~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]alecbenzer 174 points175 points176 points 11 years ago (71 children) | Copy Link
MRA: "I'm an MRA because men face problems too."
Feminist A: "Feminism is supposed to work towards equality for men, too."
MRA: "If that's the case, then why hasn't feminism done anything about XYZ?"
Feminist B: "Ugh, can you stop with the 'what about teh menz?' Feminism has its own stuff to deal with."
Feminist A: silence
MRA: "Okay....so, I'm an MRA because men face problems too."
[–][deleted] 91 points92 points93 points 11 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link
"Men don't need a movement, they're part of the patriarchy. The have all the power."
[+][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]buylocal745 -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Okay, that's not how privilege works. While you may be disadvantaged because of being a man, your heteronormative behavior and status as white does grant you power over the queer and PoC populations.
[–]TheGDBatman 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course it does. After all, one can just run into any office building and shout certain words that I'm not going to repeat here, and nobody will do anything, right? Because we whiteys have all the power.
[–]Aavagadrro 89 points90 points91 points 11 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link
Indeed. I have all the power, but the ex gets all my money, half my shit, and I can do nothing to change any of it. I am one hell of a powerful man in the patriarchy.
[–]Pauzed 42 points43 points44 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
and your children.
[–]Luriker 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
His children are not yet powerful men in the patriarchy. They haven't put their penises into the magical success lock to become a CEO and make 1.2987 more than females and have political sway.
Of course when I put my penis into the magical success lock the second time, a police officer came out of the stall and kicked mine open and told me I was under arrest, so I guess I can understand their trepidation.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
His children are not yet powerful men in the patriarchy.
Don't worry! The justice system is burning the midnight oil in removing every child from the presence of an inspiring male role model. They've already been tremendously succcessful in disempowering the black American population this way. Pretty soon, every male child will be afflicted with separation anxiety and overly reliant on women to solve their problems and protect them.
[–]Luriker 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why, that's capital! And said reliant women will be able to take away their share of his life and his own children! What a beautiful cycle!
[–]SpawnQuixote 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
He meant she got the money, assets and kids.
[–]Aavagadrro 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
yeah she got them too.
[–]puppetry514 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
And that is why I refuse to get married without a prenup
[–]Peter_Principle_ 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Prenup probably won't protect you. Judges throw them out on a whim.
[–]Octagonecologyst 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Why get married at all?
[–]puppetry514 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Tax benefits
[–]Octagonecologyst 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If there's one sensible reason to get married, then that would probably be it.
[–]ohgeronimo 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I can't speak for others, but I hold the act of making a vow before people we trust to be incredibly important. It doesn't have to be an official marriage, but the act of making vows to each other and swearing to uphold them is important to me.
[–]Dranosh 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm so glad that me and my fiancee have taken divorce out of the question, it'd really suck to go into a marriage thinking "I can always take my shit and leave when it gets rough"
[–]Gaderael 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How did you take divorce out of the question?
[–]fondueguy 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
OK, someone did not get the message.
The fact that you are seen as stupid, monolithic, unchanging, and incapable, proves that you are one of the privileged. And thank goodness that feminism helped society to see us men as stupid, monolithic, unchanging, and incapable.
To summarize things for you, feminism calls us a piece of shit, then society sees us as an even worse piece of shit, then feminism explains how it's our fault we are being called a piece of shit, all so that FEMINISM MAY SAVE US FROM BEING CALLED A PIECE OF SHIT. Is that not logical enough for you?!?
Honesty, its mra's like you who hurt us by not working with feminism.
[–]Bloodfeastisleman 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link
I don't understand this. The stay-at-home wife is entitled to half your "shit" to make up for the career they sacrificed to stay home and take care of the children/home etc but that is not really a MRA issue as stay-at-home dads would be entitled to the same benefit in divorce, would they not?
[–]EvilPundit 37 points38 points39 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
That's the theory. In practice, the system is heavily biased against men in many ways.
[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]AnInfiniteAmount 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Men generally don't receive Child Support payments for one. There was an excellent article written about it that was posted here a few months (?) ago.
[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Read /r/MensRights. There are many many examples.
[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ClickclickClever 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Hey did you misread that as "biased in favor of" because that would make a lot more sense. =)
[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fondueguy 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It won't exist once men earn significantly less. It's very design is privilege to those who earn less.
[–]SirSkeptic 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men can earn as little as they like, the average woman will only marry a man who has accumulated more 'shit' than her, or has the potential to do so.
Women fight to marry doctors and lawyers, not factory workers.
[–]SpawnQuixote 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
They will change the rules once that tipping point happens and feminists start whining about equality.
[–]Bloodfeastisleman 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
This is where the meat is I suppose. How are men disadvantaged in divorce?
[–]EvilPundit -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If you read /r/MensRights, you will find the answers.
[–]Luriker 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't know that just referring them to the subreddit they're on helps that much. There are several links from the FAQ that help
http://deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php
http://www.proactivechange.com/divorce/statistics/research-rates.htm
[–]ClickclickClever 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Good links, but some people get frustrated when they have to constantly put facts together for other people, especially when they're on a subreddit full of them. It's a lot of laziness and I personally think people need to do more research on their own, but good links and keep it up!
[–]YHWH_The_Lord 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'll give you an example, something that actually happened to someone i know. He got divorced, was a stay at home dad teaching guitar lessons for extra cash, and raising his son, while his wife went to work. This was something they decided together at the time because he's better with kids, and she made more money, it just worked. Then they had problems, and eventually split. The courts gave their son to his wife, sole custody, because she made more money. On the other hand, another friend of mine is paying half of his $220,000/year income to his ex wife so she can continue being a stay at home mom. Family court is FUBAR.
[–]mtux96 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Then they had problems, and eventually split. The courts gave their son to his wife, sole custody, because she made more money.
So why don't more men get their children when they make more money than their ex-wife? Seems to me that the court is just making up any phony excuse to justify handing over the kids to the woman instead of just saying "we always give the kids to the woman."
[–]YHWH_The_Lord 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's EXACTLY what has been going on for decades. Custody defaults to the mother. Not in the official written law, but it's policy in most courtrooms in America. They basically said the father would be unable to support the kid at his "current standard of living" because he had to move from the house they shared to an apartment of his own, per the divorce. She got the house, he got most of the bank savings and the car. Court basically said since she got the house and had a better paying job she was better able to support the child, which is true. But none of this makes any sense when you consider my friend who makes 220k/year losing his kid. He divorced his wife because she cheated on him. She proceeded to steal 40,000 from him and skip town, while he handled his finances and filed divorce procedures. They got divorced, he got fucked in the divorce proceedings with her taking 25% of his income in alimony, but then she demanded sole custody of the kids when she learned she could take a full half of his income. So she filed a false restraining order (was proved after the case, judge refused to hear it as evidence to reconsider judgement) and immediately made up some story about him beating her and their son and trained the kid to lie about it(he was 5 and i personally witnessed her promising him a trip to Disney world if he said that his father beat him. This ended in her getting sole custody because the judge believed them at face value, wouldn't hear my personal testimony of her telling the kid what to say, and her getting half of his income.
[–]solinv 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In theory they would but that's not the way it works. What ends up happening is that you can't separate children from their mother! So she gets full custody and he gets weekend visits. Plus hes on the hook for 50% of the income he would be making if he had worked since getting out of college. Which ends up being 300% of the income he can actually make because he decided to be a stay at home dad.
Oh. Wait. He cant pay. That means his drivers licence, and any relevant certifications he has required for him to get skilled work are revoked until he pays up. Now he's stuck working at McDonalds or other minimum wage places because the government has revoked his certifications to work for more money because he cant afford to pay them.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
They would. It's part of no-fault divorce, something that I actually agree with. Both partners contributed to the household in their own way, especially if they both work as well. I have heard some people here say that divorce should be fault-based so that if the wife cheats the man keeps everything... I'm not sure they realize that if that were the case, if the man cheats the wife gets everything. In all reality, when you're married all property is jointly-owned unless there was a pre-nuptual agreement. 50/50 split of possessions just cuts one less nasty fight out of the divorce proceedings.
[–]ZMaiden 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I can see the reasoning, "the woman sacrificed her career options to be a stay at home mom." The problem, I believe, is exemplified by my Uncle and his divorce. My Uncle was a very rich man, and when his wife cheated and left she got half his stuff. But she never took care of the kids, she hired a nanny, she never cooked or cleaned, she hired staff for that. All of her day was shopping and fucking other men. But she got half his stuff cause she "sacrificed her career."
[–]YHWH_The_Lord 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The problem is many women consider hopping between different wealthy men to BE a career.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I wouldn't necessarily say many women. Wealthy men make up a very small portion of the population. There aren't a lot of them to go around, and if he's substantially wealthy he'd probably be smart enough to do a prenup.
[–]ClickclickClever 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I would, many women do do this, among other horrible things that many women do to men. Not only do they do it but it's seen as a normal thing to do in a society. "I sure hope my daughter marries a doctor/lawyer/other rich person". Also, prenups aren't made of steel, lawyers use all kinds of tricks to get around them.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
There are lots of women who do shitty things to men. There are also lots of men who do shitty things to women. They just sometimes have different ways of going about it. Shitty isn't restricted to one gender or another.
Indeed, people do shitty things. Since that is no way related to this conversation but it being a conversation of shitty things women do, why would you say that. It's also not sanctioned by society for men to do any of these things that were being spoke about. I'm really tired of this political correctness, of you can't say many, you can't say most, even if its true. Apparently also you must bring up terribly things men do if you bring up a shitty trend that women follow. So here it goes, Many women marry rich men just to screw them out of money, also many men are thieves. Ah I see how this makes it a lot better.
Edit: Spelling
[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25/divorce-women-research
[–]oneiorosgrip 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
You might have it backward. The go to work Dad who put in years of overtime hours so his wife wouldn't have to work has all ready been fully supporting her throughout the entire marriage. Maybe she should owe him some portion of that back.
[–]ZMaiden 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I can see the reasoning though, let's be honest. If you're a stay at home parent for years, and then you have to go back into the workforce, you face many obstacles that a person who had worked that length of time would not have. My mother was a stay at home mom, and when my dad left her, it was very difficult to find work. She had no applicable experience in many jobs, and at her age it was a trial to just get retail work. Luckily, the divorce was amicable, even though it was my dad who cheated, so he helped her out as needed. I think they didn't even go to court for anything. Now, bad people who take advantage of the broken system are not excused, but don't knock the difficulty of joining the workforce after many years of not working. And that's not even going into the fact that being a stay at home parent is just as much a full time job as any other. And you don't get "overtime" hours, since you're "on call" 24/7.
[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My best friend of 20 years was a stay at home mom, quit college to get married, did everything her husband asked of her right up to the divorce. She even offered to have an open relationship with him when he cheated, but the other woman wouldn't have that.
She could have gone for alimony, and after the second divorced year, she could have gone for more child support. I saw her tough out job market rejection because of her age and weight. I saw her deal with crushing financial stress, difficult child care decisions, and prudish judgment by her neighbors for being a single mom. This is not a woman who started out with ideal circumstances, or even good ones. She has a laundry list of health problems, some of which have individually been the basis for the receipt of disability payments by other people I know.
She took everything in stride, not looking at it as, "this terrible thing has happened to me, look what the bad man did oh, poor me, whatever shall I do?" but as "Problem identified - problem evaluated - needs identified - goals identified - possible solutions considered - methods evaluated - potential results considered - decision made." She took shit jobs for a couple of years, and when she couldn't use any of those to vault herself into a better position at the beginning of the recession, she took out loans and went back to school... worked full time, studied full time, put in 18 hour days to do it for 6 years, getting not just her Bachelor's degree, but a Master's, despite the learning disabilities inherent to her handicap. In the midst of that, she was blindsided by the attack of another woman against the man she married while getting her Bachelor's. So, in addition to working full time, being a full time mom, and going to school full time, she was faced with organizing the battle to protect her husband from a crazy stalker using malicious prosecution against him. At the same time, her ex decided he could get out of state-ordered child support by taking custody of their son, who did not want to live with his father. He used some of the same tools women did - lying to child protective services, threatening legal harassment, and attempting parental alienation. So, she had that battle to fight, too.
At no time did my friend ever take a "poor me" attitude. Not once did she let the situation turn her into a victim. She just plowed her way through, working her job, acing her classes, leading the charge to protect her family, and bludgeoning her ex's case with honesty. Though she had some help from friends, there was not one thing that any of us did which would have worked to protect a woman choosing the path of helplessness. Her success happened because she worked for it, instead of whining about her problems and demanding someone else come along and fix them.
Staying at home is a choice. It's not just any choice. It's a luxury. Some women and a few men get to make that choice, and that's nice for them. Some of us never do. Instead, we do everything stay at home moms do, plus put in hours at a job, some of us full-time plus. We come home to cooking, laundry, dishes, homework needs, cuts, scrapes, sometimes medical emergencies, sometimes behavioral issues. We bake cookies for class, deal with school problems, bullying, and tough questions from kids, neighbor issues, everything the stay at home mom does. We stay up all night with kids being sick or responding to nightmares, then get ready and go to work, dog-tired, and often worried, if the child's condition didn't merit staying home or if we didn't have the choice. Sometimes it's extra rough, because schools expect us to be available at the drop of a hat, just like stay-at-home parents, and do not give us much notice for important events or the acquisition of required supplies, leaving us to scramble - go shopping for lime green poster board at 3:00 AM, change schedules at work, beg extra days off from employers, or trade with impatient coworkers. Sometimes we get into trouble at work for being called off the job to handle a fall on the playground, or a discipline problem at school. Teachers and administrators treat us like having a job is child neglect. We are "moms plus," but stay at home moms treat us like half-moms, using phrases like "dumping the kids off at daycare" (even when we don't) and talking about how nice it must be to get out of the house sometimes. Childless bosses and coworkers treat our families as handicaps, considering the act of putting family before work a deadbeat choice.
If you're sensing a little bitterness in that, it might be because I went from professional work to laboring myself into chronic hip and back pain working 3 jobs in 3 different counties, one of which sent me driving all over the tri-state area on weekends, so that my husband's paychecks could be used to give his lying, cheating, system-working thief of an ex-wife the luxury of choosing to be a stay at home mom in the community where she chose to live. It was a regular thing for me to arrive home at midnight from one job, lay down for a few hours, then get up at 3:30 in the morning to get ready for the next, use the one day a week that I wasn't working first shift as my school-issue and all-errands day, and Sundays for housework and cooking. There were no days off. There were no short days. There were very often no breaks. While the court facilitated the ex's choice to do whatever she wanted, I did what I had to do to support my family. And in the midst of that, when my friend's family was blindsided by her husband's crazy ex's malicious prosecution attack, I was one of the women who rallied around them and contributed to their defense. I paid dearly for that at work, but it was worth it.
No matter right or wrong, and regardless of the respect the choice deserves, no matter whether it is out of dedication, one's belief or philosophy on family, or any other reason, that choice does not entitle a person to the earnings of another. It's an insult to women to say it does. It says we can't handle challenges because we are women. We can, and we do... at least, we do when we're not handicapped by a society that tells us we're not strong enough or smart enough to stand on our own.
[–]firelord1973 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Zmaiden you just told the story of my childhood at 16, execpt my father never helped my mother out, she just had to go get a job, the only thing that stoped us being plunged into debt was my grandparents on my fathers side bailing us out with half the money for the house to buy my father out. But that sacrificed her career is not something she was forced to, it was just a consequense of being a stay at home parent. She could have carryed on working and put us kids in day care if she wanted to carry it on. But that normally does not pay well when you get more than 1 kid due to daycare costs. But the option was there. If a parent stays at home I think they should get something more in devorce for that sacrifice, but like enough to restart there career not to make up for 20 years of out of work.
[–]ZMaiden 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I feel that, in a way, I have been very lucky in life. My family is quite large, being a southern family, so pretty much every family situation has been represented. I've seen women in my family who were abused, sexually and physically. Men who were mistreated by wives, and visa versa. Uncles who were accused of sexual crimes they did not commit, and Aunts whose abusive husbands tried to steal their children. My family has endured divorces, both amicable and not. Some family members were the result of cuckolding, some adoption. We've had disabilities, homelessness, drug addicts, and criminals. And I've loved every single family member. Some may say we've had our share of bad luck, but I've seen so many sides of reality in this family. It's really opened my eyes to so many situations. It's helped me understand that our system needs to change on so many levels. And I'm thankful for it, because it's helped me to understand equality of genders in so many ways.
So why didn't your father get you, since he was obviously in a better position to support you?
[–]fondueguy 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The stay-at-home wife is entitled to half your "shit" to make up for the career they sacrificed to stay home
Wow, so by not working I am sacrificing a career and someone owes me money. Would that logic ever work outside marriage?
It's not a sacrifice to stay home. Not working (and still getting room and board) is the obvious benefit of... not working. And by design, how could the provider get half of the time the SAH parent got with and without the kids? That time should be shared 50/50, right?
[–]Peter_Principle_ -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
"But the two hours of house work I do per day is so haaarrrrrrrrrd!"
[–]ClickclickClever 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"But the two hours of house work I occasionally do is so haaarrrrrrd!"
FTFY
[–]Innominate8 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A stay at home dad is a lazy sack of shit who should just get a fucking job. /s
[–]Aavagadrro 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
She never wanted a career. She never wanted to do anything but go shopping. When I wouldnt just hand over my pay to her because I had to pay bills, she left and took my kids with her. The only job she ever had she quit before they fired her. She was working in a nursing home and abusing the residents. So yeah, she deserves everything she got from me, because she truly is helpless, incapable, useless, and unmotivated.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Well that's only because you're A RAPIST MAN WITH A DANGEROUS PENIS!
[–]bartonar 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I think you forgot your /s.
[–]Doctor_Loggins 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
One would think it's obvious in that particular post.
[–]bartonar 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
One would think, but apparently at least one person thought he was serious (or it was someone who actually believes that getting mad about the sarcasm)
Damn, you're right. I have all the equipment right here and I am not afraid to use it!
[–]ErikAllenAwake 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Men are allowed the illusion of power.
Along with real responsibility, or chains.
[–]Dranosh 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"and any problem a man faces is because PATRIARCHY keeping men down as well as women!!!!!"
Patriarchy, the though that simply because men hold more positions of power, then they must be abusing women's rights. Honestly it's a bigoted belief system right from the start, really all it says is men are evil. Someone should really tell feminists that we live in a mild meritocracy, no one keeps women from holding positions of power except themselves. On the reverse though, if we lived in a matriarchy, would it be mean that men were automatically disenfranchised and would have less rights? People can mask it all they want but sexism is sexism.
[–]SSJAmes 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
There are some feminists that believe this (equity) the problem is that feminism itself is a fractured movement, there are so many different types of feminism and it seems to mean something different to each person.
The MRM definitely seems to be a much more unified movement, hence why there are so many new MRAs everyday, while feminism seems to be stagnating.
[–]alphabitch 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is exactly why I can't in good faith call myself a feminist. I'm thankful for all the feminists of the past who worked hard so I can vote, work and have choice but it seems the feminists of today are worried about some issues that don't seem to affect or bother regular women.
[–]firelord1973 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's because MRA's have somthing external to focus on that exsists in the real world, you know like the biased court system or the male sucide rate or the lack of funding into mens health issues. For Feminism they only have the made up stuff in there head to fight against, why else would there movement be so different, each feminist is fight there own made up version of what they think is "oppressing" them.. Please excuse the bad english
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I disagree about the MRM being a more unified movement. I feel that dissenting opinions are actually considered here, while anything that goes against feminist ideology is instantly rejected by feminists.
Think women are also a privileged group? "Get out"
[–]SSJAmes 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, women are a privileged group, they have privileges that men don't. I don't like the fact that I can't go to the park with my daughter without to be sneered at by all the ignorant women there.... It's called prejudice, and it's being pushed by our media and our society.
I feel that dissenting opinions are actually considered here, while anything that goes against feminist ideology is instantly rejected by feminists.
This is exactly why we're more unified, feminism has SO many different sects and they all seem to reject eachother.
-Liberal Feminism
-Socialist Feminism
-Radical Feminism
-Third Wave Feminism
-Sex Positive Feminism
-Anti-Porn Feminism
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/snow-white-doesnt-live-here-anymore/201208/who-are-the-real-feminists
[–]Gingor 70 points71 points72 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Actually, that looks like some feminist noticed that men are disadvantaged in todays society, and, since patriarchy is responsible for everything bad in the world, it is clearly patriarchy's fault.
[–][deleted] 54 points55 points56 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
"if in doubt, blame patriarchy."
[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Because women surely don't cause problems in society.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I wouldn't say women are the cause of men's problems. I'd say that society is, and that includes men and women.
Since men have more power you could argue that they are more responsible for the problems of men. That's fine, but the solution to men's problems is not necessarily to eliminate patriarchy.
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Since men have more power
That is a large assumption to make. Yes, in the U.S., men make up a larger portion of the representatives. Women, however, make up a larger portion of the voting population, as well as a larger portion of consumer spending. Corporations driven by the almighty dollar are going to cater to the population that spends the most. Politicians are going to cater to their voting base, or at least not oppose them.
Women may not have the largest amount of direct power, but that just means their power doesn't have the same set of responsibilities, it doesn't make it less powerful.
not to mention lobbying groups which is real power is at. Also there is no patriarchy to eliminate.
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Also there is no patriarchy to eliminate.
I agree, but I generally prefer to attack the assumption of power. Patriarchy theory can mean a few different things, and attacking the assumption of power completely undermines one of the ways patriarchy theory is defined.
I choose to undermine the theory, rather than attack it directly.
I understand, as go I when someone brings it up in a serious fashion. People tend to be willing to believe certain things are wrong with a belief rather than the whole belief itself, though honestly even getting that out of someone is a rare thing. I just think that the fact the inst an actual "patriarchy" is something at least MRAs need to be told. People need to understand that "patriarchy theory is horrifically sexist, an equivalent would be if I said a business was run by women and that is why it's horrible corrupt and also why their male employees don't have basic human rights, because women are in charge these things happen. Now that is a sentence more people understand as being sexist, though people tend to not think the opposite is true. Anyway yeah I was more just saying I guess, your points still hold true on the principle level.
Edit: Atleast is a good furry friend that like woimen.
[–]fondueguy 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Blaming the victim, I love it...
[–]Hamakua 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My screen thanks you for the Soda shower.
[–]Stratisphear 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's...
A little progress, at least?
Baby steps here, people.
[–]DerpaNerb -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What's hilarious about that, is that I think you are 100% correct.
[+]jackk225 -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
omg, you people are so CYNICAL
[+][deleted] 11 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 58 points59 points60 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It's the only answer they have, that's why.
[–]Subversive 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When the only tool you have is a hammer...
[–]Hamakua 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Made this months ago.
[–]MaunaLoona4 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22224830.jpg
Simple and to the point.
[–]Froztwolf 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Love it!
[–]The_Black_Elvis 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If it is for men's rights, why call it feminism?
[–]tmesispieces 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link
I'd like to try to explain that kind of thinking, if it all possible:
In practice, the notion of patriarchy is established in much feminist discourse as a kind of Platonic ideal of the perfect human being, the attributes of which everyone is supposed to aspire toward--and if they deviate more from that standard than others in their community, they're punished for it. (For instance, by being homosexual, when the Platonic ideal in our society would be, say, a white heterosexual male.) Women in the feminist movement hold that females are quite far removed from this ideal, and so traits of femininity are particularly "othered"--meaning, for instance, that a man who cross-dresses is even more offensive than a butch gay man, and brutalized accordingly.
So while this understanding of patriarchy holds females as a sex on a lower rung than males, it also holds that no male is ever going to live up to that extreme and nebulous ideal of the perfect human being--nor should they. (e.g. Men should not be expected to want sex all the time, or to be so incapacitated by their arousal that they can't help themselves when they do.)
In this way, a lot of women absolutely feel that this implicit social expectation set that we're all given to strive for, termed "the patriarchy", disempowers men and women alike.
That said, there are also feminists who regard patriarchy as referring to real men in power, under the wrong-headed notion that if women ruled the world everything would be hunky-dory. I do not believe the above image reflects the views of these feminists over the other kind, however.
I share this solely because you asked the question, and the insight might help in future conversations with women in the feminist movement about the viability of this term in equality battles going forward. It's certainly how I always thought of the term when I identified as feminist; and it's how I always discussed the term with other men and women in the feminist movement, too.
Cheers and best wishes.
[–]runhomequick 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Wouldn't the first type be more effectively discussed as traditional gender roles instead of labeling it patriarchy?
[–]tmesispieces 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
"Traditional gender roles" suggests that there are (at least) two equally valid ways of being. "Patriarchy" is hierarchical: there is only one perfect form for the human being, and varying degradations from it on a gender-tiered level therein.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But that ignores the traditional housewife role that women have benefitted from for thousands of years--never having to take up arms in the military, being considered off-limits in conquests and conflicts, being able (in the higher classes) to pawn off almost all the duties of parentage on lower-class wetnurses, being able to avoid dangerous work at all social levels, and being held up as miraculous and even venerated simply for being biologically capable of having offspring... women have their own gender roles, expectations, and advantages, ones that western feminists still haven't given up. Far from being what Simone de Beauvoir calls the "second sex", women have always been given a category separate from men and masculinity and had status in their own right. Power is not the same thing as gender; let's not forget that "patriarchy" is gender + power, and as many women as men held positions of power in the aristocracy that ruled the west for the entirety of history up unto the revolutions of the 18th century. Female aristocrats are just as much to blame as male aristocrats for maintaining the inequality that modern-day feminists decry.
[–]Hach8 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Hi again, tmesispieces,
I think the pushback is that patriarchy is an inherently gendered term, while men aren't necessarily the platonic ideal, and I feel like the idea of traditional gender norms is often a better description as to the source of the problem.
An example could be in how women are viewed. For example, women are generally viewed favorably the more time they put into looking nice, whereas that trait of worrying about how you look is a negative trait for men. Under the patriarchal model, the "ideal" woman would be the same as the "ideal man" but I don't think that's the case in reality.
I feel like feminism created the "patriarchy" as a substitute for the traditional gender norms, but then had to explain why there are desirable female specific traits, which is where objectification and male gaze come in, which then have their own problems to be explained away.
So, feminism's insistence of making sure the problem is gendered is problematic in two ways: first, it's not particularly elegant because it's not universal, and second, it runs into similar sexism problems that much of feminism supposedly fights against. Not the least of which is the fact that it's extremely alienating.
[–]mtux96 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The patriarchy has been a red herring for years now. It has lost its true identity and is now only used as an excuse to justify anything and everything that certain feminists believe. Man gets hired over a woman, even if the man was more qualified.. Patriarchy.. More women are going to college nowadays.. Patriarchy.
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Patriarchy is just a red herring.
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
Hi again, Hach8!
I think the pushback is that patriarchy is an inherently gendered term, while men aren't necessarily the platonic ideal,
This is the modality feminism uses in its framing of patriarchy, though, which is what I was attempting to describe.
and I feel like the idea of traditional gender norms is often a better description as to the source of the problem.
Similarly, here too is a statement of modal disconnect between foundational premises. [Edit: I must be very tired to be writing sentences like that last--sorry.] The term "patriarchy" in the feminist regard has some clear overlap with notions of an inherent social contract that we're all born into--one social contract, that is: not different social contracts for different people. That one social contract prescribes one right way of being, which people deviate from as individuals to varying degrees.
Again, explaining the theory. Trying not to ascribe any personal thoughts to it at present, as I'm still in flux about a lot of these issues myself. (The matter of an inherent social contract, for instance, is something I do hold a strong belief in--so the question I'm asking myself is if such a thing could ever yield more than one "ideal" citizen.)
An example could be in how women are viewed. For example, women are generally viewed favorably the more time they put into looking nice, whereas that trait of worrying about how you look is a negative trait for men.
That's a perfect example of a feminine trait often ascribed to metrosexuality or homosexuality--deviant forms of masculinity by the model of a singular, overarching human ideal.
Under the patriarchal model, the "ideal" woman would be the same as the "ideal man" but I don't think that's the case in reality.
No, I don't think that's quite the accurate reading. Under the patriarchal model espoused in feminist discourse, the "perfect" woman is still never going to be as good as the "perfect" man. The perspective holds that a woman is required to own up to everything that the ideal man is not, precisely because she stands zero chance of ever being that ideal man. For a man to perform female traits, or for a woman to attempt to rise above her station by performing male traits closer to the Platonic form, are equally seen as unacceptable deviations under the patriarchal model.
I think my explanation of "desirable female specific traits" holds as a coherent justification within the feminist theory of patriarchy--and I think the term "patriarchy" itself just as likely stems from discourse about social contract building that dominated political theory throughout the rise of the Western world. But I absolutely appreciate being given different perspectives to consider.
I'd say the real problem with the "patriarchy" model I've described is that, just like any notion of a social contract in any given society, it cannot be anything but nebulous: everyone is going to have their own perception of what the ideal human being entails, just as everyone is going to have their own perception of what the ideal social contract is.
So if we're always talking in abstracts, how can we quantify the world in a way that allows us to build consensus as broadly and comprehensively as possible?
Cheers again, Hach8!
[–]Hach8 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, I don't think that's quite the accurate reading. Under the patriarchal model espoused in feminist discourse, the "perfect" woman is still never going to be as good as the "perfect" man. The perspective holds that a woman is required to own up to everything that the ideal man is not, precisely because she stands zero chance of ever being that ideal man.
I think this is where I simply can't follow the logic behind patriarchy, or the feminist application of patriarchy theory. To say that patriarchy is a system that puts the 'ideal man' at the top, and brands all his traits as the 'ideal' traits for everyone leaves only two options: That they are only ideal to men, and women are not held to the same standard, or women are supposed to aspire for the same ideal traits.
This leaves two consequences, the latter would be what I said: that the ideal woman would have many, if not all of the traits of the ideal man, a silly notion which you clearly disagree with. The former, though seems to be the road embraced by feminism out loud - which is what I was getting at. The idea that there are different desirable female traits, and this is why feminism needed to invent things like the male gaze and objectification theory: they needed a vector to show that men were responsible for the dogmatic acceptance of female traits, because simply talking about the patriarchy doesn't properly explain that fact.
Which leads to another conclusion about feminism - It's still reinforcing the patriarchy, because the primary thing being argued by feminism is that it should be OK for women to have these traits that make the patriarchal males dominant. In a way, feminism is about moving women into the patriarchy, not about dismantling the patriarchy. It's only dismantling the patriarchy in name by trying to make it no longer a 'boys only' club.
To be fair, feminism is also trying to increase the acceptability of other traits for women, in some cases. However, feminism still values the patriarchal traits more highly than other traits. Feminism often tells women they have to be a certain way: strong, confident, etc. etc. If you look at the leaders of the feminist movement, they are all like this, strong, independent, confident. They often have other patriarchal traits too, anger and vengeance, for example. All are traditionally patriarchal traits, and by doing so feminism is showing it's not trying to dismantle the patriarchy, because really the traits that define the patriarchy are not necessarily bad or needing to be dismantled. The idea that it's a boys club is... debatable, and the idea that women should be given the opportunity to take part is laudable.
But from where I sit, the whole view of the patriarchy as the problem doesn't explain very much, and for it to work other more problematic ideas are required, and it makes feminism seem uniquely disingenuous to me.
And I agree that there's little usefulness in talking in such lofty abstracts.
[–]mythin 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The perspective holds that a woman is required to own up to everything that the ideal man is not, precisely because she stands zero chance of ever being that ideal man. For a man to perform female traits, or for a woman to attempt to rise above her station by performing male traits closer to the Platonic form, are equally seen as unacceptable deviations under the patriarchal model.
Even saying things like "rise above her station" holds so many assumptions. I realize you're describing the theory of patriarchy, but it is so incredibly flawed that it is hard to even take an explanation seriously.
Let's turn this around. The ideal platonic male is a provider, a sacrificer, one who gives of himself always to the betterment of others and society. Any many who deviates from this is considered further from the male platonic ideal. When looked at, though, isn't this male ideal oppressive? The social contract is one of sacrifice, it's one where the individual doesn't matter, it's what the individual can do for others that matters.
Viewed this way, but otherwise using gender ideals as a theory, we are under a matriarchy, not a patriarchy. The ideal female is an individual of beauty, who's importance is inherent in her being. She is important because she is female. She is individually important. This is not a position of oppression, but of power. When a person, as an individual, matters, that person's voice is louder. That very individual importance is how women as a class have advanced.
Again, females moving away from this female ideal are considered less female and therefore there is indeed gender oppression, but that gendered oppression is not best described by terms like "patriarchy." They are not even best referred to as "matriarchy" despite my outline above.
Gender oppression comes from society, both the men and the women, attempting to enforce their gender based expectations on others at an individual and collective level. This has nothing to do with an ideal platonic male being held as more worthy than an ideal platonic female, and everything to do with judging individuals against a platonic ideal, rather than as individuals.
[–]BrSy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Under the so-called patriarchal hierarchy, though, those men should be treated better than women because they're still men. That is not and has certainly never been the case. Instead women are treated by far better than men who are showing so-called feminine traits. Hell, one could even say that women are and have always been treated better than men in general.
So much for the validity of that hierarchy.
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Under the so-called patriarchal hierarchy, though, those men should be treated better than women because they're still men.
No, they're men deviating from the masculine ideal, which puts them below women who are performing appropriately to their station and not trying to "rise above it." The act of deviation is key to this notion of patriarchy; in much feminist discourse, there is nothing more inappropriate than for a man to move from the perceived, masculine ideal, and for women to try to come closer to it.
[–]BrSy -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
No, they're men deviating from the masculine ideal
They are not deviating from it nearly as much as women supposedly do. Yet women got and keep getting treated better.
below women who are performing appropriately to their station
Or acting in line with their assigned gender role.
in much feminist discourse, there is nothing more inappropriate than for a man to move from the perceived, masculine ideal, and for women to try to come closer to it.
Or there is nothing more inappropriate than a man deviating from his gender role or a woman deviating from her gender role. Occam's razor can handle the rest.
So what did we need this whole patriarchal hierarchy for again? Oh right, it's the good old feminist "Men are being opressed, now how can we make this about women?" device which is so important to reach gender equality, right?
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
First, I feel the need to emphasize again that I'm trying to explain the thought process behind feminists who use the term patriarchy as seen in OP's image. Please don't take my comments as an endorsement.
They are deviating from it more because they are perceived as acting against their nature. Women's nature being inherently inferior in this model, women are at their best when they embrace their inferiority, and at worst when they strive to be viewed as equal.
That's the perspective. It has breakdowns: some feminists believe women need to deviate strenuously from this lower tier to shatter "the patriarchy"; other feminists believe women need to uphold femininity as its own, distinct and equal pillar in order to shatter "the patriarchy." The two feminist subgroups are usually in vicious combat with no chance of reconciliation in sight.
Yes, it's a gender role. Like I said elsewhere, where the notion of the patriarchy differs is in the belief that there can only be one truly ideal being. Traditional gender roles suggest that there are at least two.
Sorry, how does Occam's razor favour two competing and equal ideal persons over one?
Like I said earlier, I think there's reason to see the patriarchy discourse emerging from social contract theory, which has an inherent singularity to it. Added to this has been the perception that male is a more ideal state of being than female--but since we're still talking about an ideal, it's also necessarily a masculinity that no real male can ever hope to perform perfectly.
So again, I hope that explains the thought process behind the assertion that "the patriarchy harms men, too" when it yields images like OP's. I hope that helps in future discussions with feminists.
[–]runhomequick 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I can't speak definitively about the past or about any one else's experience, but I can't really think of the times that I've been made to feel like I was to be proud of any masculine trait other than how it benefits others.
However, experiences may vary, and opinions of masculine traits (or solely masculine traits) and what comprises then may vastly vary.
[–]TheBananaKing 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But -archy denotes -rulership, not some abstract ideal.
Patriarchy means father-rulership; the patriarchy means the set of fathers that rule.
Wikipedia puts it succinctly:
Patriarchy is a social system in which the male acts as the primary authority figure central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination.
If people are going to invent new concepts, they shouldn't attach them to words that already have a very specific meaning in the same domain.
[–]tmesispieces 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Would that discourse didn't appropriate words all the time. Agreed, TheBananaKing--it would be nice if everything had a single, clear meaning.
(Except then comedians would be out of business.)
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm actually shocked. After hearing so many vague and subjective definitions of what the patriarchy is, I never believed it could be described so succinctly. Very nicely written.
[–]demiurgency 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Great explanation. It is always useful to have a clear explanation of an opposing viewpoint.
[–]yourfaceyourass 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
Thank you. That would the first real rational response I have gotten about the definition. Feminists make it out to seem that "the patriarchy" is a mystical force in the universe that actively victimizes women, rather than just a concept.
Regardless, wouldn't you still completely discard that notion as being a completely unscientific approach and nothing more than an untestable hypothesis? Society is nothing more than the individuals it consists and the interactions between those individuals. This seems to take a up-bottom approach in which society itself is regarded as an entity with its own consciousness. Say, society itself does not have any mystical ideals for which it punishes dissidents who do not follow it. There is no such phenomenon set it in stone, rather any such that discriminate amongst other members arises from actions and the minds of individuals. Once you view "society", and all of its respective members and institution to be nothing more than material, and its developments over time, it becomes ridiculous to view any notion of superiority of one sex over another to be something that is of actual existence and being capable of causing change, and hence saying that our current societal standards are the result of this concept we call patriarchy. Its sheer idealism.
[–]Froztwolf 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Society is nothing more than the individuals it consists and the interactions between those individuals.
You lose a lot of information if you look at it that way. You need to consider the gestalt effects.
By the same logic you could say that a human is just a bunch of atoms, and the interactions between them, which is strictly true, but not very useful if you are trying to discuss why he likes chicken so much.
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Regardless, wouldn't you still completely discard that notion as being a completely unscientific approach and nothing more than an untestable hypothesis?
Yep, just like the Platonic form it stems from, it's philosophy--a squirrelly discipline that tends to tap-dance right over empiricism while claiming higher truth. As I referenced elsewhere, the trouble with social contract theory is similar: every individual is going to have a different social contract in mind. So too is everyone going to have a different sense of what the ideal form is under feminist notions of patriarchy. There is no coherent, quantifiable consensus to this model, which makes it hard for the term "the patriarchy" to be utilized as a road to truth.
There is no coherent, quantifiable consensus to this model, which makes it hard for the term "the patriarchy" to be utilized as a road to truth.
I'm so glad to hear you say this. Unfortunately, being hard doesn't seem to stop the cries of patriarchy from the loudest and most influential feminists. Nor does it stop the cries of "check your privilege" or other concepts that rest entirely on the shoulders of patriarchy theory. :(
Rhetoric always gets in the way of real discourse. In full agreement with you there!
[–]Quazz 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I kind of disagree with the assesment that femininity is further removed from it.
Further removed from the male ideal, yes.
But that's the thing, there's also a female ideal and it's closer to that than masculinity.
If a woman goes into engineering/mechanics or something of the like, then she'll also be looked down upon. Is this then Matriarchy?
Or is it just gender roles being gender roles being stupid...
Quazz out
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I kind of disagree with the assesment that femininity is further removed from it. / Further removed from the male ideal, yes. / But that's the thing, there's also a female ideal and it's closer to that than masculinity.
That's the entire difference between patriarchal modelling and the alternative presented here, "traditional gender roles"--one (the former) holds that there can only ever be one truly ideal human being (and this ideal human being is ideally masculinized); the other (the latter) holds that there are at least two distinct but equal gender roles.
No, that'd be considered patriarchy: men and women alike perceiving her choice as wrong because she is not accepting her inferior station and acting in bounds of it.
Gender roles are stupid. The difference is that the notion of a patriarchy holds to the existence of a single idealized human being, with all other gender positions inherently inferior to varying degrees; and other notions of gender roles hold that there can exist two or more distinct but equal gender ideals.
That's really the best I can explain how the patriarchy is viewed by feminists who post images like the one presented by OP--sorry if I've confused you. Cheers.
[–]Quazz 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I disagree with that assertion. It seems overly simplistic for the sake of finding a scapegoat. There are plenty of examples where the feminine aspect is considered the ideal.
Hahaha, so you can just always call it patriarchy, makes sense. This way we can also always call it matriarchy. After all, we can argue they're just berating her for not taking up her superior position. Which would be analogue to your example of men wearing skirts getting berated.
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I disagree with that assertion. It seems overly simplistic for the sake of finding a scapegoat.
What assertion? That there is a single ideal human being? I don't think the theory necessitates a literal scapegoat; it's dealing in a realm of Platonic forms, which all real world persons fail to live up to in different degrees.
There are plenty of examples where the feminine aspect is considered the ideal.
I feel like the argument could be made either way for reasons you cite below:
Sure, absolutely: if you accept that there can only be one ideal human being, the next negotiation is whether that one ideal human being is female or male in today's society. Perhaps this is a path to constructive discourse with feminists who hold to this notion of patriarchy.
[–]Quazz 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My point with the last line is actually that it highlights how silly the notion of patriarchies and matriarchies is. If you can spin it any way you like, then of course you'll always be right. It tells you nothing about what is actually true though.
[–]mythin 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The problem with having constructive discourse is I believe most people here reject the assumption that:
there can only be one ideal human being
If feminists are starting from that position, and we're starting from a rejection of that position, we can't exactly argue about which ideal form it is. I suppose I can't speak for everyone, but I explicitly and unequivocally reject this concept of a singular ideal platonic form. I might be able to get on board with 2 (one male, one female) ideal platonic form (per society, where the form will be different in, say China versus the U.S.A.).
Unfortunately, once you reject the singular platonic form, the discussion shuts down, because that is something patriarchy theory has already accepted as true.
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I mentioned elsewhere that there are two lines of thought in feminist discourse around how to respond to this patriarchal model: one is to deviate rigorously from female ideal, and the other is to elevate the female ideal to a comparative height as the male. You might find more discursive traction than you think with the second group.
Personally, though, I hold to the view that these ideals are attainable by no one, and so should not be thrust on anyone--whether or not they're normative; whether or not they make the happiest societies; whether or not anyone else thinks differently.
So I agree that the philosophical determination of gender modelling is not going to get us to a workable, real-world solution.
I'm with you there. Trying to put my expectations on someone else is just a retarded way to make us both unhappy. Society is often just this on a large scale. sigh
I'm sorry, but even going by your platonic ideal definition, there is not a patriarchy in the U.S.A. There are platonic ideals for both males and females, and neither males nor females can ever live up to that ideal.
The platonic ideals for women often focus on their feminine nature, their beauty, their ability to mother, other stuff, but just because the ideal is different doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
In fact, this exact platonic ideal of females is exactly what feminism supposedly opposes. So feminist theory even acknowledges this ideal exists, yet somehow the existence of a male platonic ideal AND a female platonic ideal is boiled down to "patriarchy."
Since obviously the platonic ideal definition of patriarchy falls apart at the slightest touch, there must be another definition. Then we get back to the apex fallacy ridden "Politicians and CEOs are men" argument. The homeless and poor are generally men as well. This definition is what is now being referred to as the apex fallacy: judging a group by it's best while ignoring it's worst.
Patriarchy theory is the big lie told and used to keep feminism moving in the face of all evidence that, legally speaking, women are equals or advantaged and, socially speaking, women are equals or advantaged.
(Please note: I'm referring to first world, "western" countries here.)
[–]Froztwolf 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I've only started reading up on those matters recently but I thought Patriarchy just referred to our power-structure (and therefore somehow our culture) being male-dominated.
Thanks for enlightening me :)
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Like I said in my first comment, there are absolutely some feminists who think it's as rudimentary as "remove men from power -- put women into power -- eeeeez no problem anymore!" So don't drop that possible reading!
But when people get incredulous over how the feminist who made OP's image can claim that patriarchy harms men, too, I hope I've been able to clarify where the perception gap lies. Cheers, Froztwolf!
While those might be definitions that "feminists" use, they have nothing to do with a actually meaning of "patriarchy". They just use that term because it lets them blame men, no matter how they want to spin what it means, it's simply used to push blame onto all men, which is sexist. Therefor is a=b and b=sexist, then "feminism"=sexism.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's why they invented kyriarchy. Instead of being a sexist notion it's also a racist one.
[–]Quazz 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's more poweriarchy than anything else.
[–]djwork 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
We should modify this image with quotes by prominent feminist saying exactly the opposite. I’ll go first:
The thing is, it’s patriarchy that says men are stupid and monolithic and unchanging and incapable.
Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin "All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.) "I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Barbara Jordan; Former Congresswoman.
Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin
"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Barbara Jordan; Former Congresswoman.
Quotes from antimisandry.com http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/feminist-quotes-20106.html
[–]fondueguy 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank you for this post. Depressing but consolidating.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Marilyn French tried to put a rapist in the White House? (gasp)
[–]zyk0s 53 points54 points55 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It's patriarchy that says men are stupid and monolithic and unchanging and incapable.
But I thought feminists' definition of patriarchy is a system that believes men are the only gender that isn't stupid and incapable like the men? Notice how they masterfully intertwined vague concepts like "monolithic" and "unchanging", which are taken straight from feminist theory.
It's patriarchy that says that men have animalistic instincts and just can't stop themselves from harassing and assaulting.
I'm pretty sure that was Valerie Solanas.
It's patriarchy that says men can only be attracted by certain qualities, can only have particular kinds of responses, can only experience the world in narrow ways.
Who's this patriarchy person anyway? Is that an alter ego of Amanda Marcotte or something?
Feminism holds men are capable of more - and more than that.
What's more than more? How can anyone write this drivel and not get an aneurism? OP, I'm guessing a "friend" of yours posted this on facebook or something like that?
I guess you shouldn't be angry at someone who posts and believes this. You probably should feel the same kind of pity towards such a person as you'd have for a kid with a mental disability who just tore to pieces a drawing by another kid: it's not really their fault, they weren't given normal cognitive functions to behave like a normal human being.
[–]TheBeardedWiseMan 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
This was posted in /r/feminisms
[–]homeless_in_london 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I checked that place out, a guy said he respected feminism like that and he got downvoted. Do they just hate men?
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 28 points29 points30 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Don't be so judgmental. They might hate other groups.
[–]Subversive 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm pretty sure they hate transgendered people; transwomen because they're apparently some kind of hideous male parody of 'real' women, and transmen because they're traitors to the cause or somesuch.
Which is something that I thankfully haven't seen since getting involved in reading MRM materials and forums. In fact, the MRM seems to be willing to welcome anyone, as long as they are in favor of helping men obtain social and legal equality and don't try to convert the MRM into another branch of feminism.
[–]Koocnahtanoj 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
They hate anyone that isn't a white female (their target demographic).
[–]Subversive 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They hate anyone that isn't a white middle-class cis-female who toes the party line at all times.
[–]oyezoyez 39 points40 points41 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
"Men having their lives ruined by rape accusations? That's a patriarchy.
A legal system that assumes men are always guilty in family matters? That's a patriarchy.
A society that assumes any man around a child is a pedophile? You better believe that's a patriarchy."
[–]cthulufunk 53 points54 points55 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie that's a patriarchy!
[–]ToraZalinto 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
And suddenly I want to watch Babe 2.
[–]SenorSpicyBeans 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I looked at the lake
[–]EvilPundit 79 points80 points81 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Projection is what it's called. Feminists assigning their own beliefs and attitudes to others.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 32 points33 points34 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Like how they blame the judicial bias for custody on "paternalistic judges", despite the tender years doctrine proposed and supported by...feminists.
[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's a handy tool to blame an entire sex for all your problems and then make the same sex responsible for their own oppression.
All men are responsible for us (feminists) being the real victims; and if men are a victim it's because of men. So men you are responsible and we as feminists, hold you accountable to do more about it!
Wow, awesome koolaid drink there. This sounds an awful like Hitler's writings...
[–]mythin 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Feminism supports and even creates in many cases, knowingly or not, female hypoagency. Women as objects that are acted upon, without the ability to act.
[–]iongantas 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Patriarchy is not a thing. It says nothing.
Shhh! Don't say such things. You might get your secret membership card revoked, and you won't be allowed into the meetings any more.
[–]Doctor_Loggins 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nice try, Pat. /s
[–]yourfaceyourass 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think its hilarious how when mentioning it they very frequently say "The patriarchy". But seriously, how does a concept do anything?
I still haven't heard a rational response as to explain this magical force in the universe.
[–]monkat 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Even if it were a thing, wouldn't that mean that we wouldn't be seen as brutes, and would be seen as some sort of superior race? This whole image has me so confused.
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The thing is, it's FEMINISM that
says men are stupid and monolithic and
unchanging and incapable. It's feminism
that says men have animalistic instincts and
just can't stop themselves from harassing and
assaulting. It's feminism that says men can
only be attracted by certain qualities, can
only have particular kinds of responses, can
only experience the world in narrow ways.
[–]EpicJ 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Feminism is here to stop patriarchy
5 seconds later
All guys objectify women and are rapists in waiting.
[–]otakuman 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Did anyone notice the false dichotomy? Either you're a feminist, or a patriarch. And since you don't want to be one of those evil nazi abuser patriarchs, then you must be a feminist. Right?
[–]SSJAmes 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I think the word you're looking for is cult.
[–]Mitschu 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Let's be sects buddies.
[–]notcaptainkirk 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There are two concepts in this image. The creator understands neither of them.
[–]jmnzz 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
My bullshit detector just broke.
It's gone.
It's done.
Feminism, the bullshitter of all bullshitters killed it.
[–]Hamakua 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's like they aren't even trying anymore. It's like they are trying to find just how absurd a message they can deliver that the pedestal worshiping masses will swallow before someone says..
"...hey, wait a sec!"
Then they will backpedal and claim to be ironical and twist it all around to be some sort of sophisticated commentary that was purposely designed to illustrate the ingrained prejudices... blah blah blah... cue SRS self flagellation.... blah blah blah...
Scum manifesto as keynote reference literature
blah blah
"Joking" -very graphic and vivid misandric video of young girls killing a man ruthlessly...
Blah blah...
"You just don't get it... mannn, it's too sophisticated".
[–]MaunaLoona2 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
It's part of feminism's Big Lie.
Here's what the OSS had to say about Hitler:
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it
And here's Goebbels:
The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.
All they have to do is repeat the message often enough and the feminists will believe it. They already have.
I feel like I'm dealing with a cult.
[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I wish a cult was all they were, they would be far less of a threat.
[–]alphabitch 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
I really wish this is what feminism was
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
It is...if you're talking about equity feminism.
[–]Subversive 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Even equity feminism, much as it rejects the hatred of men that is a primary feature of gender feminism, is still very much focussed on the interests of women. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it still leaves us needing a men's movement to provide a degree of balance (even if we agree on almost everything).
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
If equity feminism were the branch in power, with the influence and loud, listened to voices, we as a movement probably wouldn't have a problem with feminism. We might disagree, but we wouldn't be opposed to them as a group.
edit: would -> wouldn't
[–]Subversive 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
*wouldn't
Oops, yup!
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yeah, but feminists call that anti-feminism!
[–]Grubnar 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
... or worse.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You mean the small rational subgroup that is frequently demonized by the extremists in charge and gets virtually no media or political attention?
[–]ExpendableOne -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
There is no such thing as "equity feminism", it is a fallacy. The term is an oxymoron. You either believe in equality, in which case you realize that feminism is inherently biased and destructive, or you are a feminist, in which case you don't really believe in genuine gender equality. No amount of self-denial or obliviousness could ever change that.
[–]picopallasi 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I didn't find this picture on purpose, but I'll share it.
[–]Kuonji 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
My first solid laugh of the day. Thank you.
[–]c--b 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I just felt sort of disgusted.
[–]AbsoluteBlack 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused.
I find myself much happier that way.
[–]mikesteane 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Actually, the poster is partly right; the great discrimination against men is largely due to men. However feminism is behind such men.
[–]__stare 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I generally consider myself a feminist and I think that poster is infantile and embarassing.
I subscribed to this subreddit to make sure that I don't get too disillusioned from either side of fine arguments. I just want to say keep up the great discussions, gentlemen.
[–]mythin -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Have you noticed a difference in reception when you post here, versus when a self-proclaimed MRA posts in /r/feminism or /r/feminisms?
Honest question, and I hope I worded it in a non-biased fashion. I'm not planning on arguing one way or the other, I just want to know if you've seen any difference in reception in the same-but-opposite circumstances.
[–]__stare 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I haven't commented here before so I can't give a fair comparison, yet. I don't get as many upvotes/replies on /r/feminism as I do in other subreddits though. I'm not sure if the community is not as active or if my comments don't resonate with most feminists, no real way to tell.
What drew me originally to this subreddit was my sister's unfair dealings in her divorce. I won't go into the details, but I started to notice more and more how biased courts were in custody rulings and child support decisions. Though I do think that women generally make less money than men and that society does influence our sexes perceived potential (when a boy is good at math he's told he should be a scientist while girls are told they could be teachers) I don't think that women should therefore be exempt from child support.
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Okay, thanks! There are point you mentioned I disagree with, but that wasn't my purpose here, so I'll just say I hope you keep reading all sides of the issues at hand and come to your own decisions based on the facts you find, not based on what other people tell you what to think.
[–]__stare 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I am interested in the points you disagree with; it may be something I haven't fully or fairly evaluated and I'd love to hear your side if you're willing.
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm absolutely willing! I was worried about coming off as trying to lead you into an argument, as I truly wanted your opinion. If you won't be offended and think I was trying to lead you into a position I could attack, I'll be happy to expand! :)
I do think that women generally make less money than men
Now, I may be making an unfair assumption here, so let me state it straight away. When I hear this, the assumption seems to be that women make less money than men due to sexism. If that's not what you meant, I apologize!
Studies have tried to control for all these factors have shown that if you take a man and a woman, same experience, same education, same job, and compare their salaries, what you find is that women make about 98% of what men do so that gender wage gap pretty much disappears. And in some jobs women actually make more. (There's a transcript for the video)
So here I'm forced to disagree, both with the absolute women make less, as well as with the assumption that it is due to sexism. Women make different life choices than men, and those life choices often lead to lower wages and lower earning potential, but from my view (and the view of many on this subreddit), those are their choices to make.
Basically, women as a group make less money because they choose lower paying work or because of other choices they make. Women as individuals have the same earning potential as individual men.
that society does influence our sexes perceived potential
Sort of yes, sort of no. I agree that society can influence an individual, but it is still that individuals right to make their own decisions. I hear, fairly often, about how few CEOs are female, but I don't see women, in general, going for upper management positions. Does society have an influence? Well, yes, in the same way everyone has an influence, but I don't see the negative forces on women that this claim implies. In fact, I haven't seen anything in my life except for how empowered women are and that women can do whatever they want. It's taught from birth that women can be whatever they want. There is still some residual societal pressure against certain fields, but really, they're on their way out, we just need to make sure we don't backslide.
STEM is a good example of this. There is nothing legally keeping women out of STEM fields, and yet there are people that what Title IX to be used to increase female enrollment. Things don't work that way. Women aren't enrolling in STEM fields, and nobody has bothered to ask "Why?" Everyone seems to go straight for the "It must be sexism!" answer, and start trying to use government to influence enrollment. I only see this ending badly.
I don't have a good set of sources for everything, but if you hang around here, you will see a lot of good sources linked to for these views.
Again, please don't think my initial question was in any way an attempt to be able to argue or counter anything you said, I truly was (and still am) curious about the reactions different subreddits give to their "opposing" viewpoints.
[–]__stare 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't think sexism really exists in the traditional way. In the same, subtle way that boys are raised to expect to be the providers I think girls are raised to expect to be at home mothers. Girls also realize early (when parents laugh at their "silly" mistakes) that they can be rewarded for not trying/applying themselves while boys are given disapproval when they cry or show weakness/femininity. This I think is the root of the overall wage difference (or job rank difference) and the reason women make less money than men (not comparing sexes in the same position, but lack of women in the higher positions). The perniciousness of accepting (especially subconsciously) that we will eventually be mothers works against our ambitions and the training boys receive to buckle down and try harder when they're scared or faced with obstacles works greatly in their favor. This is just a theory, though.
It's a good theory, actually, and I can't really refute it. I will say this ties into the MRM view of male hyperagency and female hypoagency. The view is that feminism supports a culture of victimhood in women that has the effect (arguably, intended) of removing agency, expectation of self determination, from women while at the same time putting all responsibility on men.
The entire concept of victim blaming comes to this. Studies have shown there is a correlation between binge drinking and being a victim of rape. Any suggestion that women avoid binge drinking without a good support system is met with cries of victim blaming, and that women should be able to do what they want without fear of being raped.
In an ideal world, I agree. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. We lock our doors at night, we lock our cars, we take other precautionary measures. Any suggestion that women have control over outcomes in their life, that they could take precautions against situations that are statistically likely to lead to rape, is met by denying that women have control over their own lives.
I am of the opinion that women, as a group, are just as capable as men, as a group, of being responsible adults. Unfortunately, it is feminism that so often disagrees with me.
I really need to get some work done now, but if you want a great introduction to a lot of the MRM views, I recommend: http://youtu.be/vp8tToFv-bA
After watching that, watch the rest of her videos, and you'll understand a lot of the core views. They aren't universal, but they are close to it.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
lol genetic fallacies.
This made me fall to the floor in pure laughter.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think this is what they're talking about
Of course VAWA, the Duluth model, and primary aggressor policies-all basically feminist policies-all reinforce that even more.
[–]TheBrohemian 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
At one point, this would have been correct, but I think that time has passed.
[–]ENTP 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
It's feminism that tells men they are violent oppressors.
It's feminism that calls all men rapists.
It's feminism that tells men their mutilation doesn't count.
It's feminism that tells men to "man up".
It's feminism that tells men their sexuality is wrong and immoral.
It's feminism that ignores men's issues, despite being privileged as official dogma at Universities.
It's feminism that tells men everything is their fault.
It's feminism that gets abused men arrested.
It's feminism that tries to shut down men's shelters.
It's feminism that removes due process from men.
Feminism tells men they are violent, abusive, and irredeemably flawed. Rise up, and refuse to be branded a "patriarch".
How do you know you are in a feminist book store? No humor section.
Update: How do you know you are in a feminist book store? No Logic or Reason Section.
[–]AryoBarzan 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lol, looks like some feminists are realizing they aren't going to beat us with the typical 'women empowered' dribble so now they're taking a more 'well, we empower men too' angle in order to help their own movement. Yeah, I'm sure the free-loving eugenics supporting lunatics at radfemhub sure aim to empower us! Reminds me an awful lot of the 'No, seriously, what about the menz?' shit-blog.
[–]HornsandaHalo 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, no that sounds alot like the other word to me.
Does anyone here know a single person who is a self-described 'patriarchist'?
Patriarchy sure does seem to support a lot of bad things, but I can't find anyone who actually claims to support this philosophy.
I suspect it might actually be feminism saying these things about men after all.
[–]munky_quack 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sarcasm, really? This is petty trite and a generalization of a whole movement. Surely this stemming from a quote that was on /r/DepthHub earlier which actually pointed out that /r/MensRights is anti-feminist. I don't understand why you would want to affirm the belief that such an attack was logical.
Is it just me or does this suggest there needs to be an uprising against men... for their own benefit?
[–]drinkthebleach 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's why it's called feminism, right?
i seriously think the way women are turning out is horrible. This is of course a generalization but i find it really strange how unre4alistic and out of touch with reality women get to be.
[+]Enfenitly 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
*feminist
[–]rbcrusaders 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Very disturbing that this actually makes sense to their feeble minds.
[–]Grubnar 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
LOL
[–]Kirkayak 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Substitute "dominator culture" for "patriarchy" and at least half of that poster would be perfectly true.
[–]fondueguy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Is this for real?
[–]IHaveALargePenis 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Such a clear and eloquent description of patriarchy. Too bad if I asked 100 random feminists to define patriarchy I would receive 101 different answers. As for how horrible it truly is, Africa up to 200 (or so) years ago was a matriarchy, slavery was predominant and they didn't even have a bronze age and wouldn't have had an iron age (which came fashionably late thanks to the Arabs), in fact they'd still be in the stone age now. But I'm sure living in our so called patriarchy, among the wealthiest 5% in the world, privileged (err, I mean "oppressed") and all is a truly terrible thing.
Sometimes I wonder why the majority of feminists are predominately middle/upper middle class white women, but I'm sure that would be at the very least racist and almost certainly very definitely misogynistic to contemplate. So by all means, continue comparing the top 0.1% of men in the top 5% of the world's population to every woman on the planet. It's the only way you can argue that "shit" is stacked against women everywhere.
[–]Saerain 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Feminism sure is patriarchal.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree completely with the second bit. Feminism does believe men are more than that. They provide a very easy, generalized scapegoat for which women can blame all their worldly ills. Yay feminism.
/s
[Just in case it wasn't clear]
It's feminism that believes men need to change because they are all those things that patriarchy says they are.
Fixed that poster for ya
[–]Jesus_marley 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
it is in fact feminism that is the driving force of all the things the poster claims is the fault of the "patriarchy". The biggest failing of patriarchy theory is the reliance upon the Apex fallacy. The Apex fallacy is the idea that we assign the characteristics of the highest visibility members of a group (men, for example) to all members of that group whilst simultaneously ignoring the near complete lack of in- group bias from those same "apexuals" (tip of the hat to Typhonblue ) for the members of the group they belong to. The Apexual is in it for them and them alone but will benefit the group(s) from which they are able to garner the most power from as a side effect of attaining that power. In this case, by catering to the feminist lobby, which has an enormous amount of political influence. That said, it is from the mouths of feminists that the ideas of men being stupid, animalistic and incapable have sprung:
"Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) chromosome is an incomplete x(female) chromosome, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." Valerie Solanas; Author of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto.
To then hold those same men accountable for their own social oppression in the name of "patriarchy" and hold forth the very cause of the problem as the solution is the height of dishonesty and frankly, cognitive dissonance.
Read: If men would just do what we tell them, everything would be better; for them as well.
[–]hypn0fr0g 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The idea behind this is that patriarchy is a system that marginalizes groups for the promotion of a single one. Simply because its called patriarchy doesn't mean that men are the head of it. The ultimate goal of feminism, which sadly most feminists misinterpret, is the destruction of that sort of system all together in order to restructure with a system that promotes growth of all groups. Feminism has evolved from what it was in the early 60s, and most people fail to realize this. That is why I am neither an MRA or a Feminist, I promote equality for all.
Now be a good little dog and CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!!!
[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
scumbag feminists: blames patriarchy for negative male stereotypes to shift blame away from their obvious and documented prejudice towards men...
... is also primary, if not sole, perpetuator of patriarchy theory.
I was going to rage about this, but I think my feelings are better summed up as: "Take your feminism bullshit and leave, I'm about to marry a woman that doesn't need your victim mentality and government to succeed, she also doesn't feel the need to look like a man to succeed either. So please, take your patriarchy bullshit elsewhere."
[–]ttnorac 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh crap! I had no idea is was opposite day. I didn't see it on my calendar....or....I DID see it on my calendar.
[+]Grapeban -24 points-23 points-22 points 11 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link
Ugh, so even when feminists care about men's issues, you dismiss them? Geez.
[–]EvilPundit 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
They aren't caring about men's issues. They're blaming the victims of anti-male discrimination.
[–]Hach8 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You could call it meta victim blaming. It's pretty amazing.
[–]A_Nihilist 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is the very definition of lip service. Release a little poster every now and then to keep gullible men convinced feminism has their interests at heart.
[–]loose-dendrite 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We're disparaging the rhetoric. This isn't an example of feminists helping men it's an example of feminists say they help men.
[–]Hamakua 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
If you knew anything about Feminism or its legislative and social history you would know that it is in fact feminism that is the driving force of all the things the poster claims is the fault of the "patriarchy".
[+]Grapeban -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, sure, before feminism no-one pressured men to be knights in shining armour, no men were pressured into fighting and dying, no men were portrayed as beasts of burden.
And sure, the areas of the world untouched by feminism don't hold ridiculous gender ideas about men.
[–]Hach8 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
You realize that none of that shit you posted has anything to do with the poster, right?
And femenism has had zero impact on what the "role" of men is in our society. See, e.g. the feminist reflection on the aurora shootings. How many feminist articles called out the point that the fact that men were being called "good men" because they gave their lives for their significant others was an example of patriarchy? The fact is, feminism as a social movement supports the patriarchy, implicitly, on any issue that isn't detrimental to women.
[+]Grapeban -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
How many feminist articles called out the point that the fact that men were being called "good men" because they gave their lives for their significant others was an example of patriarchy? The fact is, feminism as a social movement supports the patriarchy, implicitly, on any issue that isn't detrimental to women.
I didn't read any article that said that. I did read many MRA articles claiming the men were suckers, white knights, "manginas" for selflessly giving their life for another. There was one on AVfM I remember, this subreddit's darling.
[–]Hamakua 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Why are you now belittling other users with terms like "darling"? If someone referred to you as "Sweetheart" as a closing you would go ape shit. It is uncouth.
People are countering your points and you are ignoring those points and just bringing up new things that have nothing to do with the refutations of the points. That you believe anything in the poster -posted is amazing. You think the patriarchy lobbied for and got passed VAWA, you think the patriarchy now protects VAWA from being altered to be gender neutral.
You think it is the Patriarchy that is exerting political pressure to secure women-only health benefits in medicare while ignoring or barring parallel benefits to men.
You think it is the Patriarchy that is lobbying to get Title IX extended into all corners of higher education and not sports so STEM fields will finally be "conquered" despite there already being programs doing all they can to get women into those fields.
Patriarchy patriarchy patriarchy.
The irony is, your constant blaming of "patriarchy" for things that are so obviously the fault of Feminism shows just how vapid, formless, and unfounded your belief in a "patriarchy" is. To you, everything is the fault of the "Patriarchy" even those things that can objectively be blamed on Feminism.
Just... wow.
[+]Grapeban -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
No, I was saying that AVfM was the darling. It's an expression, it means you adore it. Sorry for the confusion, I see I missed an apostrophe, I'll edit that.
You think the patriarchy lobbied for and got passed VAWA, you think the patriarchy now protects VAWA from being altered to be gender neutral. You think it is the Patriarchy that is exerting political pressure to secure women-only health benefits in medicare while ignoring or barring parallel benefits to men.
You think the patriarchy lobbied for and got passed VAWA, you think the patriarchy now protects VAWA from being altered to be gender neutral.
I think sexist societal attitudes, belief in gender roles, caused those things, yes. As in, societies belief that men are strong etc. etc. is the reason why society refuses to give support to men, because in it's mind men shouldn't need support.
Well, yeah, but those programmes clearly aren't working at getting women into those fields, so I see no problem with extending Title IX to them.
The irony is, your constant blaming of "patriarchy" for things that are so obviously the fault of Feminism shows just how vapid, formless, and unfounded your belief in a "patriarchy" is. To you, everything is the fault of the Patriarch even those things that can objectively be blamed on Feminism.
By the way, I support kyriarchy theory, not patriarchy theory.
[–]Hamakua 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I think Feminism has become an entity beyond the interests of men and women and into the realm of an industrial complex who's main goal is to perpetuate itself and gain more power. I believe this to be true by its continual pushing of agendas in areas where they have long surpassed their claimed goal.May2000
My opinion has more objective support than your opinion.
And even Feminism believes this, perpetuates this belief, and does a great many things from getting any counter legislation or evidence of this belief from being disseminated.
You seriously do not understand the issues if you think Title IX is the answer to getting more women into STEM fields.
Do you know what the college enrollment and graduation ratio is today between genders?
Kyriarchy is the filing down the edges of the square peg of the idea of a "Patriarchy" when it was objectively shown that reality is a round hole. Problem is it still doesn't fit. It will be reduced later to another "archy" until reality can be matched to presumptions of a particular ideology.
As GWW would say, the problem with Feminism is it made the mistake of starting with a hypothesis and not the facts.
[+]Grapeban -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Don't bring up GWW, she seems totally divorced from reality.
You seriously do not understand the issues if you think Title IX is the answer to getting more women into STEM fields. Do you know what the college enrollment and graduation ratio is today between genders?
I know what it is in the STEM fields, and that is it's balanced against women. By the way, I'd totally support a reverse Title IX that got men into fields where they were under-represented. Recently there was something like that in Sweden (eeeevil feminist Sweden) where they introduced Affirmative Action style quotas for getting men into fields like nursing.
Kyriarchy is the filing down the edges of the square peg of the idea of a "Patriarchy" when it was objectively shown that reality is a round hole. Problem is it still doesn't fit. It will be reduced later to another "archy" untile reality can be matched to presumptions of an idololgy.
Oh please do explain why kyiarchy theory is wrong, and why rich, cis, able, white, straight, neurotypical people are not the most privileged people.
Yeah actually, feminism is kinda shitty in that regard. Because it's a movement full of people, shitty, swayed by society people. But it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative, at least it's slightly different than society, and it's done far more good things than the MRAs have or ever will do (now that's a throwing down of the glove if I've ever seen it). I've reminded of this NSWATMz article: http://goodmenproject.com/noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz/74997/
[–]Hamakua 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You didn't answer the one question I posed to you.
[–]Hach8 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Have you like, avoiding articles about it?
http://jezebel.com/5928306/the-shining-knights-of-the-aurora-movie-theater http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-07-why-men-should-be-willing-to-die-for-women
I don't think you actually read the AVfM article. There was no mention of mangina, no mention of white knight, and no calling them suckers. It was about how how the femosphere and other mainstream media outlets are reinforcing the idea that men sacrificing themselves for women is essentially expected from "good men." If you read that, you would understand that. He called them what they are - Dead.
[+]Grapeban -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
http://jezebel.com/5928306/the-shining-knights-of-the-aurora-movie-theater
Did you read this? It seems like a pretty reasonable article. It condemned the fact that men are expected to give their lives for women.
http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-07-why-men-should-be-willing-to-die-for-women
And this one's written by Hugo Schwyzer, who has largely been rejected by feminists.
I didn't read all of it, because JtO has some serious issues with verbosity, but I noted that he believes the men weren't heroes for saving those they loved. I believe he called them sick. In a comment on reddit, I remember Elam stated that they should have the title stripped from them because they saved women.
[–]Hach8 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, it the jezebel article didn't say that, it said this:
But it's pointless to analyze whether there were any gender stereotypes at play in the theater that night, or to ask why so many men died protecting their girlfriends — that's just what happened.
Uh uh. The only reason feminists have "rejected" Schwyzer is because they found out he tried to kill a woman once. (and some of them still think he's awesome, after all he gets posted other places besides his own blog)
They didn't repudiate him when he claimed an 8 year old was the one raping his nanny when she engaged in sexual acts with him.
Nor was anything said when he practically gloated about his role in conning another man into raising what might be his offspring.
The feminists didn't give a flying fuck when he made excuses for Mary kay LeTourneau's actions, or any other time he whitewashed women's responsibilities.
No, he only became a "problem" for them when it turned out he transgressed against a woman.
[–]Hamakua 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That isn't a refutation to my reply above.
Pressuring men into shining armor in exchange for even the possibility of procreation != demonizing an entire gender based on that gender as monsters who haven't yet snapped.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You do realize the difference between origins and reinforcing right?
"Guys, it's not my fault even if I continuing it or compounding it; I didn't start it". ~ The rhetoric in the OP.
[–]zyk0s 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link
I'm really sorry you weren't given cognitive ability to transcend your religious beliefs. But hey, I have good news for you: it's feminism that says women are incapable children who should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Masculism thinks that women can be so much more, why are you still a feminist?
[+]Grapeban -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
it's feminism that says women are incapable children who should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
Oh, man, it is? Well shit, take me back to ye olde times when it was legal to rape your wife, when it women couldn't vote or own property, when abortion wasn't legal. When women couldn't get divorces. It was fucking swell to be a woman back then apparently.
Or how about I go to Saudi Arabia, that place so devoid of feminism. Presumably it's fantastic to be a woman there in that non-feminist land of gender equality.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
when it women couldn't vote or own property
Was that before or after women could also own slaves as property and could inherit estates?
When women couldn't get divorces
Was that before or after they could in an abusive relationship?
Are you just blind to actual history or swallowing feminism's version of it?
You know that thing where women are expected to take their husband's surname? Do you know what that started? Because your wife used to be your property.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You're referring to coverture, and it wasn't that she was his property. Many of her rights were subsumed by the man, but that is not the same thing. It was a social contract of the woman having access to the man's excess labor and him having access to her excess reproduction.
Many of her rights were subsumed by the man because the man was now responsible for her well being, and in doing so required more control over things like household income to warrant that enforced responsibility.
[+]Grapeban -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This goes back to what I was saying about responsibility. The man is expected to own the wife, to take her rights, and in exchange he protected/controlled her and the household. In this situation the man is the privileged class, he is more powerful and society respects him more.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The society respects him more because he has more responsibility; he's not given more responsibility because he's respected more. You're mixing up cause and effect.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
First off, it wasn't JUST women who couldn't get divorced, depending on whether or not you read radical feminist literature all sex is rape, women weren't fighting the wars or shaping the society so no shit they couldn't vote or own land. Believe it or not, back in the day those weren't rights, they were privileges for men AND women. In fact for the longest time lots of men couldn't vote unless they owned land. Women got all this stuff essentially for free--no conscription, no hard manual labour, etc etc
[–]Jesus_marley 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
take me back to ye olde times when it was legal to rape your wife
Cite?
You mean the same time when 99% of men couldn't vote or own property either? Funny how even when men COULD vote they had to and still do have to earn it (selective service). Women are the only ones who have been given an inherent right to vote without any form of service or sacrifice given in return.
It was fucking swell to be a woman back then apparently.
Compared to what a man was forced to do, women had the life of Riley. This is not to say that life was a bed of roses. life was hard all around, but given the requirements placed on men and the responsibilities they were burdened with women had it easy. Try again sister.
[–]Jess_than_three 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Several countries in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia made spousal rape illegal before 1970, but other countries in Western Europe and the English-speaking Western World outlawed it much later, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. Most developing countries outlawed it in the 1990s and 2000s.
In the United States, "the nineteenth-century woman's rights movement fought against a husband's right to control marital intercourse in a campaign that was remarkably developed, prolific, and insistent, given nineteenth-century taboos against the public mention of sex or sexuality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#Countries_that_have_not_made_marital_rape_a_criminal_offense
[–]Jesus_marley 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
yeah by cite I meant actual peer reviewed facts. try again please.
[–]Jess_than_three 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
You're too lazy to look at the references for the article? I guess that's not really my problem.
[–]Jesus_marley 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Wikipedia does not qualify as a valid source and the responsibility is not mine to follow your trail of bread crumbs. Either provide the info or don't. it makes no matter to me. Just know that your failure to provide invalidates your opinion.
[–]Jess_than_three 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Okay, just for shits and giggles.
In the United States:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/13/us/marital-rape-drive-for-tougher-laws-is-pressed.html (that's right, as recently as 1982 a rape conviction was overturned on the basis that a dude by definition couldn't rape his wife!)
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701 - North Carolina exempted husbands from being prosecuted for rape of their wives in 1997!
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/US_History_of_Marital_Rape.pdf (cites its own sources at the end)
http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-07-spousalrape-arizona_x.htm - raping your wife is illegal, but way LESS illegal than if you weren't married to her! cool!
In the UK:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html - they didn't settle this shit until 1991!
In other specific countries:
http://www.oas.org/dil/Sexual_Offences_and_Domestic_Violence_Act_Bahamas.pdf
http://equalitynow.org/english/campaigns/beijing15/report_en.html
http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Womens-Rights-South-Asia/dp/0761997962/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343963433&sr=1-1 and http://newsblaze.com/story/20081014080156zzzz.nb/topstory.html
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2008/expertpapers/EGMGPLVAW%20Paper%20(Karen%20Stefiszyn).pdf
http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=383&key=24&parent=23&report=86
http://www.arrow.org.my/publications/ICPD+15Country&ThematicCaseStudies/ThematicCaseStudies/Sexuality&Rights.pdf
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136102.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA15/001/2009/en/34c4959d-8833-4c3e-8b3b-34dfe99c9593/asa150012009en.html
http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/allegedly-false-rape-reports-make-authorities-skeptical-discourage-victims-in-cameroon
http://www.mdg5watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Itemid=155#_edn21
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300070
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/laws_that_discriminate_against_women.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Law-Service-Legitimacy-Catherine-Warrick/dp/0754675874/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343963609&sr=1-1
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CEDAW,CONCOBSERVATIONS,GEO,,453778142,0.html
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/24/chance-congress-help-haitian-women
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22547,4565c25f569,4b7cee7c26,0.html
http://www.amazon.com/International-Approaches-Rape-Geetanjali-Gangoli/dp/1847426204/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343963667&sr=1-1
http://www.musawah.org/musawah-thematic-report-article-16-kuwait-and-oman
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/wom1743.doc.htm
http://stanford.edu/group/womenscourage/cgi-bin/blogs/sextraffickingandprostitution/2010/05/13/liberias-struggle-against-sexual-violence-in-the-wake-of-conflict/
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=12055
www.ucm.es/info/estpsi/master/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/mujeres-en-la-ue-estadisticas.pdf
http://www.map-srhr.org/chapters/ch-3-overview-of-sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights-in-africa/mali#instruments-and-policies
http://stopvaw.org/sites/3f6d15f4-c12d-4515-8544-26b7a3a5a41e/uploads/Sexualabusefacteng.pdf
http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs5/CEDAW-C-MMR-CO-3.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Rights-Watch-World-Report/dp/1583227407/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343963790&sr=1-1
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/nea/136079.htm
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=c834c73a-3531-48b0-8040-4450d41d1351;page=0;query=Status%3Ainforce%20CapAct%3A224%20Depth%3A0;rec=0;resUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fstatutes.agc.gov.sg%2Faol%2Fsearch%2Fsummary%2Fresults.w3p%3Bquery%3DStatus%253Ainforce%2520CapAct%253A224%2520Depth%253A0#pr375-he-.
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=4c84c0fb2&skip=0&query=syria%20marital%20rape
http://www.wccc.tbu.to/news/gaps-in-tongan-rape-law-need-to-be-addressed/
http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8645%3Athe-phenomenon-of-marital-rape&catid=73%3Ahighlights&Itemid=70
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8375291.stm and http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,,ZMB,494b62e917,0.html
Broadly:
http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/popsyn/PopulationSynthesis1.pdf
http://www.religiousconsultation.org/Special_Features/Amnesty_International_violence_vs_women.htm
http://unicef.org/publications/pub_pon97_en.pdf
And on and on and on and on.
[–]Jesus_marley 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
thank you for that. You'll forgive my reluctance to blindly accept links but Grapeban and I have had several conversations in the past where many of his/her claims were simply pulled out of thin air or "supported" by highly biased sources. I'm not intractable.
[–]Jess_than_three 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"My trail of breadcrumbs". Okay.
No, listen, you're being unreasonable here. "Wikipedia is not a valid source" is a tired and a dumb argument. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is full of experts jealously guarding their articles, reverting problematic edits pretty quickly after they occur. Is it a scholarly resource? No. Is it a good enough resource for establishing things like "Was it ever legal for men to rape their wives"? Yes.
[+]Grapeban -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Two lessons about our world.
1) This is the point where I disagree with the poster, we don't live in a patriarchy, we live in a kyriarchy. Basically this is the same thing, except it realises that it's not just men who are the privileged class (I'll explain what I mean by that in a second), but cis, able, straight, white, (this is the important one right now) rich, etc. etc. men who are the privileged class.
Go read this post I made a while back: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/wogqg/mainstream_misandry_manhood_edition/c5f2ymr
What I say in it is, the ultimate person to be in our society is that straight, white, cis, rich, etc. etc. man. All who fall below that standard are judged as weak, unworthy, however you want to describe it. So yes, some, most even, men have it shitty, because basically they have been judged less than man.
What feminists basically say is, yes, society is shitty towards men who cannot fulfil it's standards of manhood, which is most, but it's shitty to women because women can never fulfil it's standards of manhood, because one of those standards is being a man.
This gets us on to point 2, where I address this idea:
but given the requirements placed on men and the responsibilities they were burdened with women had it easy. Try again sister.
2) Many MRAs seem to misunderstand how our society expresses appreciation and value of a class. It does not remove responsibility, it adds them. The higher we think of a group, the better we expect them to perform, that's why the ultimate man up there (you may call him the hegemonic male) has so many responsibilities and requirements to fulfil.
Men are expected to be strong and powerful and brave and awesome, and that sucks for men who have to fight to achieve those things, but the reason why we can still say men are the privileged class in spite of that is because the only reason those requirements are there is because society thinks men are brave, strong, powerful and awesome.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Kyriarchy is a moronic term. It means "lord who rules", which is basically saying "the person in charge is in charge". Such a term offers no insight at all.
Many MRAs seem to misunderstand how our society expresses appreciation and value of a class. It does not remove responsibility, it adds them. The higher we think of a group, the better we expect them to perform, that's why the ultimate man up there
That...is something you pulled out of nowhere credible. But let's assume you're right. Feminism has done what for increasing women's responsibility? Oh women now have more means to opt out of responsibility for children, help enact laws that obviate violent women from being held responsible for their actions, etc.
So feminism must think really low of women by your definition.
[+]Grapeban -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Try to be less literal. Kyriarchy is the idea that different classes of people intersect to produce people who have even more privilege. It recognises that a black, cis person is less privileged than a white cis person, for example.
That...is something you pulled out of nowhere credible.
Leaders are highly respected and have high responsibilities that go along with that. When they fail those responsibilities they fall from respect and we take away our respect.
Oh women now have more means to opt out of responsibility for children, help enact laws that obviate violent women from being held responsible for their actions, etc.
Ah, see, you're confusing "removing responsibility" with "adding rights".
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Might want to check out things like the suicide rate and occupational injury and fatality rate, but white men are "ahead" of blacks in those arenas. Also, blacks are overrepresented in post secondary education.
Unless of course you define privilege in a way that ignores ways in which those groups are actually ahead.
Responsibilities are tied to the position and are used to warrant certain rights/control. The person may lose that respect if they fail but they still have those responsibilities because it's tied to their position. You have a misguided understanding of responsibility.
Women should have the right to not be as responsible for their actions now?
[+]Grapeban -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Might want to check out things like the suicide rate and occupational injury and fatality rate, but white men are "ahead" of blacks in those arenas. Also, blacks are overrepresented in post secondary education. Unless of course you define privilege in a way that ignores ways in which those groups are actually ahead.
Interesting, so you're saying that white people aren't more privileged than black people? That's an interesting claim, because based on everything we know about reality in the USA, it's not true. I have statistics, but basically, poverty rate is way higher for black people, they earn less money on average for each level of education, they're more likely to go to jail, more likely to get the death penalty, there's an entire political party that's a pretty big fan of racism (it's the one beginning with R, not that the democrats are perfect), etc. etc.
Unless you accept that black people are less privileged, we're not going to get far in this conversation.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Considering there's no realistic way to compare which things are more impactful than others, a list whites being less privilege in some areas and blacks in others is hard to determine.
Of course women are ahead of men in pretty every arena except making money, while still benefiting from the money men make, and since blacks and women aren't the same you bringing up blacks is irrelevant to a discussion on gender.
[–]Jesus_marley 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You keep using that word "privilege". Men as a class do not have privilege.
The issue I have with that phrase"male privilege" is that it serves absolutely no useful purpose to the conversation, unless that purpose is to disrupt the flow of ideas and silence one's opponent. The nature of the phrase is such that, since the concept of "privilege" is itself subjective, and also intangible, it is impossible to defend against. You levy the accusation against me, and all of a sudden the conversation shifts to one of a defensive argument about how I (or men) am NOT privileged. You believe it to be true though, so any possible evidence I can provide to you to counter the accusation is simply not enough. It is a disengenuous tactic. Therefore, I reject that tactic on its face. I refuse to engage in it or against it beyond this. If you wish to actually have a reasonable, FACT based discussion, then by all means I will oblige, but like faith and monsters, "male privilege" is both a myth and a social threat meant to control the population through the shaming of men. I will not further it's use.
[–]zyk0s 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well I don't know, you're the ones believing any definition anyone gives you as long as it feels like the it's righteous. But you also clearly don't have the capacity to identify analogies and sarcasm, that condition of yours must be even more severe than I thought. I'm very sorry for you.
[+][deleted] -38 points-37 points-36 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Oh man, I suddenly thought that /r/MensRights had a moment of clarity. Then I saw you were being sarcastic.
I seriously don't think you guys understand what feminists mean by "patriarchy."
[–]typhonblue 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Something other than 'men are in power therefore to blame?'
Power doesn't just come from the heirarchy. It comes from the masses of women too.
[–]loose-dendrite 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Prove its existence. Like, actual empirically-rooted evidence and sound reasoning.
And no, "men are in charge" isn't proof because only women have an in-group bias.
Hint: You need to prove that gender is even a meaningful distinction for oppression!
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men wouldn't be any better off under feminism than we are in the current system. Just look at the current state of education.
I think this is what YOU misunderstand about the MRM. You all like to think we're supporters of some sort of bullshit traditionalism, we aren't. It's you all that seem to think that they only two options are feminism or some sort of fifties nostalgia.
[–]johnmarkley 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Both a social system that consistently privileges and glorifies men at the expense of women AND a system that hates and despises men and is responsible for creating and encouraging all the negative stereotypes about them? I don't think it's really that fair to blame people for failing to understand something that makes no sense.
Feminists are victims of their own success. They spent decades convincing people that traditional gender roles, "patriarchy," benefited men in general, built them up, protected them, favored them, at the expense of women. Then more people start noticing that there are some serious problems primarily or solely faced by males- and so when feminists blame them on the same thing that supposedly loves men so much it's hard to take seriously.
[–]Jacksambuck 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
"Bad Stuff" ? "Somebody Else" ?
[–]Kuonji 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Honestly, I care less about what feminists 'mean' by patriarchy. I'm more concerned with what the average person thinks it means. I want society's perceptions to change, and right now, most people equate patriarchy with men being oppressing figures with dominance over women.
[–]thrway_1000 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Patriarchy doesn't exist. It's a red herring. An easy excuse for complex social issues. That's why they can never really define or prove it's existence.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What someone means by "patriarchy" might not comport with reality, and if so what they mean isn't terribly useful or important.
[–]jackk225 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Could you all please try to be a little less cynical? YES, many feminists are sexist against men, etc, etc, but by saying 'feminists blame everything on men', well, that's another stereotype. That's like saying MRAs blame all the world's problems on women.
[–]crazyex 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I would give your point more credit if the MRM talked about a Matriarchy all the time.
[–]jackk225 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They do. Just not with that word.
[+][deleted] 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]theozoph 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Yes, feminism believes that you can be so much more. For example, it believes that you can also be a rapist without knowing it, that your use of logic is battery, that you ignore how much privilege you have, that your stare is violence, that your aesthetic sense is oppression, and that your penis is a weapon.
You are welcome to change all that to conform to what feminists believe a man should be (which is strangely similar to an asexual invertebrate, perhaps a sea cucumber?). Once that is achieved (they'll tell you when) you'll be asked to keep quiet while your sisters wail about other unenlightened males, while quietly whispering behind your back that you are a creep playing Nice Guytm to score with them.
You can take a man out of Patriarchy!tm , you see, but you can't take the patriarch out of man.
[+][deleted] 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
I promise you that everything you just typed is misconception. You seem to be equating your poor experiences with the women in your life to feminism.
How ironic that you resort automatically to ad hominem and hypothesis about my life, like every other feminist I've ever debated, while claiming that not every feminist is like that... :)
You should be aware that such tactics have been thoroughly documented and dissected by MRA's, and that their ineptitude makes us laugh. Whatever our personal history is, our opposition to feminism comes from analysis and documentation of feminism's many failures and faults, and from the recognition of its social toxicity, for both men and women.
And if you are incapable of considering that my opposition to feminism might have intellectual and moral reasons, instead of personal and emotional ones? Then it is you who is blinded by the feminist matrix, and lacking in intellectual rigor. In the future, familiarize yourself with our criticism if you want to make meaningful comment in this forum, instead of slinging tired clichés that we dismiss with a wave.
I assure you, these comments on this thread are not the truth.
They are, as documented on this forum since 2008. You just haven't done your homework. There are links on the sidebar that you should have read before commenting. I urge you to do so, and perhaps also to look at girlwriteswhat videos on youtube, since she is one of our most vocal and eloquent critics of feminism. You should probably also try to read Christina Hoff Summers, since she has done a very good job of documenting the downward spiral of feminism from a social rights movement to the misandric ideology we're familiar with.
I also urge you to do these things as a personal quest of self-discovery and widening of your horizons, since there is nothing so disheartening, in my opinion, as a man trying to defend the very ideology that holds him to be a second-rate human being.
Peace.
[+][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I didn't know that stating a hypothesis was wrong.
Making one about someone you know nothing about is. It's called a personal attack, in fact, and is considered bad form in debate. It means you hold the ideas second to who asserts them, and try to undermine the argument by attacking your opponent himself.
/explaining the basics
familiarize yourself with our criticism... No thanks.
familiarize yourself with our criticism...
No thanks.
"La-la-la-la I can't hear you!" Very mature.
That is to say, there are a lot of people who do stupid shit, and claim it is in the name of feminism.
Yes, and they are at the helm of all feminist organizations.
You have no evidence to base this statement.
You're right, none at all.
All the best.
Same to you.
[+][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Morality is subjective.
::Barf::
Yeah, raping a kid is perfectly okay in some cultures, so what can we say about it? Post-modernist drivel.
I never made an ad hominem attack.
If you make an argument that what you imagine my life is like, is the reason for my opposition to feminism, or my defense of men's rights, well yeah, it is an ad hominem.
When you better acquaint yourself with feminism, I will better acquaint myself with /r/MensRights.
We know a lot about feminism. Probably more than you, in fact. Like most atheists know a lot about religion, we tend to study feminism quite thoroughly. In fact, most MRA's used to be feminists before understanding that it is a misandrist, sexist, inaccurate, mythological and cult-like ideology. A generation raised on a steady feminist diet is what created the modern MRM.
Linking me to a clearly biased site is not helping your case.
Same faulty reasoning: the source isn't the problem, facts are facts no matter who collects them. Either those things were said or they weren't. Either the people saying them identify as feminists or they don't. Feminist organizations either embraced those people or they didn't. Such hateful statements were either denounced or they weren't.
Keep closing your eyes and ears to the hatred all you want, it isn't going away.
[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is you.
And you're conflating Oligarchy and the mythical feminist Patriarchy!tm . One is a hierarchical system of exploitation, the other a ideological construct that blames men (and only men) for it. Time to open your eyes to other points of view.
This concludes my exchange with you. I don't think there is anything more I could add. You'll either understand or you won't, either choose to help end injustice, or continue to defend those perpetrating it. Your call.
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
being anti-feminism is not going to help your message
© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]alecbenzer 174 points175 points176 points (71 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 91 points92 points93 points (69 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]buylocal745 -5 points-4 points-3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TheGDBatman 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aavagadrro 89 points90 points91 points (62 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pauzed 42 points43 points44 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Luriker 22 points23 points24 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Luriker 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpawnQuixote 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Aavagadrro 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]puppetry514 7 points8 points9 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Octagonecologyst 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]puppetry514 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Octagonecologyst 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ohgeronimo 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dranosh 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Gaderael 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fondueguy 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bloodfeastisleman 19 points20 points21 points (40 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 37 points38 points39 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]AnInfiniteAmount 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]ClickclickClever 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]fondueguy 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]SirSkeptic 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpawnQuixote 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Bloodfeastisleman 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Luriker 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ClickclickClever 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]YHWH_The_Lord 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]mtux96 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]YHWH_The_Lord 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]solinv 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZMaiden 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]YHWH_The_Lord 4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ClickclickClever 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ClickclickClever 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]oneiorosgrip 4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZMaiden 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]firelord1973 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZMaiden 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ClickclickClever 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fondueguy 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ClickclickClever 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Innominate8 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aavagadrro 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]bartonar 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Doctor_Loggins 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bartonar 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aavagadrro 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ErikAllenAwake 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]fondueguy 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dranosh 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ClickclickClever 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SSJAmes 20 points21 points22 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]alphabitch 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]firelord1973 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SSJAmes 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Gingor 70 points71 points72 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 54 points55 points56 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ClickclickClever 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ClickclickClever 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fondueguy 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Stratisphear 20 points21 points22 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DerpaNerb -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]jackk225 -9 points-8 points-7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (48 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 58 points59 points60 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Subversive 17 points18 points19 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MaunaLoona4 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Froztwolf 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]The_Black_Elvis 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 13 points14 points15 points (38 children) | Copy Link
[–]runhomequick 5 points6 points7 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 4 points5 points6 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hach8 6 points7 points8 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]mtux96 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hach8 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BrSy 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]BrSy -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]runhomequick 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheBananaKing 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]demiurgency 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]yourfaceyourass 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Froztwolf 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Quazz 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Quazz 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Quazz 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Froztwolf 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tmesispieces 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ClickclickClever 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Quazz 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]djwork 15 points16 points17 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]fondueguy 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zyk0s 53 points54 points55 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheBeardedWiseMan 14 points15 points16 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]homeless_in_london 14 points15 points16 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 28 points29 points30 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Subversive 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Koocnahtanoj 11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Subversive 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]oyezoyez 39 points40 points41 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]cthulufunk 53 points54 points55 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ToraZalinto 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SenorSpicyBeans 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 79 points80 points81 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 32 points33 points34 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas 19 points20 points21 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]demiurgency 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Doctor_Loggins 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]yourfaceyourass 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]monkat 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]EpicJ 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]otakuman 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]SSJAmes 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Mitschu 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]notcaptainkirk 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jmnzz 11 points12 points13 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MaunaLoona2 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]alphabitch 15 points16 points17 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Subversive 10 points11 points12 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Subversive 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Grubnar 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]picopallasi 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kuonji 22 points23 points24 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]c--b 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]AbsoluteBlack 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]__stare 3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]mythin -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]__stare 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]__stare 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]__stare 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheBrohemian 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AryoBarzan 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HornsandaHalo 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]demiurgency 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]munky_quack 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]drinkthebleach 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]Enfenitly 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rbcrusaders 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Grubnar 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kirkayak 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fondueguy 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]IHaveALargePenis 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Saerain 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jesus_marley 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Froztwolf 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hypn0fr0g 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dranosh 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ttnorac 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -24 points-23 points-22 points (55 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPundit 21 points22 points23 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hach8 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]A_Nihilist 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]loose-dendrite 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 15 points16 points17 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -10 points-9 points-8 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hach8 12 points13 points14 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -11 points-10 points-9 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 6 points7 points8 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -5 points-4 points-3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -4 points-3 points-2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hach8 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hach8 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hamakua 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zyk0s 6 points7 points8 points (32 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -10 points-9 points-8 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -4 points-3 points-2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -5 points-4 points-3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jesus_marley 12 points13 points14 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jess_than_three 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jesus_marley 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jess_than_three 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jesus_marley 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jess_than_three 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jesus_marley 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Jess_than_three 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -8 points-7 points-6 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 7 points8 points9 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -2 points-1 points0 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+]Grapeban -2 points-1 points0 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jesus_marley 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zyk0s 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -38 points-37 points-36 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 18 points19 points20 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]fondueguy 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]loose-dendrite 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]johnmarkley 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jacksambuck 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kuonji 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrway_1000 21 points22 points23 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jackk225 -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]crazyex 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jackk225 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (10 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]theozoph 2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (8 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]theozoph 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link