~ archived since 2018 ~

This frame of mind that when a couple fights, the guy has to sleep on the couch or leave the house and stay at a hotel is extremely sexist.

May 4, 2021
246 upvotes

We’re aware that in the age of gender equality, it really just means getting all the positive aspects but keeping the benefits conferred by the “patriarchy.” We talk about lighter prison sentences and bias in family courts regarding custody or the splitting of assets, but we don’t talk about how we are accustomed to this notion of kicking the husband/boyfriend out of the shared bedroom or the house in times of dispute. Why? Why is the default that the man has to leave?

The very notion that of a wife getting kicked out enrages people. Why is one infuriating and not the other? I won’t pretend that I don’t get infuriated by this additional double standard on the mountain of double standards that are unfavorable towards men and so are neglected.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title This frame of mind that when a couple fights, the guy has to sleep on the couch or leave the house and stay at a hotel is extremely sexist.
Author BlindMaestro
Upvotes 246
Comments 80
Date May 4, 2021 12:46 AM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/this-frame-of-mind-that-when-a-couple-fights-the.1061413
https://theredarchive.com/post/1061413
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/n4c154/this_frame_of_mind_that_when_a_couple_fights_the/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 80 points81 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is something I've always stood my ground on.

Unless I don't want to sleep with you and do want to be by myself. Which I think has only happened one time (from an argument anyway). I'm going to sleep in my bed. You don't have to. You can sleep wherever you want. But I'm not going somewhere else just cause you want me to.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 43 points44 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. If you don't want to sleep in the same bed as me, that's your problem. I'm not kicking anyone out of a shared bed unless we're breaking up.

[–]nocturnefox 46 points47 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

For sure. I like other men but I've always thought that about straight relationships.

At best it just seems entitled she's right at worst incredibly abusive and manipulative. I think it ties into the attitude of "the woman is always right". Also, usually in these situations they seem to both be equal homeowners so why should he leave when she's the one who's mad?

A long time ago I saw this fictional show where the wife told the husband to sleep on the couch because he didn't want to have sex again (she was initiating daily). It was entirely dismissed by his family. Even way back then I was disgusted.

Most of them aren't even that heavy of issues though and could be solved by healthy conversation and understanding.

[–]Neveah_Hope_Dreams 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh my God, that's disgusting. That sounds really rapey. WTF?

[–]ps3gamer15 37 points38 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Im not a man but I always found that so damn disrespectful & degrading. It's litteraly like saying to the man "ure a dog, dogs sleep on the floor". Honnestly idk how men can take it and "come back" and stay with the same person that kicked them out of their own house.

[–]theCourtofJames 11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

My aunt used to make my uncle sleep in his van when they had an argument.

[–]ps3gamer15 9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Damn that sucks.. I feel like back in the days it used to happen more often than it does now tho, because of the mentality (man provides, wife takes care of house). & Now it is becoming less and less common

What's even shittier is the kids growing up in an environment that tells them it's ok to get kicked out of ur own house by ur wife, u just have to deal with it and accept it. Then come back the next day seeking pardon.

[–]theCourtofJames 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If it's any consolation my uncle was an asshole to his brother, my Dad on his death bed so he can sleep in his van the rest of his life for all I care but your right about kids growing up.

Out of all of my relatives, their kids are the most dysfunctional. They have two daughters and they are the most entitled kids I've ever met and it's things like this, they way my aunt treated my uncle that definitely contributed to that.

[–]ps3gamer15 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Im sorry u feel that way about ur own family, they mustve been aweful people for u to "resent" them that way.

Damn thats sad, & chances are theyll perpetuate that cycle of toxicity with their own children in the future. Hopefully something will "wake them up" on time.

Also I mentionned earlier how this kinda conditions the boy to just "accept his faith of being kicked out and come back later on", but that also affects the girl, teaching her that it's normal & ok to treat ur "so" like that.

It's just shitty both ways

[–]schmadimax 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Believe me if a woman wants to kick me out of the house I bought she's the one landing out on the streets, I'm not taking any shit when it comes to that.

[–]ps3gamer15 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh when I said "his own house" I didnt mean like "legally" his.

I meant that the house is theirs regardless of who "paid" for it cuz thats what marriage is about. So my point is even if it's the wife who paid for it I still don't think it's ok for her to kick the husband out after a fight. Unless theyre divorcing then that's a different story yes whoever doesnt own the house has to get out.

But yeah imagine owning the house and still getting kicked out of it.. that makes it even worse than it already is.

[–]schmadimax 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh okay sorry, I was more thinking of long time partner but without being married.

[–]McNultyLikesJameson 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I dunno, I wouldn't mind getting licked in public.

[–]schmadimax 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh FFS I did not see that 🤣

[–]AmiablePenguin 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's how I'm going about it:

If it's my place, you don't get to tell me where to sleep. I'm the one paying the bills, I'm the one who makes the rules. You take the couch, or I can call you an Uber until you've calmed down and we can talk properly in the morning.

If I'm at her place, then I'll leave. I don't need to ruin my sleep just because you're angry. That's selfish and narcisstic.

[–]inagotable1986 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I've never been forced to sleep on the couch or go to a hotel, but my wife has made it clear that if she decides that i need to then i would.

She has her methods, her favorite of which is too keep berating me when I'm trying to sleep. I don't sleep until she's placated. She'll nag, yell, bait me by saying the ugliest things, whatever it takes.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's abusive and toxic. You should have a conversation about that at an opportune moment.

[–]neutronstarr 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The tricky part about this is that the word "nag" will be perceived as sexist, even if its 100% true. There is a paradox wherein a wife is allowed to act toxic in certain ways, and you are a raging sexist if you observe and acknowledge that behavior.

[–]asian_jared 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not a healthy relationship my guy

[–]MelissaMiranti 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wonder if it's why "abandoning the family home" is a factor determined in who gets to keep the property, since it's more often the man kicked out of the home.

[–]amkmaker1754 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Never go to bed angry!!! I know that's hard for some, but I'm a huge believer in diplomacy. Hubby and I have a system: pissed off about something? First of all, smoke a fuckin joint about it, then talk about it, apologize, and go to bed.

We haven't had a night apart in three years, save for a time I went shopping out of town with my mom.

[–]fgyoysgaxt 0 points1 point  (62 children) | Copy Link

I think this is part of archaic patriarchal standards that the house is the woman's domain, and the workplace is the man's domain.

Clearly this is sexist and needs to stop. This is more far reaching than just kicking the male partner out, I think this dynamic is extremely pervasive. For example the woman in the relationship is often given control to furnish and design the house as they want, to solely make decisions for the household, and dictate what their partners can or can't do.

This is something we need to work on. More and more women are joining the workforce to some degree, we can't see the household as still being solely for women. Men shouldn't have to carve out a portion of their own home to use as a shed or a "man cave".

[–]No_Acanthisitta_201 20 points21 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

The patriachy is a myth. This is just another example of women being allowed to by selfish by society. Stop talking feminist nonsense.

[–]TheLWMA 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think society is technically patriarchal by the fact that most leaders and CEOs are men. But only technically.

In reality, it's more gynocentric.

[–]CyclopeWarrior 8 points9 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

Ah yes the invisible hand that forced women and men into their preferred gendered roles is at fault here right, funny how there's always someone trying to deflect any responsibility from women every step of the way.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I mean I do think these gender roles are real.

They're just also enforced by women. Maybe even moreso than men on occasion.

I can't tell you why parent used the word patriarchy instead of traditional gender norms but I think their comment was spot on in a number of other ways.

[–]CyclopeWarrior 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's still a terrible start for a point to be made as gender roles are not the cause of the issue in discussion. Female entitlement is not an unfortunate side effect of people doing what they like doing.

[–]fgyoysgaxt -7 points-6 points  (35 children) | Copy Link

I'm not clear what you are saying.

You don't believe gender exists?

You don't believe gender roles are the product of society?

You don't believe that women are members of society?

Honestly there's a lot to unpack and I'm not sure where you are going with this or what your point is.

[–]Threwaway42 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Only idiotic extremists think gender itself does not exist regardless of gender roles or gender expression

[–]fgyoysgaxt 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I agree with your sentiment but let's not go around calling people idiotic extremists :/

[–]Threwaway42 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Fair point, guess I was just frustrated and seemingly smart people thinking gender was completely a social construct which I just find so ignorant

[–]fgyoysgaxt 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Hm, gender (in feminist framework, and every day English as of some point after the mid 20th century) is by definition a social construct. As contrast to "sex" which is biological. Eg "men wear pants" - gender, "men have a penis" - sex.

Are you saying that we shouldn't understate cultural values when talking about gender? I feel that's societal. Or perhaps you are saying that sex influences gender? In which case I'd say yup, but it does so through the construction of social norms.

[–]Threwaway42 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I think culture definitely relates to how we understand gender and gender roles but gender itself is not a social construct. Gender expression and gender roles aren't, and I understand for many there is a fuzzy line between gender roles/expression and gender, but they are still separate IMO.

I think of it like time, time itself is 100%, but the ways we measure it and the ways we observe it are all socially constructed to be able to understand it.

[–]fgyoysgaxt 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think of it like time, time itself is 100%, but the ways we measure it and the ways we observe it are all socially constructed to be able to understand it.

What if we had one word specifically talking about the natural phenomenon of "time", and another word referring specifically to the way we measure, observe, and interact with "time"?

I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to exist.

[–]Threwaway42 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I feel like that is gender vs gender roles/expression but I get what you are saying

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 3 points4 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

It is because you use feminist jargon that is open to widely varying interpretation. Which is why we recommend against using it.

[–]fgyoysgaxt -1 points0 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I disagree, you can find very similar definitions of the patriarchy wherever you look.

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

Wiki: " Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property "

Geek Feminism: " Patriarchy is a term used in feminism to describe the system of gender-based hierarchy in society which assigns most power to men, and assigns higher value to men, maleness, and "masculine traits". " (a little vaguer and more technical than others).

etc.

There's a strong agreement on what the patriarchy is. Please do not misunderstand a lack of understanding with a lack of a definitive answer. It's there if you want it.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

I don't know if you've noticed but these definitions of patriarchy are rather different with the exception of "political power". This does not, to me, characterise "strong agreement" as to what the term means.

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

Given that women are not excluded from positions of power and are just as likely to win when they run for elections, our society would not qualify as a patriarchy.

Wiki: " Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property

Men do not have more social privilege than women nor do they have greater moral authority. In fact, it's the opposite. Thus, this definition of patriarchy does not fit either.

Geek Feminism: " Patriarchy is a term used in feminism to describe the system of gender-based hierarchy in society which assigns most power to men, and assigns higher value to men, maleness, and "masculine traits". " (a little vaguer and more technical than others).

There is no hierarchy in society which assigns most power to men. It's not assigned. Women can do as well in this system as men do, they just choose to make different choices. And said society does not assign higher value to men, maleness, and masculine traits. Given that men, masculinity and masculine traits are constantly being shit on, I think it's safe to say there is instead a disdain for them.

This definition of patriarchy can also be wholesale thrown out the window.

My biggest issue with the word "patriarchy" is how the term keeps getting motte-and-bailied. Feminists will use "patriarchy" in discussions to refer to what they clearly think are societies built by men to oppress women. I'd refer you to u/LacklustreFriend's post "Examining Patriarchy Theory" for a better understanding of what feminists mean when they say patriarchy. Thus, the word "patriarchy" has an additional connotation attached to it in practice.

But the lack of clarity of what the term means means that when called out on these statements defenders of the term "patriarchy" can run back to the motte and firmly assert that "patriarchy" only means a society where men predominate in positions of political power. Them keeping the words they use so poorly defined that they can be constantly redefined whenever convenient allows them an out every single time anyone tries to back them into a corner. They can always assert that X wasn't what they meant and that they really meant Y, even if everyone knows they were pushing X.

In other words, you can point to the dictionary definition however much you want and claim that it's an appropriate use of the term, but it's also misleading because the word "patriarchy" inevitably now also has an association with "male oppression of women" that is not a fair description or accurate description of societies, even those where men predominate in positions of formal authority. As u/a-man-from-earth was saying, it's the best way to create annoyance among people who do not subscribe to the feminist narrative.

[–]LacklustreFriend 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

This is in reference to several comments you've made recently about the nature of power as it pertains to the sexes, and I think I might have mentioned something similar to you before but anyway:

I always find it so frustrating how extremely limited the feminist notion of 'power' is, which is as basic as "man in visible, formalized position of power, therefore patriarchy" (or occasionally, men bigger than women, so men physically force anything, therefore patriarchy" . Every other field, be it political science, organisational and management theory, public administration has moved way from such notions decades, if not centuries ago.

In one of my postgraduate subjects, I was reading about the relationship of Nixon and Kissinger in regards to leadership, and how leadership, authority and power are not synonymous. In regards to Nixon, Nixon may have been the leader in name, but there is good evidence that Kissinger often wielded the authority and power within the relationship, with Nixon often just being the "face" of decisions Kissinger made.

This is only one way of many that power and authority can manifest in relationships and society. We also increasing talk about the role of "bottom-up" power and organisation, or related concepts like input legitimacy. But such ideas are anathema to feminist theory, who still operate on the most basic, archaic understandings of power imaginable.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I've seen you express these ideas before, I think we are largely in agreement on the topic of "power" and the different ways in which it can manifest, and how feminism by focusing only on formalised political authority neglects many covert forms of power that exist.

On a related note, I've been wondering recently how we could get society at large to reject feminist ideas and most notably "patriarchy theory" (the idea that society is created for the benefit of men and at the expense of women's interests) and reject the ongoing demonisation of men and masculinity. There's no sense arguing with or appealing to feminists because none of them will listen to any indication that their ideology is wrong - I've long ceased to try and really engage with them because few of them argue in good faith and few are interested to listen to any opposing views. The differences in beliefs are just irreconcilable.

Even many feminist scholars have their feet rooted in belief perseverance and only look for evidence that can be interpreted in favour of their theory (and rationalise away any contadictory information), though I would argue that as scholars they're obligated to consider, publish and take into account information and opposing views which might contradict their ideology, instead of trying to dismiss them, and entertain alternative hypotheses. But they don't.

Ultimately what would be good is having more research around gender examining things from a non-feminist standpoint, and to have a good way to get this research to the public. Feminist theory is a very misleading picture of the relations between the sexes, but it's the dominant view. I want to see more alternative views of the relations between the sexes, both currently and throughout history, being presented. Very few anti-feminists or non-feminists or men's rights activists have such significant influence that they could push such a change through, though, and academia as it currently is is a write-off because it's long been infested by these ideas and is actually very responsible for the current popularity of feminist views.

Every single time I look at academia, every single time I read the news, every single time I look at social media, I'm bombarded with hit-pieces painting women as oppressed and men as being at fault for this supposed oppression. We're drowning in their propaganda. I keep seeing ads about violence against women here in Australia (I think you're in Australia too, so you should know about this) which says "let's stop it from the start" painting men as responsible, and acting as if little boys need to be taught how to be decent people. As if little boys are potential future abusers. It's hard to combat because you're pushing against academia almost all of which has been infested with the feminist agenda and the almost entirely woke feminist media pushing out propaganda piece after propaganda piece about women's oppression. And for us, researching every single claim is near-impossible because none of us have the funding nor the tools to do so.

The problem is kind of self-sustaining because you need some significant social support to change the current state of things and to create an environment conducive to research outside of the feminist lens. But without such research, it's difficult to garner any huge significant support for such a push to happen. And even if you somehow single-handedly manage to get a lot of good information contradicting the feminist narrative and manage to get this information to the larger public there are additional barriers which are posed by our evolved instincts which make change hard.

What I want most and why I am even involved here in the first place is to shift the Overton window, but it's hell to shift, especially on this topic.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, apart from the deficiencies in their ideas about "power", feminist ideology, especially its most mainstream incarnation, is a completely illogical worldview that makes zero sense.

Feminist ideas about gender and society in general contain a lot of doublethink. As someone on Reddit said, their ideas about the patriarchy basically requires one to think that men have an inherent ability and willingness to oppress women which led them to create and enforce gender roles to do it and women do not have similar ability or willingness to oppress men. But they also believe women are exactly like men and are as capable as men and any gender differences we see are due to socialisation.

But when pressed on that, they create these weird circular traps - part of which you briefly touched on in "Examining Patriarchy Theory" - in order to avoid the question of how "the patriarchy" came about in order to try and suppress the inherent inconsistency. "There are no innate gender differences between men and women and the differences between men and women's behaviours and choices and outcomes only exist because of patriarchal norms!" "If there are no innate gender differences how do the patriarchal norms even exist in the first place?" "Because everyone is socialised into adhering to patriarchal norms!" and it soon starts sounding like infinite regress, which has no real explanatory power.

In an attempt at sanitising their beliefs to make them more defensible and palatable to the larger public while still preserving their aims and objectives "We don't think men are inherently bad! Also, there are no differences in capability between men and women which would justify any level of differential outcomes! Also, patriarchy exists!" they've essentially created an ideology rife with internal inconsistencies which are never and can never be addressed in their circles, otherwise the entire thing will fall apart.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Would you be OK if I made this into a post? I think it deserves more attention.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, go ahead.

Though I bet you'll see the crowd of feminist-sympathetic male advocates and feminist lurkers trying to aggressively attack the post and deny that the term is ever motte-and-bailied in a dishonest way and argue that patriarchy just means men occupying most formal positions of power without any additional baggage. And if MRAs ever have any problems using the word to describe society, they're just ebil and bad.

It'll be both infuriating and entertaining. You son of a bitch, I'm in.

[–]fgyoysgaxt -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I've actually addressed these concerns elsewhere in this thread, I'd recommend you go take a look.

a tl;dr for you:

Men occupy more positions of power than women, there's no need to be afraid of the term patriarchy because you are worried someone will use it to have multiple meanings, instead keep an eye out for when someone ACTUALLY DOES that and then address the problem. The lack of clarity you perceive is lack of understanding on the topic, perhaps fueled by over-analyzing and prejudice. Perhaps instead approach the topic with the knowledge that the meaning is well agreed on, and see that if you don't get it when you think you should, that's the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The lack of clarity you perceive is lack of understanding on the topic, perhaps fueled by over-analyzing and prejudice. Perhaps instead approach the topic with the knowledge that the meaning is well agreed on, and see that if you don't get it when you think you should, that's the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

So basically I should nod along and say that the definition is well agreed on, and ignore how all the dictionary definitions of patriarchy you linked differ from each other and do not fit our society like you previously claimed it does. Ignore how feminists continually bandy around the word "patriarchy" to describe societies not only where men occupy most formalised, overt positions of authority, but where men oppress women. Ignore how using the term in that purportedly "agreed upon" context can cause misunderstanding among everyone due to the way in which feminists commonly use the term. And if I don't, I have the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Stop the gaslighting.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This user is definitely trying really really hard to dodge any and all arguments against them. It's pretty funny to watch the mental gymnastics. They're doing it here, too.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They're doing it all over the place. They went on to deny it, continuing the gaslighting, so they got a temp ban.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The patriarchy and gender roles are not the same thing.

At best what feminists call the patriarchy is a product of gender roles that women are just as guilty of enforcing as men. And that often benefit women over men on average in society.

Being a senator isn't the end all be all here. If you're only chasing power to gain favor with women, which is a gender norm called hypergamy, then that's because by default you do not have power. If women don't seek power as much as men do then that is because, by default, without doing anything besides being born the correct gender, they already have more power (social capital) than the average man. So they don't have to chase formal positions of power. They can just marry and select from the men who put in all the hard work to get there.

You're like 75% of the way to understanding this. Just open your eyes and think about this for a little bit.

[–]fgyoysgaxt -2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The patriarchy and gender roles are not the same thing.

Correct.

At best what feminists call the patriarchy is a product of gender roles that women are just as guilty of enforcing as men.

Correct again.

And that often benefit women over men on average in society.

I don't see a way you could measure that, I don't think that's possible to prove nor that it would be useful to even try.

So it seems we agree that the patriarchy is real, I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about basically :/

Being a senator isn't the end all be all here.

Correct.

If you're only chasing power to gain favor with women, which is a gender norm called hypergamy, then that's because by default you do not have power.

Hypergamy just means partnering with someone of higher status...

Regardless, I think it's possible to have power, and chase more power to gain favor with women. Your logic doesn't follow.

If women don't seek power as much as men do

I'll stop you right there. Women absolutely do seek power, so the rest of your paragraph is based on a faulty assumption.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women seek power second to seeking a man if they don't think it's a viable option.

Source:

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

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

[–]fgyoysgaxt 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Glad we are in agreement.

[–]Neveah_Hope_Dreams 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Gender does exist. Women are members of society.

But gender roles are useless and controlling and it's, well, sexist.

I have no idea how you got all of that out from that one comment.

[–]fgyoysgaxt -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I have no idea how you got all of that out from that one comment.

Just trying to establish what exactly the user is disagreeing with, that's all. In these kinds of discussions I always find it's a good idea to establish where exactly the disagreement is, especially when someone makes a vague statement.

FWIW the user never responded, but one user responded saying that they believe women simply do not want power, and another that they didn't understand feminist terms.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Way to twist words. We do not appreciate this kind of bad faith participation here.

[–]adam-lThe empress is naked 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

the woman in the relationship is often given control to furnish and design the house as they want

I think there's something more than "archaic patriarchal standards" at work here. Imo, it's an animalistic ritual - and, of course, humans are animals. You can observe, for example, dogs, pissing around an area they want to secure as their own.

[–]fgyoysgaxt 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Humans are also more than not just animals, we have the power to decide if something is harmful or not.

Animals don't think twice about being sexist or racist, but humans can and should.

I think we should aspire to being a little more than merely dogs pissing around their territory.

[–]SchalaZeal01 -2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

and dictate what their partners can or can't do.

Including going vegan or eating brown bread.

[–]YooGeOh 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Brown bread is great lol

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Being forced by your spouse making unilateral choices about what you want to eat is different from yourself being talked into trying it, and liking it after.

[–]YooGeOh 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I know. I still like brown bread!

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, I don't. I also don't like diet coke (but am fine with coke zero). And for some things its not even dislike, its inability to eat: cabbage, lettuce in any form (green veggie bitterness issue), tomato as is, but fine in juices or sauces (texture issue), mayo in any form (I'm unsure why, but it tastes extreme to me, I can barely withstand the smell too), mustard (unsure again, as I'm fine with curry that doesn't have it, even red curry).

I have very high difficulty eating sliced but hard fruits (texture+taste). And will not bite into fruit with skin (texture). But I can eat them processed (like apple pie), as long as the apple bits are tiny enough and have the mushyness of boiled veggies.

In short I can't physically eat salad or most sandwiches (because apparently its a compulsion to add mayo and mustard to them). And I eat my hamburgers and hot dogs plain. I could add cheese to them, but after trying, I simply prefer not to. I can only stomach cheddar and mozzarella, other cheeses much too strong for me.

[–]Neveah_Hope_Dreams 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I've sorta recognised that stereotype in pop culture.

Also don't forget that when the woman cheats or has an affair, there's that one group of people that try to defend her and try to make her out as the victim. Like in one movie there was a young man who exposed the woman he was marrying for cheating during their wedding. The woman's bridesmaids comforted her when she started crying. Another example in real life. There's a video that was posted on Reddit of a guy who setted up what looked like a public proposal in an outdoor restaurant when really he was exposing his girlfriend of cheating and officially broke up with her there and then. One Karen started going "That's so cruel! How mean!" Over what he did. What about cheating? Isn't that cruel and mean?

[–]neutronstarr 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In my observation,

When a man cheats, it's his fault.

When a woman cheats, it's her husband's fault.

Either path leads to the husband taking a deferential and apologetic posture.

[–]Threwaway42 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Source on either of those?

[–]Neveah_Hope_Dreams 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've found the film scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtcbrWuxGAc

But I can't find the other one as it's on reddit somewhere.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter