well as to form an unbiased opinion on this topic as a whole, women receiving preferential treatment even in places where they make up 80% of employees/students as well as quotas being abolished once they would - or never even being implemented in ways they could - support men. Whilst these efforts are exclusionary of men, there are barely any efforts at all to address the specific issues of men either.
Thanks to the hatesub for providing me with yet another opportunity to point all of this out and yet another piece of evidence on their unsaturable desire to spread deadly misandry whilst citing interviews with blatantly biased authors. What a trustworthy source.