Why "Patriarchy" Gets Our Goats

indpndnt · 2013-01-01T20:54:07+00:00

You did very well, I'm bookmarking because you said it all better than I could have. I did reply to her follow-up, though, and I hope I did alright. It really bugs me how quickly she dismissed the whole argument about survival being the oppressor.

Speaking of which, do you read/watch a lot of Warren Farrel? Your arguments are very much like the ones he made in Toronto, as well as in his books.

ManUpManDown · 2013-01-01T22:59:53+00:00

My response to her latest reply to me; sorry it's so long:

I understand your theory, you've done a great job of explaining it here. But it's based on a cherry picked set of facts and a simplistic view of history.

And this to another poster:

I guess my whole point is this is more complicated than you guys and some feminists are trying to make it seem, and going over why again at this point in time is exhausting.

You seem to think your arguments are more sensitive to nuance and context, and less simplistic, than others'; I'm not sure why you think this. In fact, the assertions above are extremely ironic. Let's unpack your arguments.

Ego psych is an interesting field of study, but because of the nature versus nurture debate, questionable test creation, and reductionism, it's not a field of study with the same legitimacy as a hard science like physics. Keep in mind this is true for all forms of psychology - we adopt and discard theories in this field often because it is difficult to test with proper controls.

Legitimacy? If you mean scientific verifiability, from what "legitimacy" do your conclusions about the history of gender dynamics arise? That is, why do you think it scientific and rational to default to a narrative rooted in ideologically sacred premises, until an alternative view that makes more holistic sense of historical events can prove its absolute veracity scientifically? Do you see why I view your charge of cherry-picking and simplisticness to be ironic? Please tell me: in what "science" are you anchoring your history to explain gender-based motivations and behavior? If your answer is traditional gender-studies "common sense," what "science" is that common sense rooted in?

The "reductionism" charge is a strawman invoked by feminists all the time to reject the elephant in the room that innate aspects of our natures heavily influence how we behave, and to cling to the notion that gender is completely a social construct. No, Evo will never be able to "prove" its conclusions like physics can, but the reason for this is not what you claim. The reason is simply that "hard sciences" like physics are physical sciences, and their conclusions can be proven via observable manifestations. Among scientists, feminist theory is laughable because of the latter's insistence on rejecting science that does not reinforce what they want to believe; as such, regurgitating feminist views of social reality and history is as far from detached scientificity as you can get.

You also hold up men's actions during war as a big part of this male disposability theory, but ignore the fact that war generally kills more civilians then soldiers, which obviously is going to include more women than men during any war with a draft.

Please provide evidence for this assertion. I've heard it before, and I've seen it dissected and shot down as well. I'd love to unpack this claim further. I think it will prove an excellent vehicle for demonstrating my point about male disposability.

Anyway, even assuming it's true that " war generally kills more civilians then soldiers," you seem to think this proves more than it does. As another poster has observed, who do societies SEND off to war: that is, who do they TREAT as disposable? Men. The issue here is how societies are predisposed to perceive the value of men, and how that predisposition determines how it approaches male suffering in other contexts. That is what animates my notion of male disposability; as such, it matters not whether a lot of women are incidentally killed during war.

Indeed, that such incidental deaths are considered unacceptable relative to the deaths of young men with rifles shoved into their hands is reflected in, for example, the Geneva Conventions, which are meant, among other things, to codify the value common to all societies that women and children should not have to suffer from war as much as they often do. This is why the indiscriminate targeting of civilians is considered a war crime.

You could argue women were used as a propaganda tool for those in power (who were men) to motivate the population.

Yes! You could indeed argue that; in fact, I will argue that wholeheartedly. Why? Because it helps prove my point. What can motivate men to fight more than telling them that their women are in danger? Hardly nothing. Why? Because the instinct to protect women is an immensely power one for men (and women). It's a great way to manipulate them; to accept their roles of disposability, but garnish it with exalted concepts like "heroism," "chivalrousness," and "dutifulness." I will admit, we can be extremely stupid.

I am also pretty sure that women have only outpaced men in graduating from higher Ed in the last few years,

Apparently that's not true; but more to the point, why would it matter even if it were true?

and we are underrepresented in higher offices and upper management positions still, and probably will be for the rest of my lifetime.

And? What are the reasons for this? And how is it relevant? Are we taking the on-ramp onto the "having it all" highway here? Because I'm happy to take that ride if you'd like.

Women and children first is a myth. If you look up statistics of who survived big disasters, especially on ships, you'll see that when things get bad it's usually the fittest who survive, which means the strongest men.

It seems you're just repeating fashionable feminist memes. "Women and children first" played out on the Titanic, the Costa Concordia, and the with regard to the Miracle on the Hudson plane crash, as just a few examples. More importantly, it plays out in almost every context in the human experience where resources, empathy, and basic safety must be doled out between the sexes. "Women and children first" is everywhere we look, if we take it to mean who is cared for an valued more by society.

You are taking facts out of context to support your theory here, but the story is more nuanced than you make it seem. . . . You point out men are more likely to be victims of violent crime, but you neglect to mention this is only by 3% or so, neglect to mention women are far more likely to be raped even after taking prison populations into account, and what activities you engage in greatly affects you chances of being a victim if violent crime. More men than women are drug dealers or gang members, women are more likely to be a victim of someone they knew than amen.

But it's based on a cherry picked set of facts and a simplistic view of history.

Again, the nuance/context/cherry-picking point in strange, as it appears that is the very problem with your arguments. Indeed, your arguments are pregnant with male disposability as a background premise, but you seem to be unaware of it.

Take your arguments with regard to violent crime:

[W]hat activities you engage in greatly affects you chances of being a victim if violent crime. More men than women are drug dealers or gang members

What is the point of this? Is the argument that, because men are responsible via their choices for putting into motion the series of events that culminate in their victimization, that means their victimization does not really "count"? That it's somehow different? If such choices really matter, do you see the irony in your next move?:

[Y]ou neglect to mention women are far more likely to be raped even after taking prison populations into account, and . . . women are more likely to be a victim of someone they knew than amen.

So, rape and domestic violence. What choices do women make that lead to these problems for them? For example, what about the apparently contextually relevant facts that women initiate and cause domestic violence as often as men do? That is, at the very least, they often make "choices" that put into motion events that culminate in their alleged victimization.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

Regarding rape, what about the fact, verified by studies, that women often intentionally send conflicting sexual signals, which, as the researchers discuss, contributes to the problem of rape?

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/54/5/872/

Are not the "choices" women make in these contexts "nuances" you think are necessary for a dexterous understanding of these problems? But what do we call it when one focuses on the degree to which problematic behavior by women causes some of their problems?: that's right, "blaming the victim." But isn't that precisely what you're doing here with regard to men and violent crime?

And here we have a beautiful example of male disposability in action, as well as a great illustration of how feminists are so blissfully unaware of it white at once so obviously reflecting it in their thinking. It's a background unconscious force that perverts our empathy levels depending on what sex the victims are. When the victims are women, we choose to ignore their culpability so we can indulge our urge to hyper-empathize and emphasize the tragedy that is their suffering, unadulterated by pesky concepts like personal responsibility. When men are the victims, . . . well . . . that's different.

Thank you for proving my point.

HoopyFreud · 2013-01-01T21:26:57+00:00

The word "patriarchy" gets my goat too.

"Male hegemony" would be at least somewhat accurate, even though it neglects all of the men who have been disadvantaged compared to the higher echelons of society - historically, at least half.

The historical background for the oppression of men is a complicated one, because men have historically occupied the positions of greatest and least power in society; they either gave the orders, or they served as the most disposable members. It's an oppression sandwich, which makes the case of male oppression fundamentally different from the oppression of women. Whereas women were disadvantaged as a homogeneous group, with the exception of a few members who wielded monarchic or (at least) aristocratic power without a husband (such as the Queen of England), men were generally split into two major camps: those who wielded the power and those who did not.

Patriarchy theory comes in many flavors; it's not a word that means the same thing when two different people say it. Some use it to refer to the system under which a class of men wielded virtually all of the political and governmental power, while some use it to refer to a system under which everything masculine oppresses everything feminine by its very nature. I've found that it's good to ask how the person is using it, and then present them with the opposite usage case if the person is one of the rational ones. Ask them to use a different word, since "patriarchy" carries a lot of baggage and is easy to misinterpret.

CaptainVanderdecken · 2013-01-02T00:56:18+00:00

The Patriarchy only exists because the Illuminati supports it. The Illuminati is simply a cover for the Ancient Aliens who actually run the show. It was on the History Channel after the show about Jesus Christ appearing on potato chips worldwide.

blueoak9 · 2013-01-01T20:13:00+00:00

If feminists accept "matriarchy" as a term to describe social systems of physical and emotional child abuse, of fatherlessness and the social decay that results for it - extraordinary incarceration rates, lower school achievement and all the rest, for a system of male disposability, exclusion from familiy life and access to housing and exploitation through gender role expectations, then maybe, just maybe, I'll consider "patriarchy" acceptable. I said, consider, not accpet.

Thomp89 · 2013-01-01T19:00:37+00:00

Thanks for linking to this :) I hope she answers you

MaunaLoona · 2013-01-01T21:17:51+00:00

Thanks, this is excellent.

rightsbot · 2013-01-01T18:10:19+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

iongantas · 2013-01-01T22:00:23+00:00

Patriarchy is generally stated as rule by men for men. This is really just a projection on the part of feminists, as females are much more inclined than males to do things on behalf of their own sex. Men do not tend to particularly do things just for the sake of men.

Ted8367 · 2013-01-01T22:46:38+00:00

Your single post

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/15ld8w/bbc_news_delhi_gangrape_victim_dies_in_hospital/c7p963t

is the best explanation of the MRA position that I've seen.

Darth-Glory · 2013-01-01T23:23:32+00:00

It is unlikely that you will change her thoughts on the issue but well written and logical responses like yours are what will inform the people that don't know much about the issues. Thank you for the link.

CosmicKeys · 2013-01-01T23:44:34+00:00

Excellent post. One of the common arguments I see as this person makes is trying to conflate and compare race and gender, where minorities and females are the victims. On the surface it appears to them to be a valid comparison, but the bottom line (among many other points) is that females are not a minority, and the difference between sexes is real and obvious.

Canadian4Paul · 2013-01-02T18:05:25+00:00

Girlwriteswhat even weighed in. Her response was fabulous:

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/15ld8w/bbc_news_delhi_gangrape_victim_dies_in_hospital/c7pnbb8

blueoak9 · 2013-01-01T19:29:01+00:00

That condescending cow.

2013-01-01T22:18:32+00:00

Ugh... I remember this same feminist from the financial abortion thread. She's incorrigible.

ManUpManDown · 2013-01-02T00:26:27+00:00

Wait... did you mention something about a free lunch?

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-01-02T19:59:05+00:00

For me it's irritating because it has this tiny kernel of truth to it that lends it legitimacy: most politicians and CEOs are men.

That makes it particularly pernicious because they will throw that back at you every time you point out that these people are making laws/decisions to benefit themselves (which for a myriad of reasons typically means benefiting women) not for their gender. And that for every male CEO there are many more homeless men going without any sort of social support (and prisoners and so on).

So yes, the patriarchy is real if you designate it as simple "more men than women in top positions". However if you consider the patriarchy as something that benefits men over women in general no, such a thing has never existed.

ManUpManDown · 2013-01-02T00:32:48+00:00

Do you realize how insane you sound when you use the term patriarchy? It's a giant red flag that you can't deal with reality and your own shortcomings, but need to blame someone/anyone. (BTW this blame stuff is one of the tells cops use to figure out who's lying and who's the criminal.) You might as well put tinfoil on your head and complain about microwaves from the illuminati.

Use of the term 'patriarchy' prevents anyone from taking you seriously. In fact, I doubt that you even HAVE a goat.

Title	Why "Patriarchy" Gets Our Goats
Author	ManUpManDown
Upvotes	44
Comments	48
Date	January 1, 2013 5:43 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/15s0fi/why-patriarchy-gets-our-goats/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-patriarchy-gets-our-goats.1603069 https://theredarchive.com/post/1603069

Comments