Patriarchy for Dummies

stemgang · 2010-07-24T19:27:08+00:00

Who wrote this? If you're going to have guest writers on your blog, then to avoid confusion, you need to sign all of your own articles, yourself.

men anti up the blood, sweat and tears

Correct spelling is "ante," when making contributions.

WideLight · 2010-07-24T22:37:40+00:00

There are a lot of shrewd observations in that article. A lot of things I have been thinking for a long time.

Making those observations often leads to ostracization in my experience. Its hard to say these things out loud without pretty much everyone lining up to take a hit at you.

And, wow, saying things like this if there's a Womens' Studies major in the room... well, its hard to defend against the sudden release of vitriol. Not only is your argument anathema, but (and this is the best part) you'll never know what you're talking about. I get that all the time: "You have no idea what you're talking about."

Anyway, keep it real over there Paul. You're on the right track in my opinion.

brunt2 · 2010-07-26T07:09:04+00:00

Nothing is more sickening than seeing women propose marriage to criminals. It's so fucking true and so disgusting it defies belief. Men simply don't propose marriage to female criminals. Which is the fucking 'creepy' gender, here?

That is definitely a +1 for men being on top and a patriarchy.

stemgang · 2010-07-24T19:39:47+00:00

If feminism were about being either anti patriarchy or pro equality, the only focus it would have had would be on challenging women to quit picking the most powerful provider that they can and using them to live as close to the state of royalty as possible.

It would have also told women to put down books and pick up shovels.

Instead, what we have is women dominating the work force in the most cushy jobs available, many of them low paying, while men still bear the brunt of often fatal occupational hazards and make more money to hand over to the girls. Whatever financial gaps result in this for women, they simply use The State, that ultimate expression of patriarchy, to fill in.

When men provided at will, women were at least expected to be grateful for his slavish providence.

But the alimony and child-support regime has transformed men's support of women into an entitlement, one which she is no longer obliged to reciprocate with either sex or gratitude.

Or she can simply cut out the middle-man and marry the State, a provider far more powerful and consistent than any one man.

WideLight · 2010-07-24T23:02:57+00:00

Acutally, I need to probably say something about the argument for a second.

I have a slightly different take on what it is that women select for breeding. Its not the power and dominance necessarily. Those are often symptoms of what (I feel) women are really looking for. That is: security.

Security, to me, is what is going to be selected for more often than not as a secure and safe place to raise the offspring is necessary to successfully transmit genes to the next generation. Now, the tricky part is how women define security. And there are many different ways to define it.

It bothered me for a long time, for instance, that women would stay with husbands or boyfriends that beat them, mistreated them, or did any number of consistently horrible things to them. However, the nature of selecting for security makes sense if, for some (many? all?) women define security as predictability. At that point, it makes a lot of sense to me why someone would stay with an abusive spouse: because you know what his or her reactions are going to be, generally, and you can predict the outcomes of those reactions. Predicting the outcome of any event gives a great measure of security.

Indeed I have to cast this in the light of my own life since, after all, it is largely through my own experiences that I understand the world. I often wondered why I couldn't (can't!) hold relationships for long periods of time (I'm 32 now, and the longest has been less than a year). And, after a lot of introspection and having come upon the reality of womens' desire for security, I think I understand. I am, for better or worse, moody and unpredictable. I have cyclical problems with depression, I don't do the same thing over and over and over again (like JUST go fishing every weekend, or JUST work on cars every weekend or JUST play World of Warcraft all the time). Indeed, my interests are broad, varied and likely to change at any time. There's no security in that; no predictability.

Power might be attractive, but to me its only seen through the lens of predictability. If, for instance, you're a wealthy or powerful man, it is easy to predict that you will always have nice, secure living arrangements. Even the marriage proposals that serial killers get in prison are "sensible" in this light. Certainly easy to predict how a sociopath is going to act! (Also easy enough to latch onto the estate [e.g. book deals] when the aforementioned is locked up for life and you're never going to have to worry about him/her being violent toward you).

Perhaps I'm talking out my ass, but I've seen so many strange relationships in my life that trying to understand them has become a low-key obsession with me. But every time I apply the idea of security to these observed relationships, it all seems to fit. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule (lots probably), but this generalized rubric works well for many things.

Cheers!

avoiceformen · 2010-07-24T20:32:21+00:00

And this of course explains why feminism has not resulted in equality, but only more privilege for women. Feminism only takes what is already there, the female drive to benefit from the power acquired by men, power that almost all women are incapable of gaining on their own, and takes it to the extreme level.

These articles would be a lot more interesting without the rather typically political avoidance of specifics

What is the power that feminists can't acquire themselves (the power to murder other women? the "connection" to serial murderers like Van Der Sloot isn't ever really explained)? What are the privileges for women? Talking in generalities is the first sign that the author doesn't have anything to say.

ringopendragon · 2010-07-24T17:50:34+00:00

From The Article

Men are wired to do whatever it takes to be selected by women for mating.

True.

Women are wired to select men that are dominant and aggressive, e.g. patriarchal.

Not so much, apparently.

Ella404 · 2010-07-25T04:07:27+00:00

This bullshit is so fucking tiring. I honestly can't tell if this is a parody or not. Regardless.

For the love of the flying spaghetti monster, people, (a group which includes men, women, and those who chose not to identify as either) have different desires and needs and turn ons. I know women who never want to be in a serious relationship where they aren't making at least 50% of the money, women who want nothing more than to stay home with the kids one day, women who view marriage and settling down as a sacrifice, as a blessing, as a way to pay less in taxes. I know plenty of people who have very equal relationships, sexually and otherwise. I know women who find macho men a turn off, women who find them a turn on in a sexual context but obnoxious when deciding who does the dishes, (roleplaying! it is fun!) and women who like dressing their boyfriends up as catholic schoolgirls and spanking them before nailing them with a dildo, and that is just my circle of friends and acquaintances. I cannot think of anyone I know who finds this brand of "woe is me! the wimmenz, they do not make sandwiches like they used to and they are all lying whores out for my money" blathering a turn on, but surely they are out their somewhere, along with the people who like serial killers and those who are attracted to mimes.

As societies progress and become more wealthy, and particularly as that wealth is more evenly distributed, people tend to spend less time just getting by and more time looking around and saying things like "we should have an electoral process", "it's not cool that women are considered property and have no say in that nifty electoral process we just instituted" and also " it's not cool that one upper class asshole can make his workers slave away in inhumane conditions". Does anyone here really think that it was fun and easy being the wife of a coal miner in the early nineteen hundreds? That they sat back and cackled because lacking the personal autonomy to provide for themselves and their children (and their husbands, if anything went wrong in that highly dangerous coal mine), was such a great deal? Might it be true that life sucked for everyone in that particular strata of society at that particular time?

Might it be that the gender essentialism that says women have to stay at home and be property and men have to go out and work dangerous shitty jobs unless they happen to be born rich or lucky is, in fact, bad for everyone? And that the solution is not to blame feminism because patriarchy sucks, but to help out with the dismantling of it?

If you honestly think patriarchy is bad for men, and feminism secretly promotes it... dude, yes sure, go ahead and dump your freeloading gf! Date a high powered career woman who wants you to stay home with the kids, or doodle around on your laptop writing articles for the internet instead of whatever high risk, high earning job I'm sure you have right now. But the fact that you have a snowball's chance in hell of doing that is a product of oh, what was it called... feminism.

XFDRaven · 2010-07-25T09:51:19+00:00

Good essay. TL;DR: "The Patriarchy" is Feminism's greatest Strawman.

Sapho · 2010-07-27T05:10:57+00:00

It is really simple. Men are wired to do whatever it takes to be selected by women for mating. Women are wired to select men that are dominant and aggressive, e.g. patriarchal.

This is false. Women select those who they think have the best genes. In fact, women prefer to date partners who are high on traits such as "warmth" and "sympathy" over simply being high on "aggression." If they're just looking for a fuck, then pure aggression beats pure warmth, but relationships are different. I can get you the citation tomorrow.

As for the rest of the article... wow..

Really, you think that women who propose to serial killers are "extreme examples of the norm" and not "exceptions to the rule?" So, assuming a normal curve for women and their prospective partners, you think that more than .3% (or roughly 46 million American women) would do this? The .3% figure is if we're going with the very tip of three standard deviations as what constitutes "the norm," i.e. it is very conservative.

It's one o'clock where I live, and I have work in the morning, so I'm going to sleep. If you are a troll, congratulations. That would be a relief.

Title	Patriarchy for Dummies
Author	avoiceformen
Upvotes	10
Comments	33
Date	July 24, 2010 5:42 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ct9yt/patriarchy_for_dummies/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/patriarchy-for-dummies.1048485 https://theredarchive.com/post/1048485

Comments