A case study on gyncentrism | PurplePillDebate

wazzup987 · 2016-04-11T11:40:10+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5XmKT48UZk A case study on gynocentrism Essentially to bolster the victim cred in a hypothetical scenario cenk of tyt fame...

[–]orangorilla2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's like when feminists try to use patriarchy as an argument but they have little evidence that men are having it better. People don't see society as a patriarchy. They see it as something that is rather mean to everyone, but the patriarchy is a lovely straw...I mean boogeyman for them to target while gaining more power out of the deal.

Actually, what's been happening is the suffering of men has gone pretty much unnoticed or it receives little attention. They don't cry about gynocentrism because it comes across as weak. Anyone pointing out that this is how things are is usually reminded about how bad women have had it and how unfair society is towards women, despite it screwing men as well (and usually worse). Being shamed into silence is a common tactic by those supporting gynocentrism, whether they do so blatantly or implicitly.

When they do admit men are struggling, feminists will usually try to frame it in a way so that they can highlight how it affects women. Such as Hillary Clinton's remark that women are the primary victims of war when the men are the ones being injured and killed. Men's issues are usually framed with women in mind, such as "Fewer men are getting college degrees. How does this impact women?" so it is tough to get the conversation to a place that actually tries to solve the problems for men without the influence of women or their concerns.

[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alcockell0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockington1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rulenumber3031 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wub12342 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wub12340 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We don't live in a patriarchy now, it was reasonable to say that we lived in a patriarchy in the past when women had seriously reduced human rights and this was advocated by the men who held all of the power. That society was still a plutocracy as well, so I agree with you that it's not an entirely either / or situation.

But I think you would be rather naive to believe that you will have more power and social influence as a woman in this society than as an extremely wealthy individual. Therefore, I cannot agree that the society fits the description of 'gynocentric'. I do agree that men's problems are not taken as seriously, I posted an OP about this recently. But primarily we are ruled by the rich and society is organised in favour of the wealthy and capital, not in favour of women.

In answer to your question, I would certainly disagree with a feminist who stated that we live in a patriarchy today. But at the same time I do think that RPers overlook many of the difficulties that women face in our society, much as many feminists, though not all, overlook the problems that men face.

[–]czerdec-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]wub12340 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]UberBluntCruising 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wub12340 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]UberBluntCruising 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hedonism_bot_69"Human life must be some kind of mistake" Schopenhauer0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wub12340 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hedonism_bot_69"Human life must be some kind of mistake" Schopenhauer0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Transmigratory0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]samerica514Non-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You say women's pain is cared about more than men's pain. I agree. But why do you suppose that is? Is it, as you seem to be implying, that society inherently values women more? I think there's a shocking lack of evidence for that proposition in the historical record. As some MRAs are wont to point out, most of the politicians, philosophers, generals, writers, poets, scientists, religious leaders, etc. that have had a large impact on Western culture have been men. Why then would the society largely shaped by these men inherently reject the importance of men?

A much more likely explanation is that society cares more about women's pain because society sees women as inherently weaker and thus A) more susceptible to pain (although scientific evidence bears out just the opposite conclusion), and B) more deserving of care and attention when they are hurt.

For some reason, opponents of feminism and feminist theory seem to think that cultural artifacts like "patriarchy" must be "all-or-nothing:" either they always directly benefit men, or they weren't created to benefit men. But even the greater solicitude for the pain of women indirectly benefits men, because it enhances the societal image of men as independent, powerful, stoic, etc.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You say women's pain is cared about more than men's pain. I agree. But why do you suppose that is? Is it, as you seem to be implying, that society inherently values women more? I think there's a shocking lack of evidence for that proposition in the historical record. As some MRAs are wont to point out, most of the politicians, philosophers, generals, writers, poets, scientists, religious leaders, etc. that have had a large impact on Western culture have been men. Why then would the society largely shaped by these men inherently reject the importance of men?

To paraphrase Warren Farrell, men are valued for their doings, not for their beings, otherwise they are disposable and of no interest to anyone. This is the very definition of the objectification feminists talk about, although they neglected to include men in that definition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA0i50zxqPI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

A much more likely explanation is that society cares more about women's pain because society sees women as inherently weaker and thus A) more susceptible to pain (although scientific evidence bears out just the opposite conclusion), and B) more deserving of care and attention when they are hurt.

Women are valued for just being and are protected due to their child bearing abilities, their greater vulnerability and their more pronounced neotenic features.

For some reason, opponents of feminism and feminist theory seem to think that cultural artifacts like "patriarchy" must be "all-or-nothing:" either they always directly benefit men, or they weren't created to benefit men. But even the greater solicitude for the pain of women indirectly benefits men, because it enhances the societal image of men as independent, powerful, stoic, etc.

I'm a critic of feminist theory, but am not quite sure what you mean in reference to critics thinking "patriarchy" as all or nothing. The world is complex, nothing is all or nothing.

The greater solicitude for the pain of women directly benefits women and puts men at a disadvantage, more than it benefits men in any way, if it benefits them at all. A big reason why feminism has progressed so much is because it has played-up the hyper-agency of men and the hypo-agency of women with the fabricated narrative that men are evil perpetrators and women are their innocent victims. In the West, men and society have bent over backwards trying to give feminists what they have asked for, largely because of this.

[–]samerica514Non-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

In the West, men and society have bent over backwards trying to give feminists what they have asked for...

That position simply isn't supportable from the historical record. Women's demands, just or no, have often been met with vehement resistance. If men have always been "bending over backwards" to give women what they want, why did the Women's Suffrage movement need to exist for over half a century before women got the right to vote? This simply isn't a tenable position.

[M]en are valued for their doings, not for their beings, otherwise they are disposable and of no interest to anyone..."

By whom? Who views men this way? With all due respect to Mr. Farrell, it seems like he's just misstating the idea that men value each other on individual merit, and women based on their ability to sexually satisfy them/bear their children. I don't see any support for the proposition that women, or society, or whomever measures men against some kind of objective standard of what they've "done." It seems that even TRP admits that women often place enormous value on men who haven't done anything, based solely on looks. If this is really only about men, then maybe we need to be more introspective about how we treat each other, rather than blaming "society."

Women are valued for just being and are protected due to their child bearing abilities, their greater vulnerability and their more pronounced neotenic features.

That's not inconsistent with what I've said. Again, this is from a male perspective. If men view women in a shitty way that gives women some kind of advantage (according to you), then maybe men themselves are to blame.

I'm a critic of feminist theory, but am not quite sure what you mean in reference to critics thinking "patriarchy" as all or nothing. The world is complex, nothing is all or nothing...The greater solicitude for the pain of women directly benefits women and puts men at a disadvantage, more than it benefits men in any way, if it benefits them at all.

This is what I mean by "all-or-nothing." To put my point a different way, I think the greater solicitude for women's pain is part of a narrative that men are strong, independent, etc. If men are universally these things, then it simply isn't as big of an issue if a man is in pain, since he's capable of taking care of himself. Clearly, the fact that people don't care as much about his pain doesn't benefit the man directly, but it does benefit him indirectly in the sense that it contributes to the narrative that he is inherently capable and powerful. That may be of little immediate concern to a man who's in pain, but it doesn't mean that the benefit is less significant or "washed out" by the detriment.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

That position simply isn't supportable from the historical record. Women's demands, just or no, have often been met with vehement resistance. If men have always been "bending over backwards" to give women what they want, why did the Women's Suffrage movement need to exist for over half a century before women got the right to vote? This simply isn't a tenable position.

I didn’t use the word “always” or “women”. I specifically said feminists. Feminism started in the 19th century with the first wave demand for suffrage. They got it, despite it not being tied to the draft like it was for men. They wanted property rights, they got them. The second wave from the 1960s had a broader range of legal demands, most all of which they have gotten:

Equality acts of various kinds (work, education, pay, consumer, public services etc.
Reproduction rights (abortion, birth control, FGM banning, healthcare and education etc.).
Specific protection for women against domestic violence (Duluth, VAWA etc.).
Specific protection for women against rape (VAWA, FBI penetration standard, marital rape laws etc.).
Preferential treatment in child custody decisions (Tender Years Doctrine etc.)
Sexual harassment legislation and protocols of various kinds
The list goes on

Third wave feminism is all over the place ideologically, but they mainly cover the same issues. The legal battle has been won. Problem for them is that in free societies, legal provisions can only go so far, so they try to shape society according to their jumbled preferences by shaping the Zeitgeist. If you look at mainstream culture today, it is heavily gynocentric in outlook, especially the press, although now there is an emerging backlash.

By whom? Who views men this way? With all due respect to Mr. Farrell, it seems like he's just misstating the idea that men value each other on individual merit, and women based on their ability to sexually satisfy them/bear their children. I don't see any support for the proposition that women, or society, or whomever measures men against some kind of objective standard of what they've "done." It seems that even TRP admits that women often place enormous value on men who haven't done anything, based solely on looks. If this is really only about men, then maybe we need to be more introspective about how we treat each other, rather than blaming "society."

By society at large. Men and women. We see it in the way that the average man is treated and neglected. The way we try to silence people who highlight the unequal treatment of men. The way men have been conscripted to fight and die in wars, the way society laughs at men being raped in prison or having their genitalia mutilated, the way high male suicide rates and workplace death rates are neglected, the fact that over 80% of the homeless are men, the way men get disproportionately harsher treatment by the criminal justice system and the family courts, the way society neglects boys and men failing and dropping out of education etc.

Also, the idea is not that men value each other on individual merit, it’s that men are valued as utilities, be it as soldiers, cheap labour, providers etc., to be discarded after they are of no use. This is part of what has come to be known as male disposability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

The evidence actually shows that men have a preferential bias in favour of women, not men. Women also prefer women to men.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

That's not inconsistent with what I've said. Again, this is from a male perspective. If men view women in a shitty way that gives women some kind of advantage (according to you), then maybe men themselves are to blame.

How is what I said viewing “women in a shitty way”? It is a natural outgrowth of our evolutionary history and also affects the way women, as a group, relate to men and women.

This is what I mean by "all-or-nothing." To put my point a different way, I think the greater solicitude for women's pain is part of a narrative that men are strong, independent, etc. If men are universally these things, then it simply isn't as big of an issue if a man is in pain, since he's capable of taking care of himself. Clearly, the fact that people don't care as much about his pain doesn't benefit the man directly, but it does benefit him indirectly in the sense that it contributes to the narrative that he is inherently capable and powerful. That may be of little immediate concern to a man who's in pain, but it doesn't mean that the benefit is less significant or "washed out" by the detriment.

I addressed this. I was referring to your “all-or-nothing” claim in relation to a critic’s understanding of “patriarchy”, although I think I see what you were trying to say now. To which I reply, critics of feminism generally understand that the world is complex. In fact, one of their main criticism of feminism is its black and white portrayal of male and female relations as the oppression of women by men. Critics say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth, which does not account for the considerable suffering men have had to endure and the privileges women have enjoyed over men. A large part of the criticism directed at feminism is due to its biased, lopsided, incomplete and distorted account of the historical record. Criticism is largely designed to fill in the holes and correct the falsehoods, not necessarily to present its own complete account.

On your other point, the fact that men are stronger than women is, again, an outgrowth of our evolutionary history. While it does provide some benefits, it has also come with burdens and responsibilities, some of which have been catastrophic for men. On balance, men have had it no better than women. Each has had their crosses to bear in different ways. This was the inspiration behind 'The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell, and is something feminism routinely misses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Male_Power

Despite men’s greater strength, the bottom line is that they are still just flesh and blood who are vulnerable to the elements, the violence of the state and the nefarious and exploitative intent of others.

[–]samerica514Non-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I think I can address substantially all your points at once; so, in the interest of brevity I'm going to try to do so, other than to address specifically one particularly dubious claim about voting and the draft at the end. If there's anything else you think merits individual attention, let me know.

Anyway, it's uncontroversial and, probably, incontrovertible that society operates on a double standard: it views and consequently treats men and women differently. I hope that it will also be uncontroversial that this double standard operates based on stereotypes: certain traits and roles are assigned to each gender, and society draws all kinds of conclusions about groups and individuals and their place in society based on these potentially inapplicable stereotypes. As you've admitted, these stereotypes are essentially double-edged: they provide both benefits and detriments.

Nevertheless, although you've admitted that the stereotypes governing society's perception and treatment of men (and women) are double-edged, you focus almost exclusively on A) beneficial effects of certain stereotypes for women, and B) detrimental effects of other stereotypes for men. A lot of these issues are real, but your analysis is essentially small-picture.

For example, you briefly mentioned that society largely ignores and even ridicules male victims of rape/sexual assault. That's true, and a problem that even many feminists have recognized. I'm arguing that this is an outgrowth of the stereotypical view of men as strong, independent, competent, protectors, and sexual actors. I don't think that even you will deny that all of those stereotypes are positive things. Those presumptions about men help men everywhere in society, every day. However, in this instance, lots of men are being hurt in very significant ways because they are running up against the stereotypes. Since men are supposed to be sexual actors, a man who was sexually acted upon (i.e., raped) must be something less than a man. This is totally tragic, but it doesn't change the fact that the stereotypes that damage these men are essentially positive in nature.

It also doesn't change the fact that most of the benefits to women you and others talk about are based on essentially negative stereotypes. Women aren't required to register for the draft and aren't expected to fight in war because women are stereotypically weak and passive. As history has shown, societies that have felt particular need have drafted women (e.g., Soviet Union in WWII, Israel today), but women are typically seen as poor draftees (because they are stereotypically incompetent soldiers). Hence, many societies usually see no need to put them to the draft.

None of this comes anywhere near being evidence, let alone proof, of "gynocracy" or even a societal preference for women. We absolutely have our own crosses to bear; I thought that was well put (and not something I consider typical of MRM thought, though I could be wrong). But the idea that men have it no better than women, even just in 2016, is simply not a necessary conclusion of your evidence.

Indeed, as the MRM loves to point out, the vast majority of politicians, generals, philosophers, writers, etc. that have shaped the course of Western society have been men. As our own Supreme Court has said (and I'm paraphrasing), "the majority doesn't discriminate against itself."

Women spent a long time as second class citizens, without the legal rights and privileges of men. Of course, this also absolved them from some social responsibilities, but on balance they were clearly worse off than men. Women spent over 100 years fighting as a cohesive movement to be citizens on the same basis as men, and have largely achieved that goal. But every gain for women has eliminated a corresponding unfair advantage for men, and as such men are seeing their balance decrease while women's is increasing. That does not mean that women have achieved equality with men, let alone that men have it worse off.

Nor are these stereotypes "natural outgrowth[s] of our evolutionary history," despite being rooted in evolutionary differences between men and women. In fact, I'm a bit of a history buff, and my view is that "primitive" societies were and are essentially egalitarian, and social "progress" led to more and more social stratification, with women, ethnic minorities, and the poor losing more and more power in society in a trend that didn't really reverse until the Enlightenment. As such, our social stereotypes aren't inherently natural; instead, they're the artificial result of an accumulation of male social power over hundreds of years.

Now, to the one claim I wanted to address specifically. It was:

They got [the right to vote], despite it not being tied to the draft like it was for men. The right to vote is not in any way tied to the draft. The draft didn't even exist when men gained the right to vote, and so they couldn't have been linked.The extensive historical record surrounding the Founding and the Constitution doesn't evidence any intent by the Founders to make the right to vote dependent on draft registration. Further, the Draft has been abolished before, without men losing the right to vote. And, although not registering for the Draft leads to criminal penalties, losing the right to vote is not one of them.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Differences in treatment do not have to be motivated by stereotypes. For example, ridiculing a man for having his penis cut off by a woman is just pure lack of empathy and even animosity. It does not suggest motivation due to people seeing men as strong and independent. No man, no matter how strong and independent, is going to be able to shrug that off. Similarly, a man being ridiculed for being raped has nothing to do with being seen as less than a man. I would say a stronger cause of such attitudes is the demonization and disparagement of men, due to fabricated narratives about male wickedness and oppression. Subsequently, you hear women say things like, “serves him right” or “he probably deserved it”, when men are victims of violence at the hands of women or in prison. People have less sympathy for people or groups they associate with misdeeds. There can be a whole range of reasons for different treatment that has nothing to do with stereotypes, particularly with so called positive stereotypes of men and negative stereotypes of women.

My post was hardly an effort to prove gynocentricism. I was merely stating its existence, in the same way you merely state sexism towards men is the result of positive stereotypes about men and negative ones about women. I’m sure both of us have better things to do than go through all the arguments here. Certainly, I’m merely here to point out the counter arguments, not to convince you. Others are free to look into it further if they wish. This is the internet after all. There is a lot of information out there.

A majority probably would not knowingly discriminate against itself if it had any power. The point is that, historically, the majority hasn’t had much power. Small privileged elites have held power, not most men. This elite has not sought to treat the male population any better than women, just because most of them happen to be men. They have sought to accumulate wealth and power, nonchalantly using and disposing of men. As I said before, men do not tend to favour their own gender in the way that women do.

Why do women like women more than men like men?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

I disagree that favourable attitudes that benefit women are based on negative stereotypes. Notions of women being kinder, more nurturing, more moral, more pleasant etc., are not negative traits and probably have something to do with their nurturing role as child bearers and lower comparative levels of aggression. Women also tend to look cuter than men (neotany), which in itself may inspire greater sympathy. Women are physically more vulnerable than men, which makes society want to protect them more. This is not a negative stereotype, just a biological fact. As products of evolution, there are also probably a range of evolutionary factors involved that we do not fully grasp yet. So a lot is going on, which is why it is important to be humble in what we think we know. In any case, there is nothing necessarily nefarious in kinder attitudes toward women.

Again, women did not have it quantifiably worse than men. Life was just different back then, with the separate gender roles. It was simply a division of labour and an arrangement for that time which each generation was born into. No one controlled it. It was just how society had emerged over the years. When some women began to ask for changes, they got them fairly rapidly, despite everyone’s immersion in the contrary prevailing culture. From where women were in the 19th century and the 1960s, the change has been swift and dramatic as far as social movements are concerned.

If anything is artificial, it is the heavy social engineering experiments being attempted in the West to enforce equality of outcome between men and women. With the Gender Equality Paradox, we can see that even in the most feminist countries (Norway), such artificial efforts are not producing the anticipated results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs

As for “primitive” societies, the fact is that there are biological differences between men and women. Women being able to bear children, alone, is going to have an impact on the division of labour, as is the greater strength of men. This is probably going to be especially pronounced in “primitive” societies, without all the modern conveniences. I don’t know what egalitarian means in this context, but it certainly does not mean men and women having to do the exact same things. Nevertheless, people can be both equal and different, so having an egalitarian society does not preclude different tendencies between the sexes, as we see in Norway today. In any case, there is no conclusive evidence about “primitive” societies, so it’s all moot.

Regarding the vote, I was referring to the franchise in the UK, where men over 21 were given the vote as a reward for fighting in World War I, for which they had been subjected to conscription. Prior to that, only about half the adult male population had the vote, due to property qualifications. 10 years later, the franchise was extended to women over 21 also.

A similar thing happened in the United States in the 1960s, where the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, to ensure that the 18 year-old young men being drafted to fight and die in Vietnam, had the right to vote for leaders with the power to send them to war. Naturally, 18 year-old women also got the vote on the back of this.

[–]samerica514Non-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

A similar thing happened in the United States in the 1960s, where the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, to ensure that the 18 year-old young men being drafted to fight and die in Vietnam, had the right to vote for leaders with the power to send them to war. Naturally, 18 year-old women also got the vote on the back of this.

But you realize this does not in any way mean that the right to vote is linked to the draft, right? The fact that the draft was one of the motivations to change the age at which voting becomes a right does not establish such a link. When you say "the right to vote is linked to the draft," that implies something like that the franchise is given in order to make sure possible draftees don't get shipped off for a bad cause. That certainly is a great thing, but the right to vote is a fundamental civil liberty that lies at the foundation of the democratic system. It is about a lot more than the draft, and so your statement was unfounded.

But that's just one point. Look, I understand some of the frustration you seem to be experiencing. Society is generally less sympathetic to men in some contexts. I have no idea what you are referring to in terms of people's penises being cut off, but I sympathize that you don't really believe that this lack of sympathy comes from a positive stereotype. But it does, even if it certainly not so simple as an actual thought process of "well, he's a man, and men are strong, so I don't care his penis was cut off."

Stereotypes operate below the conscious level. We don't consciously view people as a collection of stereotypes, in fact, we often think of individual people in ways that defy stereotypes. After all, many men are demonstrably weak, and many women are demonstrably strong, for example. But the parts of the whole composite image of an individual that we don't personally have knowledge of are usually filled in by stereotypes. If I showed you a picture of a man and one of a woman, and asked you which one knew more about cars, you and most other people (even feminists) would assume the man knew more, even though that may not be true.

Now, it may be a good time to point out that, as you've suggested, not all stereotypes are completely unjustified: men really are physically stronger than women on average, as a natural product of evolution. And there probably are a lot more men than women who know a lot about cars. Of course, I don't believe there's anything natural about the latter, but feel free to suggest something.

Stereotypes are facially neutral, and often have some basis in fact (although often they do not). The way that we use them can actually help us to operate in society and be productive. But they can be bad too. You may not know this, or may not care, but despite the fact that you seem to think society's drive to "protect" women is a universally positive thing, it has always coincided with a condescending and paternalistic attitude towards women where men feel the need to tell women how to think, act, live, etc. On the other hand, society is much less likely to second guess a man's life choices. We think he's got his shit figured out.

I mean, no offense, but if I were a woman, I'd probably feel pretty condescended too by the way you're talking about them. For example, the point you keep making about neotany. I'm sorry, I don't really think women look like children any more than men do, certainly not to any significant extent. Then again, I also have never heard a woman say "he got what he deserved" when he was raped in prison, so maybe we run in different circles.

Also "primitive" (emphasis on the quotes) societies are definitely not lost to history. There are several still existing today. And they are mentioned throughout recorded history. What I mean by "egalitarian" is that they are more equal in general, with fewer social divisions. That includes less social stratification between people in general, but also that gender roles are scaled down a lot from what developed in "civilized" society. You do indeed naturally see more men as hunters, since men are generally stronger, but a particularly strong woman would have no trouble becoming a hunter, because what's important is that the group needs food and she's capable. What I'm suggesting is that the idea that it's natural for there to be a certain barrier between men and women in society is not based on actual evolution, it "evolved" in society long after we had artificially constructed social stratification.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As I demonstrated, the vote was linked to the draft. The franchise expanded to all men over 21 in the UK because of their conscripted service in WWI. Also in Canada, the Military Voters Act gave voting rights to all Canadian soldiers, to sweeten the bitter conscription pill, again during WWI. It is this theme that motivated the US to lower the age of eligibility to 18, in recognition of the extra burden young men had imposed on them as draftees in Vietnam. So yes, expansion of the franchise, for men, was linked to the draft. All men in the West were not just given the vote because penis.

Your regurgitation of the timeworn and false radical feminist position that men’s challenges are a result of the oppression of women, is nothing less than I would expect from a committed feminist. Still, repeating it does not make it true, despite what Goebbels said. In any case, let’s just say we disagree on this idiocy.

Tangentially, ideas about positive and negative behavioural traits are not only subjective, but can be characterized as their binary counterpart, so the glass can be half full or half empty. Subsequently, the stage is set for the partisan, solipsistic, duplicitous, unproven, post-modern nonsense we see coming out of feminist theory. Sometimes it’s fun to engage, for sport, but typically it is not a useful use of one’s time.

Staunch feminists get offended by anything. The very existence of biology offends them, as does the application of reason, so it’s really meaningless to offend a feminist. Honestly, I don’t care if they would find my comments condescending. Perhaps they should protest the University of Chicago Press for daring to allow the publication of a paper, by Dr Douglas Jones, on how neotenic features in women might exert selection pressure.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/204427

I wouldn’t quite go as far as George Santayana in saying, “history is a pack of lies about events that never happened, told by people who weren't there”, but he’s close. Inevitably, there will be a lot of inaccuracies and false models created in the study of history, even with the highest methodological standards. Nevertheless, it is an important endeavour, but is not gospel truth and is best read judiciously.

We also have to be careful with what is reported about existing “primitive” cultures, given the cultural biases that dominate academia today. We all saw what happened with Margaret Mead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOCYhmnx6o8

Egalitarianism, in respect of these societies, is hard to judge and is pointless comparing with much bigger, more technologically advanced, more complex societies. Apples and oranges.

In any case, it’s not my position that there is a natural barrier between men and women. My position is that there are biological differences between men and women, which manifest themselves in society and which is okay. Of course, there is some crossover, but there are also separate and overwhelming tendencies. Feminists tend to hate such comments. Well tough, let them swim in my condescension. I support equal rights and opportunity for everyone, but reject these daffy feminist theories and their attempts to artificially navigate the choices people make.

[–]samerica514Non-Red Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ah, the true face of the MRM comes out. You all sure like to talk about how other people are easily offended, but I can't help but notice that you yourselves are set off by the littlest thing. I guess I should have included a trigger warning that opposing viewpoints would be present in my posts.

Firstly, you have not proven that the right to vote is linked to the draft. At BEST you have proven that 18-21 women got the right to vote for nothing. Of course, in the UK, the example of which you keep repeating as if, as Goebbels said, that would make it true, passed the "Representation of the People Act" in 1918, before it extended the right to vote to women. So that example doesn't actually prove anything. In the United States, whose legal tradition I am familiar with, your accusation is still baseless. The SCOTUS has affirmed that the right to vote is a fundamental precept of our system of governance, it's not predicated on anything except citizenship, majority, and past conduct (as in felons lose the franchise). Military service is not relevant.

You can go ahead and raid the thesaurus for SAT adjectives to mock "feminist theory," but your response is typical of why your side is losing this debate. Intelligent conversation about this scares you. You can rationalize all you want, call feminists stupid six ways to Sunday, but you can't change anything because your ass-backwards views on biology have been discredited for years.

No one's censoring you, it's just that no one outside your echo chamber is listening anymore.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	A case study on gyncentrism
Author	wazzup987
Upvotes	2
Comments	36
Date	April 11, 2016 11:40 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4eabwn/a_case_study_on_gyncentrism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/a-case-study-on-gyncentrism.275190 https://theredarchive.com/post/275190

Comments