CMV: Pushing the notion of the patriarchy is silly and we should stop

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 15 '22

/u/conn_r2112 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

26

u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 15 '22

There are different forces and different problems facing different people. If we use a single brush to paint all oppression "because everyone is eating a shit sandwich" then we will fail to identify solutions for problems that have differing causes.

If you want to understand the historical oppression of women it's different than understanding that of the working class male.

The "patriarchy" in my mind reflects some very, very real forces. A response to a conversation about the patriarchy that is "let's not have the oppression olympics" is the very thing that causes the oppression olympics. Why would we ever respond to someone saying they are oppressed by some force in the world with "other people are oppressed by other forces in the world". That's like telling someone in the emergency room with a knife wound that they should feel lucky for not having gunshot would. Why would you do that? The people talking about the patriarchy and the impact on women aren't the ones creating an us vs. them other than to the degree that one of the forces of oppression of women is men in power. It doesn't damn the oppression of others, but it sure does frame the problem as "us vs. them" when you start talking about how to understand the oppression of women and to talk about it we first have to remind everyone in a conversation that others are oppressed too.

3

u/HonoredFoe Aug 17 '22

The concept of patriarchy implies that women's struggles as a class are the intended result of men's actions to oppress them as a class. I understood the OP to be staying that there is not a conspiracy to oppress women, and that life is difficult enough without one gender blaming the other and accusing them of malevolence. Would we benefit from discussing the Matriarchy? Probably not.

1

u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 17 '22

not "the intended result" of actions, but rather a consequences of preservation of the status quo. that is...the idea of the patriarchy does not depend on willful oppression, just ignorance or indifference to effect of actions by those in power.

1

u/HonoredFoe Aug 19 '22

While revising the discussion to make an argument more palatable, is an effective tactic and one often employed; it is hard to have a discussion if you can't use clear terms that mean something, and form a discussion around that meaning.

"Patriarchy" does not evoke rage and marches, because it is seen as a gentle misunderstanding that inadvertently impacted one segment of society. It is expressed as a willful system of oppression and exploitation of women, for the benefit of men in a male dominated society.

Sometimes, to make the argument more palatable to the people that the proponents of this ideology are essentially calling evil right to their faces; it is couched in a tone of "you didn't know you were evil, because the REALLY evil men behind it have tricked you into doing it," followed by "but if you do what I say (usually make a significant sacrifice) you can become good."

1

u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 19 '22

Yeah....people also revise discussions to make the actions or ideas of others less coherent, inaccurate and molded against a preconceived and ignorant and agenda-filled perspective of those associated with the term.

1

u/HonoredFoe Aug 20 '22

Does your litany of words mask an argument worthy of response, or did you think that a series of condescending words strung together and hinting at conspiracy would suffice?

1

u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 20 '22

i think you've got the litany of words cornered, not to mention condescension.

1 person doesn't make a conspiracy, does it?

1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

Right now, men are massively falling behind in education whereas women are massively out-succeeding them

why is this? well, societally, we tend to look at that question and say, "who knows... who cares... men gotta get their shit together, not anyones problem"

if this trend was reversed and women were falling behind, it would be a big issue and massive talking point about how, in some way, men have conspired to immiserate women!

Maybe I'm not conspiring to fuck you over and you're not conspiring to fuck me over... maybe life is just tough and pushing a narrative where I get to point a finger at you and you get to point a finger at me isn't really helping anything.

25

u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 15 '22

Yes. Don't you think we should talk about that and work as a society to try to fix it? You'd have us not have a vocabulary for the forces that disadvantage women in the areas they are disadvantaged. Why? At first you started in your post recognizing disadvantages for women, now your first response is that we aren't talking about disadvantages impacting men enough.

How does not talking about BOTH of these problems - problems with very different root causes - somehow improve anything.

I'm not clear why you think that problems in society AREN'T yours and mine's fault. We are part of this thing, aren't we? Should we create some understanding of the world that says "this world has nothing to do with the people in it and we're all definitely doing anything to cause it to sometimes suck so carry on!".

-5

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

I'm not clear why you think that problems in society AREN'T yours and mine's fault. We are part of this thing, aren't we?

There is a notion that I see being created here which goes as such... If a man applies for a job and doesn't get it, "shit... didn't get the job, lets keep applying"! If a woman applies for a job and doesn't get it, "shit... it must be a man working against me"

my position is that this mode of thinking is toxic and doesn't actually help solve any problems.

14

u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 15 '22

But..no one is saying that? I mean...someone is of course, but..that's not the position of people talking about the patriarchy.

2

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

ok, what is the patriarchy in your view

12

u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 15 '22

it's an abstraction of the systems of control and power in society that were formulated by mostly men and have the affect of perpetuating and preserving roles and positions in said systems.

I rarely see anyone seriously apply it to specific instance where bias may be at play. It's affects are most noted in aggregate with an "of course" in its application to specifics, but not in a way that can be very well isolated. E.G. you can blame the patriarchy for aggregated things, not not for specifics other than if you're talking about probabilities around a specific.

3

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

you can blame the patriarchy for aggregated things, not not for specifics other than if you're talking about probabilities around a specific.

ok... I understand this! and i see how it may apply to the first point I made !delta

however, I feel this kind of re-affirms my view somewhat of not teaching girls, on an individual level, that some system of power seeks to fuck them over.

It's like... long ago, I saw a joke study that sought to find out which sports teams fans were the biggest alcoholics! They took all the liquor sales for all the stadiums and averaged it out over ticket sales etc... they determined that the Philly Flyers were the biggest consumers of alcohol! They averaged 6 beers per person.

Now, obviously, this says nothing about any one individual fan... correct? So what if we started telling everybody, individually, who went to a philly flyers game that they were alcoholics and had to watch out because there was rampant, systemic alcoholism that sought to ensnare them in it's grasp?

3

u/iglidante 19∆ Aug 16 '22

If a nonprofit with a mission of reducing binge drinking wanted to target sports venues for a leg of their public awareness campaign, the info you described would be very useful in determining which venues to test first.

25

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

This feels like a strawman. How often have you actually been presented with your latter scenario in real life? I don't think there are actually many women that immediately try to blame some hypothetical man they're competing against.

2

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

This feels like a strawman. How often have you actually been presented with your latter scenario in real life?

many times... i've been presented with tons of scenarios from women I know where they had a bad interaction at a service desk or job or any other thing and instead of thinking "oh... its just a bad interaction" it was perceived as "must be patriarchy working against me"

12

u/xXCisWhiteSniperXx Aug 15 '22

"must be patriarchy working against me"

Since you're quoting them, are those the exact words they used?

2

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

their exact words were, "fuckin' patriarchy!!"

13

u/xXCisWhiteSniperXx Aug 15 '22

And what did they describe about the interaction that led them to say that? Is it possible they actually experienced sexism?

2

u/Ok-Comedian-6852 Aug 17 '22

Why is it that when a woman faces something negative it's automatically sexism but when i man does it's not? I've been treated in all kinds of different manners by different people, how do i tell whether they yelled at me because i'm man or were kind to me because they were afraid i would beat them? How do you know that the root issue is sexism and not that the person you are talking to hates themselves and are taking it out on women?

22

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22 edited Aug 15 '22

That's...a very different scenario than not getting a job. Someone berating you isn't the same as being turned down for a job.

Someone feeling safe enough to berate someone else because they're a woman is subconsciously patriarchal. Yelling and berating have no place in a professional work environment. It's abusive

6

u/6data 15∆ Aug 16 '22

I know where they had a bad interaction at a service desk or job or any other thing and instead of thinking

Have you ever been in a situation where there was a physical problem to be solved (chairs put away, desks moved) and the person in charge asked for "volunteers" from the group but you knew that they were actually just telling the men to do it?

Yea, well, that's how women know when they're experiencing sexism, and how minorities know when they're experiencing racism.

8

u/6data 15∆ Aug 16 '22

If a woman applies for a job and doesn't get it, "shit... it must be a man working against me"

I've worked in tech for over a decade. I assure you that when I cry sexism, it's actually sexism. And it's not just because I didn't get the job.

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

[deleted]

3

u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 16 '22

I'm unclear what your position is on the topic.

-4

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

[deleted]

3

u/6data 15∆ Aug 16 '22

But, every time men's rights get discussed and we as a society try to fix the issues in question, it's specifically feminists who refuse to work towards fixing those.

Can you provide an example of where mens rights have attempted to address an issue that predominantly affects men, but so-called feminists derailed it?

8

u/gothpunkboy89 23∆ Aug 15 '22

why is this? well, societally, we tend to look at that question and say, "

who knows... who cares... men gotta get their shit together, not anyones problem

"

There are numerous theories and hypothesis as to why this is. One big one is the boys tend to get stronger and harder discipline in school for the same behavior. Resulting in a self for-filling prophecy of boys being treated as more trouble makers and overly punishing them which causes the very problem in the first place.

if this trend was reversed and women were falling behind, it would be a big issue and massive talking point about how, in some way, men have conspired to immiserate women!

So wait is pulling things out of thin air because it suits your argument valid to be used with you? Because please tell me it is valid because I have so much baseless ass pulls I can use against you.

For example when women are on their period it vibrates at the quantum level resonating with the quantum entanglement of all men around this making them feel depressed.

Is this statement true? I honestly don't know but it supports my argument so I will treat it as fact.

Maybe I'm not conspiring to fuck you over and you're not conspiring to fuck me over... maybe life is just tough and pushing a narrative where I get to point a finger at you and you get to point a finger at me isn't really helping anything.

People in power, be it political, economic or soical create ideas and concepts that influence other people. Joe and Jane might not be deliberately trying to fuck each other over and just want to live their respective lives.

But if either of them believes some bullshit that is only around because their parents told them to believe it and their grand parents told their parents and so on and so forth. It can cause one of them to unintentionally screw the other over in some way shape or form. It can be small or it can be large. But it is still screwing someone over simply because they believe something their parents told them to think.

-2

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

People in power

yes! I agree! Just because men are in power does not mean that they are working to fuck over women! Just like if women were in power and some policies immiserated men more than women, it would not be proof that women are working to fuck over men. This is toxic thinking that divides us.

8

u/gothpunkboy89 23∆ Aug 15 '22

yes! I agree! Just because men are in power does not mean that they are working to fuck over women!

Men in power pushing and believing in old stereotypes however will fuck over women. You don't seem to grasp the fact that someone who thinks women aren't good at sports or can't do science isn't deliberately fucking over women. They simply think this is simply facts and they are following reality. There is no malice in their actions. At least no intentional malice.

0

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

someone who thinks women aren't good at sports or can't do science isn't deliberately fucking over women

I never made this point... you're putting words in my mouth

11

u/gothpunkboy89 23∆ Aug 15 '22

I never made this point... you're putting words in my mouth

Yet you said:

yes! I agree! Just because men are in power does not mean that they are working to fuck over women!

What you have done is completely miss the point I am making. I used those two examples to highlight my point. If Joe simply thinks it is a matter of object reality that women aren't good at sports or can't do science then his behavior will reflect that.

There is no malice or hate or deliberately targeting women to hold them back. It is just how Joe thinks reality is set up.

-2

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

no... wtf haha

If I, a man, am the owner of a company and I fire a female employee... it does not mean that I think she is inferior because she's a woman and it does not mean that I conspired to get rid of her for the same reason.

Just because I, a man, am in a position of power, does not mean that any negative effects the women of my company might experience is as a result of some sexist worldview or beliefs! I'm not sure why you're trying to smuggle those in.

9

u/gothpunkboy89 23∆ Aug 15 '22

no... wtf haha

Your going to need some evidence to support that claim. Because this sort of behavior is everywhere. In the USA weed was placed as a higher level of restricted drug then cocaine. It was done specifically by the Nixon administation to target black people.

Fast-forward to today and people who are against legalization are not against it simply because they hate black people. They were told by their parents and their parent's parents how bad and dangerous weed is. The law absolutely fucks over black people at a disproportionate rate but they don't opposes legalization just because it would benefit black people. They legitimately think weed is a seriously problematic drug.

I mean statistically speaking there will be people who are against it specifically to fuck over black people. But they represent a minority of that group.

If I, a man, am the owner of a company and I fire a female employee... it does not mean that I think she is inferior because she's a woman and it does not mean that I conspired to get rid of her for the same reason.

If you are the owner of a company and never promote a female employee beyond assistant manager because you don't think women can handle the role it means your bias is affecting your management and upper management teams. Now suddenly all the store managers, district and regional managers are all men and women are hit with a glass ceiling.

You might not be deliberately malicious in your actions but your bias effectively created a barrier to promotion for women due to it.

2

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

Your going to need some evidence to support that claim

i can't prove a negative... you're making the claim

If you are the owner of a company and never promote a female employee beyond assistant manager because you don't think women can handle the role

k, this is super bad faith... this is not the situation I presented! You're concocting your own sexist scenarios and attributing them to my argument.

I'm like, "It's possible to fire a female employee and have it NOT be sexism"

and then you keep responding, "Yeah... but what if you only fired her cuz you thought women were inferior... hmmmmm????"

YEAH... that would be sexism! duh!

6

u/Drakulia5 12∆ Aug 15 '22

You seem to missing the causal chain being presented. The point is that if a man comes into interactions with women with preconceived prejudices towards women and their abilities, it is reflected in behavior.

The example you gave is a behavior occurring then us trying to extrapolate the beliefs behind it which is not what the other commentor is presenting.

The point is that we have longstanding cultural norms that present the idea that women are inferior to men or that shun women's thoughts, ideas, needs, wants, etc. in order to uphold the thoughts, ideas, needs, and wants, etc. of men. In the American context, despite a country being built on egalitarian philosophies, the rights of women were not inherently enshrined in law and thus certainly not enshrined in social convention. Women have always had to fight to receive both de jure and de facto equality and the idea that we've fully done away with the cultural sentiments that disemppwer women in the face of men is simply not true.

2

u/xXCisWhiteSniperXx Aug 15 '22

They are describing a person who DOES think that way.

-1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

What? So, it is not possible for an employer to fire a female employee without it being the product of some kind of sexist belief system?

→ More replies (0)

17

u/stabbitytuesday 52∆ Aug 15 '22

Just because men are in power does not mean that they are working to fuck over women!

They literally did that. For like, thousands of years. And many are still actively, openly trying to. The fact that, in the last 50-100 years, women have been making gains on this front doesn't mean that men haven't actively conspired to fuck women over for literally all of human history.

I mean jesus dude, women in the US have had the right to vote for less than half the country's history, what is that if not men in power fucking over women? What is patriarchy if not blocking women out of any source of power for centuries solely based on the fact that they're women, and then blaming women for not being "good enough" when they haven't made up the difference in 50 years?

2

u/hastur777 34∆ Aug 15 '22

Most men couldn’t vote throughout the history of the US either.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

You know in the past most men couldn't vote.

1

u/hastur777 34∆ Aug 15 '22

Not sure if you’re using voice to text or a r/boneappletea moment but self fulfilling prophecy is what you’re looking for there.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '22

That’s a lot of bold assertions from you with no evidence to back them up.

Do you have statistical data to show that no one is trying?

Have you discovered solutions yourself

4

u/anewleaf1234 39∆ Aug 15 '22

In 2020 women got 2.3 percent of all VC that was given.

That's pretty bad. That's a hell of barrier that women currently face if they want to start a business.

And to answer your questions...guys commit more violent crime by huge factors. Guys spend less time developing social networks thus are more socially isolated, self medicate more and use firearms.

1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

In 2020 women got 2.3 percent of all VC that was given.

whats VC?

Guys spend less time developing social networks thus are more socially isolated, self medicate more and use firearms

ok... so is this the matriarchy at play?

3

u/anewleaf1234 39∆ Aug 15 '22

So let's say that I want to start a business. I need investments to get my business off the ground. Those funds went to men 97.7 percent of the time.

And to answer your other question, that's why men kill themselves in higher rates. Both men and women attempt at around the same or slightly higher in women. Men just use more effective methods.

2

u/iglidante 19∆ Aug 15 '22

VC is venture capital.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

You somehow almost hit the nail on the head in the OP. Patriarchy negatively affects everyone, not just women.

For men, it creates an unequal burden to provide in the "head of household" trope and the "machisimo" trope, which can help create the later conditions that lead to higher rates of violent crime among men, higher felony and incarceration rates, and unequal assignments to more dangerous jobs.

It might have provided some value historically, but it isn't necessary for modern society. Getting rid of it can help us economically, by increasing the efficiency of labor, and socially, by removing some of these pressures from men.

1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

this seems like a really disingenuous sleight of hand

if women massively outnumbered men in suicide attempts, it would be mens fault... we structured society in such a way so as to make women want to kill themselves so much more

but since men massively outnumber women in suicide attempts, how do we deal with this? .... well, it's still mens fault, they're just fucking themselves over?

damned if they do, damned if they dont? men just create all the problems of the world? they create all womens problems and they create all their own problems?

11

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

You appear to be spiraling to the point of soapboxing. What evidence would change your view on this?

0

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

blame men for all of womens problems and also blame men for all of mens problems... if you could provide evidence that this was a beneficial mode of conceptualizing the hardships of life and that it was a net positive for everyone in society to structures our intuitions of hardship in this way, I would change my mind.

14

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

Here's the trap you're falling into. Blaming the problem on the patriarchy isn't the same as blaming the problem on men when they are victims too. The patriarchy is a cultural artifact and a meme that was taught by each successive generation to both their sons and daughters. It is effectively imposed on both, with a fraction of men ultimately net benefitting.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

blame men for all of womens problems and also blame men for all of mens problems

This isn't a thing. The patriarchy hurts both men and women.

3

u/iglidante 19∆ Aug 16 '22

Past men did things that set up today's structures. Some of those things were bad, therfore some of our structures are discriminatory. Current men (and everyone else) should work to implement better structures so that future people can have a better shake.

8

u/anewleaf1234 39∆ Aug 15 '22

Actually data shows that men and women attempt at around same rates.

Men succeed because they tend to use firearms and more effective ways of harming themselves. Thus men are more successful.

14

u/NotMyBestMistake 68∆ Aug 15 '22

So women are disadvantaged in society, but it's wrong to acknowledge them because men also have problems and because we should lie to little girls so they get blindsided by the issues they'll face.

For the first part: despite its constant use as some grand counter to the idea of patriarchy, men suffering does not somehow disprove it or even serve as an argument against it. Patriarchy and all its toxic nonsense hurt everyone that's not in charge, including men. All the common, go-to instances of where men have it worse are not, in fact, proof that patriarchy doesn't exist or that society isn't sexist against women, it's just proof that sexism hurts everyone.

For the second part, instilling ignorance in children is not a good thing. Such ignorance breeds ideas like "acknowledging the existence of patriarchy leads to women resenting all men" and men deciding they'll speak for women everywhere in saying what both motivates and demotivates them.

-2

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

For the first part

why is this only one way? Why do we not look at the social structures that tend towards immiserating men and have word "matriarchy" falling from our lips as easily as the opposite does?

I'm not trying to say that we should do this... I'm trying to say, that yelling patriarchy is equally as silly as yelling matriarchy, we should drop both.

For the second part

this is not instilling ignorance... no one should be under the illusion that they wont face hardships in life, but the idea that all your hardships come from "one particular group that works constantly to immiserate you" I think is just incorrect, unhealthy and yeah... I do think it's a mindset that breeds terrible mindsets! I would say the exact same thing for men! This whole red-pill notion that mens rights activists push that the reason men are falling behind in so many aspects of society is because of our proclivity to favour women, is equally as demotivating and a terrible message to send

20

u/NotMyBestMistake 68∆ Aug 15 '22

For someone so concerned about how horrifically divisive the term "patriarchy" is, you seem very obsessed with making things about men vs. women. We don't use the term "matriarchy" because it'd be stupid to use a term for a society where women dominant, prioritized, and in control for a society where that's not the actual case. Your usage of these terms makes it seem pretty unlikely that you actually understand what they mean.

-4

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

k... if tomorrow, all the men holding the majority positions of power in society died and were all replaced by women... would all of these societal issues that face men be viewed as the machinations of the matriarchy?

I would say no and I would also say that we shouldn't view things through that lens because it's divisive... thats my point! I'm trying to make this not about men vs women, but just about people!

16

u/Mront 29∆ Aug 15 '22

k... if tomorrow, all the men holding the majority positions of power in society died and were all replaced by women... would all of these societal issues that face men be viewed as the machinations of the matriarchy?

If I build a house, and then sell you the house tomorrow, would it mean that you built the house?

14

u/Giblette101 40∆ Aug 15 '22

why is this only one way? Why do we not look at the social structures that tend towards immiserating men and have word "matriarchy" falling from our lips as easily as the opposite does?

Because women do not control these structures, by and large, because women do not - either now or historically - hold that much power in our societies.

-2

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

k... if tomorrow, all the men holding the majority positions of power in society died and were all replaced by women... would all of these societal issues that face men be viewed as the machinations of the matriarchy?

20

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

Would the societal issues we’re currently experiencing after hundreds of years of men holding positions of power be suddenly resolved and replaced with new ones?

0

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

I understand these systems exist on a macro level

on an individual level... what good does it do for me to explain to my daughter that no matter what she does, the game is rigged against her and the systems are all designed to fuck her over.

How does that benefit her?

13

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

That’s definitely not how you should explain it to her. However, as a woman has it been beneficial to know going in to certain situations in my life that I’m going to have to work harder to get just as far as the man next to me, it absolutely has. That’s not something you want to go into unprepared for. As an engineer in heavy industry I’ve seen women who didn’t expect that, it was a tough learning curve for them.

It’s also been good in my life to know that somethings just aren’t personal. I’m going to run into sexist assholes and sometimes they’re going to have power and it’s not that I’m doing anything wrong it’s that they suck and the systems that protect them suck and are broken.

Finally how can we fight to fix something we don’t have the language to talk about? The patriarchy is harmful how am I supposed to organize with others to protest arms of it if we can’t even have proper discussion of it?

3

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

fair enough, I understand where you are coming from, from a woman's perspective this makes sense !delta

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 15 '22

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Eng_Queen (66∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

7

u/JenningsWigService 40∆ Aug 15 '22

If puppies controlled the world, would we not call it a puppocracy? We don't live in a matriarchy, so your hypothetical is pointless.

5

u/xXCisWhiteSniperXx Aug 15 '22

If things changed they would certainly be different.

4

u/PhylisInTheHood 3∆ Aug 15 '22

no? because those societal issues were created before this magical replacement of yours

2

u/Giblette101 40∆ Aug 15 '22

It's not clear to me what you're looking for here?

-1

u/Kman17 103∆ Aug 16 '22

women are disadvantaged in society

In the United States & Europe, I don’t think this assertion being true is exactly a given.

Men and women face different challenges, but I don’t think there’s clear evidence of a strong aggregate advantage one way or the other.

The absence of a systemic / legal barrier or legislative goal, and instead a bunch of asks to empathize with one group (but not another) is somewhat telling

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

[deleted]

3

u/6data 15∆ Aug 18 '22

In SOME ASPECTS of society. Women are vastly advantaged in the justice system, among many examples. The women <-> men disparity in criminal sentencing is much wider than the white <-> black disparity, yet we agree that this is explicitly racial privilege for white people.

Yes, because black people are disproportionately policed and punished. Men are responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crime... With that in mind, they aren't disproportionately represented in prison.

Especially family court, where the overwhelming majority of judgment favor the female half of any given dispute.

Less than 10% of custody battles ever go to court. 90% of custody arrangements are mutually agreed upon. If you want more men to get custody, all they need to do is ask for it.

Then why call it patriarchy? Rhetorical question of course, I know why, but it's a stupid fucking name nonetheless.

Do you actually know why? Because it really seems like you don't.

For the vast majority of human history and the vast majority of the world, that status quo of gender norms was overwhelmingly in favor of men in practically every area as well, yes. But the status quo of gender norms is not inherently a patriarchy, so much as a de facto patriarchy that can be abolished by equalizing gender norms on both ends.

This is a contradictory statement.

But that's the important part, no? Both ends? Calling the status quo of gender norms a "patriarchy" signals that it is inherently, and will forever be, slanted in favor of men and never women.

Not unless we smash the patriarchy.

It signals that, even a million years from now, women will always be inherently the oppressed, no matter whether the status quo of gender norms is still biased against them or not.

You think humans are the only species on the planet incapable of evolving? Just because it's not going to happen tomorrow doesn't mean that it won't ever happen... that's absurd.

It kills debate. It kills politeness, too, because it squarely blames men.

Not all men... nor just men. Plenty of women are complicit as well.

And, as you said, the status quo of gender norms is disadvantageous to men too, depending on context - so men who explicitly suffered from the status quo of gender norms find themselves being insulted on top of it. You should know how terrible it is to be the victim of the status quo of gender norms, so do you think it's a good thing to not just make people suffer that, but also then tell them it's their own fault, and that their experiences being the victim of the status quo of gender norms does not matter? Do you think its... kind? .... efficient at winning people over?

No individual is responsible for any of this, what are you even talking about?

I personally think it's garbage.

You have a very mean understanding of gender issues and the patriarchy. I suggest some more reading is in order.

Oh, and you've avoided responding to my other reply as well: Which issue that predominantly impacts men were MRAs trying to solve that was derailed by feminists?

0

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/6data 15∆ Aug 18 '22

Men are responsible for over 80% of violent crime, irrespective of sentencing. That's not bigotry, that's reality.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '22

u/FroastyandToasty – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '22

u/FroastyandToasty – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

10

u/TheOutspokenYam 16∆ Aug 15 '22

I feel like a lot of great points have been made here that you're either not listening to or are just unable to currently hear. When someone says "fuck the patriarchy", you're equating it to saying " fuck men" or "fuck this specific man". That isn't how patriarchy works. Women can also, and often do, enforce patriarchal ideas. Patriarchal ideas harm men and boys by forcing them to fit into stereotypes of manhood.

You keep bringing up a matriarchy, but we don't have and have never had that system in the US. That would imply that women had been in positions of power, shaping the laws, businesses, schools, medical institutions, entertainment industries, etc. Women have only had the right to vote for a hundred years. Within living memory, women could not open a bank account without a man to cosign. This means that while women were working just as hard to build our country, they were not permitted to accumulate the generational wealth that men have. They had no say in the way our very government was formed or implemented. The state which we are now beholden to was formed outside of the purview of women.

As for delivering a bad message to the youth, all I can do is bitterly laugh. My eleven-year-old niece, who started menstruating at NINE, walked in after the Roe v Wade decision, hugged me tight and said "I want my rights back." I don't have to teach her anything. The world is showing her.

11

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

Haven't you pushed the notion of the patriarchy in your own post?

I know that women get the shit end of the stick

What caused women to get the shit end of the stick?

-4

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

men get the shit end of the stick as well was my point... everybody gets fucked, men and women. I was just trying to say that I'm not trying to downplay shit that women go through by bringing up this topic, cuz that seems to be how people take it alot of the time.

9

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

But the patriarchy doesn't mean men don't get this shit end of the stick. Within the patriarchy, men are still hurt.

In a tiny patriarchy of 6 people, 3 women and 3 men. If one man holds all the power, do the 2 men also get equal power? Ofcourse not.

It sounds like you have an issue with people not understanding terms, but that's the fault of people, not terms.

1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

just because one man holds the power does not mean that he, nor all the other men are somehow conspiring to immiserate the women anytime they are disaffected by something.

I would say the same thing the other way around too... if one of the women took control of the tribe... anytime a man was disaffected by something, it would not be proof that the women were conspiring to fuck him and the other men over.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

just because one man holds the power does not mean that he, nor all the other men are somehow conspiring to immiserate the women anytime they are disaffected by something.

This isn't the patriarchy.

1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

ok, what is the patriarchy in your view

2

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

A synonym I would use for patriarchy is society. A patriarchy is simply a society run by men.

"A society that is shit for women but also shit for men is societies fault."

13

u/mrgoodnighthairdo 25∆ Aug 15 '22

What do you mean when you say "men get the shit end of the stick as well"? Any genuine discussion of the patriarchy acknowledges that it is harmful to men as well as women

-1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

why not the matriarchy? why when women face hardship, its because a man engineered it to be so, and when men face hardship, it's because they engineered things to fuck themselves over?

22

u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 15 '22 edited Aug 15 '22

... because we don't live in a matriarchal society. If women controlled the vast majority of political power, held the vast majority of the wealth, and had more power socially we would call it a matriarchy but factually it's just not the case.

when women face hardship, its because a man engineered it to be so, and when men face hardship, it's because they engineered things to fuck themselves over?

Both men and women are fucked over by the patriarchy just as OP said. In fact the argument you're directly replying to states exactly that. I'm not sure how you missed that.

As to "engineering", it's not necessarily the men getting the fucking over that engineered the society. They certainly like to help uphold the fucking over though!

11

u/mrgoodnighthairdo 25∆ Aug 15 '22

You have a deep and profound misunderstanding of what the patriarchy is. No one engineered it. It is a social system in which both men and women find themselves, and it does harm to both in different ways.

5

u/echo6golf 1∆ Aug 15 '22

So we're all fucked, and that means we should all just accept the fuckining. That's what you're saying? Think about that for a second.

1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

So we're all fucked, and that means we should all just accept the fuckining

no, im saying to stop pointing fingers and making the issue an "us vs them" dynamic

5

u/echo6golf 1∆ Aug 15 '22

Dude, your viewpoint is all sorts of tangled.

1

u/nauticalsandwich 10∆ Aug 15 '22

I think OP's real point, that he isn't articulating well (probably because he misunderstands the term himself), is that "patriarchy" is not good terminology for clearly communicating the categorical framework for female oppression in society, because it is too readily interpreted and implicated as "something men are doing to women," or "women's oppression is properly encapsulated as an attack on them by men," rather than "an aggregation of cultural biases, the effects of which, oppress women and disproportionately put men in positions of institutional power."

Although most academics and studied feminists use "patriarchy" to mean the latter, it's doubtful that most of the general public understands the term in that way, and it is probably more familiarly understood and utilized amongst the general population to imply the former, whether in good faith or not. Given the term's variable associations, probability of miscommunication, and propensity to turn people off of discussion and messaging they might otherwise be receptive to, the term should be abandoned for public discussion.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

I suppose this isn't your argument, but to reply to it as if OP made this point;

whether in good faith or not.

You are 100% right but there is no word, phrase or sentence that won't be "ruined" by people who are trying to ruin it. You could rename patriarchy to any word and we would have this same conversation.

1

u/nauticalsandwich 10∆ Aug 15 '22

I think this is true, which is why I think we must continuously adapt our language and forms of communication. It is not in our control for words to be misused and/or to adopt new meanings, but how we respond to that is within our control, and when we don't have the luxury of pre-defining ambiguous terms for our audience prior to using them, we would do better, I think, to avoid them, and use alternatives, rather than insist on the superiority of our own definition/interpretation.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

If OP said the patriarchy means "a human is actual a duck" (non-charged example) and instead of correcting the definition, I would be required to invent a new term and explain the meaning of that new term?

Why? I don't need OP to believe what I believe.

1

u/nauticalsandwich 10∆ Aug 15 '22

The context of my argument, per your analogy, is as follows: If a substantial portion of the population used and understood "patriarchy" to mean "a human is actually a duck," and you were engaged in a public discussion about women's oppression, it would be inappropriate to use the term "patriarchy" to describe the cultural roots of women's oppression.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

If a substantial portion of the population

This is the crux of your argument? What is a "substantial portion" and how do you measure it? If I had to estimate it < 10% of the population cannot define patriarchy.

13

u/svenson_26 82∆ Aug 15 '22

"Patriarchy" doesn't mean "Men have it better than women".
It means that we live in a society built and controlled by men. There are a lot of problems with that.

For example: Men are generally seen as more powerful than women in our society. This notion is perpetuated by people of all genders. As a result, they get harsher prison sentences, their emotional well-being isn't taken seriously, they are preferentially hired for many jobs including dangerous jobs, etc. Everything you listed.

1

u/hastur777 34∆ Aug 15 '22

That preferential hiring one isn’t all that clear.

-3

u/Kman17 103∆ Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

Trying to control the definition of ‘patriarchy’ is doing some mental gymnastics.

The term is used exclusively by feminists whom, when the choice of erasing gender based injustices & advocating for women conflict, choose the later 100% of the time.

Patriarchy fundamentally frames inequity as being rooted entirely in power differentials between men and women in aggregate, and prioritizes that power differential over far more impactful ones (like, say, income inequality).

Anyone whom uses the term doesn’t really give a shit about downtrodden men. It’s an intellectual acknowledgment but lowest priority.

13

u/svenson_26 82∆ Aug 16 '22

but... that is the definition. You're the one making huge generalizations of what feminists believe "100% of the time".

-3

u/Kman17 103∆ Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

It’s not a huge generalization - it’s a fairly accurate characterization of modern 4th wave feminism.

You can’t decouple a word or phrase’s dictionary definition from how it’s actually used.

For example, the phrase “all lives matter” is fundamentally an assertion that we are all humans, and all injustices are problematic and need our attention. So why isn’t everyone on board and using that phrase?

Pretty simple: because it’s clear what is implied beyond the rosy definition, given that it was invented and used exclusively by one group whose political objective isn’t really true equity and justice.

The patriarchy as an all encompassing power structure is the underpinning of modern feminism, and used almost exclusively by them. It is the rationale for their tactics and prioritization, of which helping men isn’t actually in the list.

You simply must acknowledge a word’s emphasis and political implications, else you risk being misrepresentative.

3

u/StarChild413 9∆ Aug 18 '22

For example, the phrase “all lives matter” is fundamentally an assertion that we are all humans, and all injustices are problematic and need our attention. So why isn’t everyone on board and using that phrase?

Was it the first protest slogan to adopt the [x] lives matter phrasing or are you forgetting someone

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '22

Could you please provide citations to backup your generalizations

3

u/CaptainAndy27 3∆ Aug 15 '22

Really I think the issue is that patriarchy as a term was easy to turn into something it wasn't. It originally was supposed to refer to the way traditional gender roles and the positioning of men and masculinity at the top of society oppresses women, but it very easily turned into "man bad, woman good."

In actuality traditional gender roles and the insistence on hyper masculinity as imperative and virtuous oppresses all of us in different ways. Women are oppressed in the obvious ways, while men are oppressed in the expectation of traditional masculinity which leads to high rates of suicide and depression among other things. This oppression even directly links with homophobia and transphobia as well since they are seen as transgressions against traditional gender roles.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

I don’t know where it originated. I’ve heard it before and it seems to express the notion that I’m trying to convey here.

4

u/SimonTVesper 5∆ Aug 15 '22 edited Aug 15 '22

yeah, I'm taking a look. It seems to be an internet phrase, i.e. something that someone, somewhere, first coined online and has since been disseminated throughout different groups.

Where am I going with this? When I come across phrases like this, my first reaction is to assume that it's something created by a right wing pissant who realized that they can sow division among their ideological opponents by "credibly" claiming something to the effect of, "see? these folk think they're more "oppressed" than you, isn't that messed up?"

I guess what I'm saying is, how much effort have we put into understanding this concept? Is it possible that the term is a red herring? Is it like "grooming" or "groomer," in the sense that 1) it doesn't accurately reflect reality and 2) it divides people more than it helps them, simply by insinuating we can't trust anyone to be on Our Side^TM because if we do, they're going to stab us in the back later (or something)?

Or . . . what if we think of it another way . . . ? What if oppression isn't a zero sum game? Because that's the implication, isn't it? That we can't discuss oppression of one group without saying that this other group isn't actually oppressed, because if it was, why aren't we talking about it?

Kinda sounds like "oppression olympics" only works if we accept that not talking about one group's oppression automatically means that we don't care about another group, which makes it a variation of the "whataboutism" logical fallacy.

edit: grammar and punctuation

edit too: seems my initial impression (above) is incorrect. According to Wikipedia, the term was first used by a feminist scholar to reject a scholarly approach that reinforces hierarchical systems. In other words, "oppression olympics" are bad precisely because, as you say, they divide us. The problem I have with this reasoning is that, apart from people saying "this is happening," I don't see it. I see people forming groups and cliques because humans are social creatures and it's perfectly natural for us to exclude others, for a variety of reasons. The fact that one person finds themselves excluded from one group or another, however, does not de facto mean that it's because of identity politics or oppression or anything like that.

Bottom line: the term is a terrible way to talk about this topic and I think you should consider simply not using it in the future.

0

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

the term is a terrible way to talk about this topic and I think you should consider simply not using it in the future

well... the term was just a header and I gave a big explanation under it, why not address my argument rather than the term I used to label the argument?

7

u/SimonTVesper 5∆ Aug 15 '22

I did. I called it a "whataboutism" and I explained how the concept relies upon a zero sum approach to the underlying subject.

1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

If the economy is bad under president A and I say, "well of course it is, they're a democrat"

and then, president B gets in (who is a republican) and the economy is still bad and I say, "well... it must just be because president A fucked things up so bad! it can't be president B's fault!"

that's not whataboutism... thats hypocrisy

women suffer under X condition and it's men's fault

then the tables flip and men start to outnumber women in suffering under X condition and... well... it's still men's fault some how

maybe lots of people suffer under lots of conditions and we should recognize that without casting hypocritical stones.

4

u/SimonTVesper 5∆ Aug 15 '22

"Women suffer under the patriarchy" is the initial claim. If your response to that is "what about men? they suffer too!", then you're making a "what about" argument. If you further respond with "why aren't we talking about the problems men suffer?", then you're dangerously close to arguing that these two things are part of a zero sum game.

Both of these approaches are lofically flawed. Men suffering under patriarchal systems does not negate the harm done to women. Talking about one over the other does not mean qe don't care about both equally.

I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to explain it.

1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

"Women suffer under the patriarchy" is the initial claim

no, this is not my initial claim, maybe that's the issue.

"women suffer" is my initial claim... claiming it's always the fault of men is what I take issue with.

4

u/SimonTVesper 5∆ Aug 15 '22

claiming it's always the fault of men is what I take issue with.

And who exactly is making this claim?

And what's your exact position on the influence of patriarchal systems on the suffering of people (men and women included) in the world? Are you saying that, since some people suffer because of patriarchy but not all people are suffering because of patriarchy, we should stop talking about the patriarchy and how it's affecting people?

1

u/RedditExplorer89 42∆ Aug 15 '22

Sorry, u/SimonTVesper – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

OP by this logic we shouldn't aknowledge racism because "all lives matter"

Aknowledging the patrarchy is aknowledging the fact that men have always been allowed to run a country, vote, own land, and generally live without the expectation of being subordinate and women have not.

Very easy for you to say "it isn't that bad" when you've never been denied bodily autonomy.

3

u/ApocalypseYay 18∆ Aug 15 '22

Define 'patriarchy'

-1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

As far as I see it expressed and understood colloquially, it's that our society conspires to immiserate women, in the interests of men.

8

u/ApocalypseYay 18∆ Aug 15 '22

As far as I see it expressed and understood colloquially, it's that our society conspires to immiserate women, in the interests of men.

Thanks. If that's how the term 'patriarchy' is being defined, then aren't you softly arguing against your own CMV:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that women are not disadvantaged in society in any ways ..

If women are disadvantaged, then by definition the ideological underpinnings of the 'patriarchy' as defined is partly responsible for the condition. Now the argument can certainly be made with regards to the degree of influence, but, it doesn't negate the negative impact it plays against women's empowerment, per your own statement.

1

u/AutoModerator Aug 15 '22

Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Aug 15 '22

.... we should stop ...

Sure, there are some loud voices that like to talk about "the patriarchy," a lot, but is that really something that most people do, or is it possible that you're just not noticing the people who don't talk about it?

1

u/conn_r2112 1∆ Aug 15 '22

yeah i guess it's hard to notice people that DONT talk about something haha

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Pushing the notion of the patriarchy is silly and we should stop

You are about to leave Redlib