Analysing feminist rhetoric: The hypocrisy of the "patriarchy that hurts men too."

a-man-from-earth · 2023-02-18T11:02:43+00:00

continue here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/115b5he/analysing_feminist_rhetoric_the_hypocrisy_of_the/

strobro · 2023-02-17T16:04:54+00:00

To me it just comes off as a victim blame. Reducing all male issues to essentially "friendly fire."

Doesn't matter if the victims and perpetrators of male issues are different people, or if the perpetrators are in fact female. "We live in a patriarchy, and as a man you are part of patriarchy, so any problems you have are actually your fault, and women shouldn't have to clean up your mess."

It's a way to disingenuously acknowledge the issues without actually having to care or do anything to help.

Cold_Conversation_51 · 2023-02-17T14:46:01+00:00

If they actually believed that, they would stop using gendered insults to shame men into agreeing with them. Just sayin’

Alataire · 2023-02-17T15:25:28+00:00

The normal motte and bailey argument is that the patriarchy benefits a small minority of men in power, while the way it is most often used by feminists is that it benefits all men. Which is the way they operate too, everything for the benefit of women, and then sometimes argue that it benefits men too. Not uncommonly in a ridiculously convoluted way.

matrixislife · 2023-02-17T17:39:01+00:00

I find that quote from the Swedish minister interesting:

“The education system should open doors — not slam them in the face of motivated young women,”

That tacitly acknowledges that previous affirmative action had the effect of slamming doors in the faces of motivated young men.

Rob6-4 · 2023-02-17T14:33:57+00:00

Those articles are exceptionally migrane inducing. None of those people deserve positions of authority. I appreciate you doing this op, this stuff really shouldn't be flying under the radar as much as it does.

JacobYou · 2023-02-17T12:19:04+00:00

The concept of the patriarchy sounds like a conspiracy especially with all the brain washing and control they claim it has.

International_Crew89 · 2023-02-18T02:33:17+00:00

I sense a whiff of classism inherent in this whole "patriarchy hurts men too" sentiment, in the sense that if "patraiarchy" hurts men too, then who the fuck is benefitting? Rich men. So is the issue really men? Or is it actually (and always has been) more an issue of power structures that depend far more on wealth than gender; As time goes on and gender equality increases at all levels of the socio-economic spectrum, are we not encountering evidence that wealthy women in positions of power can be just as corrupt, manipulative and dismissive of issues faced by the greater population as men can be? There's even plenty of evidence of this going back to ancient times when certain women DID overcome very real patriarchal obstacles.

Souppilgrim · 2023-02-17T18:01:48+00:00

The "quit hitting yourself" of bullies when victim blaming.

blaizken_420 · 2023-02-17T17:09:25+00:00

They say it so they can pretend to care. It is really just a tactic to de-legitimize men's movements by falsely absorbing their platforms into feminist ones.

No-Ad-5825 · 2023-02-17T11:01:02+00:00

This is a draft any thoughts are very much appreciated.

Professional-You2968 · 2023-02-17T13:50:15+00:00

It's a conspiracy theory. We need to dismantle feminism.

rbrockway · 2023-02-17T23:31:03+00:00

Any Patriarchy that did not benefit men would be, by definition, dysfunctional. Feminists actually argue that we live in a dysfunctional Patriarchy. That's how low their opinion of men is.

Intrepid_Performer52 · 2023-02-18T02:00:17+00:00

If the patriarchy is damaging to men, why did men create it the first place?

National-Ostrich-608 · 2023-02-18T06:57:40+00:00

Imagine claiming that all men's problems result from the patriarchy and yet decrying all other view points as lacking in nuance.

Vattier · 2023-02-18T05:14:10+00:00

What the fuck is this thread.

Someone said this was "a better version of /r/menslib",

and this is the top thread? In "leftwingmaleadvocates"? this couldve been copypasted from any conservative "lets ban abortion/put them in their place" type thinktank.

Anyway, to actually respond to op. Since it's "a draft" and you welcome criticism - spell check your essay. oxymoronic, pervasive, documented, unceremoniously, dissipated, exasperated, punctuation in general, too much repetition, no actual structured criticism/argument, trying to fit far too much into one essay.

As far as terminology is concerned -

Patriarchy is not "a system build by men for all men", it simply describes a system in which men traditionally, systematically hold positions of power (over women (& other men)). That does not mean "all men benefit" (simple historical example - firstborn son vs secondborn, who gets inheritance, best education etc. // or just the namesake - the pater familias as the authority in roman families, other men obey too)), theres nothing oxymoronic or hypocritical here. "hot ice" is an oxymoron, "not all men benefit from patriarchy" is not.

Toxic masculinity (just adding this here as it seems to be a common topic in these spaces,you seem to disagree with it & its an adjacent issue) refers to "traditional" masculininity excluding/punishing those who do not conform. Queer men being seen as "lesser", men who are not assertive, domineering, physically strong being seen as "weak" (ever looked in a mirror and thought you needed more muscle to be "manlier"/felt less manly due to lack of muscle?). Or something abstract as "men must be self-reliant" leading to men feeling less connection to others. "toxic masculinity" isnt saying that all men/masculine traits are toxic. It can be enforced by both men and women (example:"unrealistic body standards" go both ways). and to preempt the inevitable - yes, toxic femininity exists too - think of girls/women bullying another for being boyish, small breasts, short/no hair, "male" hobby, no children, not a housewife etc.

In general - there will always be some people saying dumb shit, in every movement, every ideology, every position of power up and down the hierarchy. Using those people to argue your points doesnt help anyone, you just look like youre desperately cherrypicking to craft a narrative. Noone cares about a random <5% political party in sweden, the leader (the one you quote) stepped down 4 years ago and isnt even in that party anymore. They clearly dont represent a majority opinion.

This is not "highlighting mens issues", just pointing at a few "bad feminists" (do you honestly think that "a man tax" is something a relevant % of feminists want?), and that wont ever achieve anything.

Ending it with "this is just the tip of an iceberg of lies, fraud and deception" just makes you sound like an aliens nut (think of the history channel guy, but replace aliens with women).

If there is a "big iceberg of lies, fraud, a history of genuine good faith attempts at "creating equality" from mens rights groups being thwarted" - why not show it?

edit: "to refute the belief that the "patriarchy hurts men too" it is important to understand that some problems that men face are not caused by feminists" - If theyre not caused, but merely amplified by feminists... shouldnt you think about the actual cause?

rumpots420 · 2023-02-17T19:31:50+00:00

I've also often been confused by this

Title	Analysing feminist rhetoric: The hypocrisy of the "patriarchy that hurts men too."
Author	No-Ad-5825
Upvotes	131
Comments	44
Date	February 17, 2023 10:52 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/114hci1/analysing_feminist_rhetoric_the_hypocrisy_of_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/analysing-feminist-rhetoric-the-hypocrisy-of-the.1152350 https://theredarchive.com/post/1152350

Comments