FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > "destroyed patriarchy"?
"destroyed patriarchy"?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can you still fuck when we're there? " Probably more so as women won’t be shamed for being sexual beings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When men stop whining about how feminism is all so unfair because a woman wolf-whistled at a bloke. Nobody gets equality until all men have equality, dammit. Expect lots of meninist bleating about CBB being all-female and no blokes allowed in the launch crowd. Iliza Shlesinger - love her - had a stand-up gig arranged that was going to be no boys allowed. Some meninist warrior sued her to get it stopped. Boohoohoo, quick to get upset, slow to figure out that's what it's been like for women since...erm...er...let me see...since forever, dickwad. As Iliza once said, "Do you think for a moment that if women were physically stronger than men, we'd have waited for the right to vote?" So I hope when they let men into the CBB house, they make them wait for their vote in nominations. And they have to do most of the housework, then give the women lots of praise when they mention that they did a little bit. What I don't get is celebs like Susan Sarandon, Sarah Jessica Parker et al saying they're not feminists, they're humanists. Like the word will scare off their male fans and humanism actually means feminism for everybody, not "an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters." As Caitlin Moran said, "...for all that people have tried to abuse it and disown it. 'Feminism' is still the word we need. No other word will do. And let's face it, there has been no other word, save "'Girl Power' -- which makes you sound like you're into some branch of Scientology owned by Geri Halliwell. That 'Girl Power' has been the sole rival to the word 'Feminism' in the last 50 years is a cause for much sorrow on behalf of the women. After all, P. Diddy has had four different names and he's just one man."" Thats not really the question. The question is about what a destroyed "patriarchy" looks like | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Patriarchy is anachronistic and needs to be destroyed. Feminism was a very natural reaction to gross unfairness. Seeking to uphold patriarchy is just plain wrong." This is what i'm asking...."needs to be destroyed" platitudes aside and in practical terms... what does your future state look like? How do you achieve it? What's the replacement version of society? A matriarchy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Patriarchy is anachronistic and needs to be destroyed. Feminism was a very natural reaction to gross unfairness. Seeking to uphold patriarchy is just plain wrong. This is what i'm asking...."needs to be destroyed" platitudes aside and in practical terms... what does your future state look like? How do you achieve it? What's the replacement version of society? A matriarchy?" No it’s equality Feminism is largely regarded as a synonym for equality, but because the largest division (read inequality) in society is experienced by women and perpetrated against them by men it is considered the most naturalist to describe a movement that is for all. Patriarchy is a destructive model that places expectations and stereotypes on men and women (with abstracts of these for different race and religious backgrounds) and serves no purpose but to place men in a higher pecking order. I’m doing so it creates a male stereotype that is damaging for men and women | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We understand the motivations, now illuminate us on the desired outcome.... What's the plan?" Educate our children about equality and human rights should cover it off Ensure people understand self esteem and worth and what they should accept as ok End violence against women Ensure the legal system upholds these principles Support those who speak out rather than assume ulterior motives or make second guesses because their behaviour doesn’t mirror what we think *we* would do in those circumstances Just a starter for 10 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We understand the motivations, now illuminate us on the desired outcome.... What's the plan?" It's not complicated, and it isn't a matriarchy. It's a society where men and women have true equal opportunity. We are getting there. Why use the word 'destroyed' ?? It is immediately confrontational and sets the scene of something bad happening. MrB | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We understand the motivations, now illuminate us on the desired outcome.... What's the plan? It's not complicated, and it isn't a matriarchy. It's a society where men and women have true equal opportunity. We are getting there. Why use the word 'destroyed' ?? It is immediately confrontational and sets the scene of something bad happening. MrB" That's the question I'm asking. Destroy isn't my language. All the feminists on reddit are talking about burning everything to the ground. A few tweaks here and there are welcome. Respect for all and opportunity for all. Liberty and prosperity. One thing that strikes me, is that demonising men with concepts like "toxic masculinity" may do more harm than good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We understand the motivations, now illuminate us on the desired outcome.... What's the plan? It's not complicated, and it isn't a matriarchy. It's a society where men and women have true equal opportunity. We are getting there. Why use the word 'destroyed' ?? It is immediately confrontational and sets the scene of something bad happening. MrB That's the question I'm asking. Destroy isn't my language. All the feminists on reddit are talking about burning everything to the ground. A few tweaks here and there are welcome. Respect for all and opportunity for all. Liberty and prosperity. One thing that strikes me, is that demonising men with concepts like "toxic masculinity" may do more harm than good. " “All the feminists?” Really? So they are a homogeneous group? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We understand the motivations, now illuminate us on the desired outcome.... What's the plan? It's not complicated, and it isn't a matriarchy. It's a society where men and women have true equal opportunity. We are getting there. Why use the word 'destroyed' ?? It is immediately confrontational and sets the scene of something bad happening. MrB That's the question I'm asking. Destroy isn't my language. All the feminists on reddit are talking about burning everything to the ground. A few tweaks here and there are welcome. Respect for all and opportunity for all. Liberty and prosperity. One thing that strikes me, is that demonising men with concepts like "toxic masculinity" may do more harm than good. " All of the feminists? Every single one ?? Destroy I guess reflects the strength and passion behind the movement and is a glimpse at the pain and wrong some of them have experienced and witnessed. That said I don’t agree with a burn the world approach - equality is just that; nobody holds power or place above another | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Solve all forms of mental illness and criminal and deviant behaviour with "education"? Lofty" Are you explaining patriarchy away with mental illness ?? And yes I agree with poster - education as a means out of poverty and as a foundation for problem solving, empathy and walking away from violence and bad choices is actually a good start. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We understand the motivations, now illuminate us on the desired outcome.... What's the plan? It's not complicated, and it isn't a matriarchy. It's a society where men and women have true equal opportunity. We are getting there. Why use the word 'destroyed' ?? It is immediately confrontational and sets the scene of something bad happening. MrB That's the question I'm asking. Destroy isn't my language. All the feminists on reddit are talking about burning everything to the ground. A few tweaks here and there are welcome. Respect for all and opportunity for all. Liberty and prosperity. One thing that strikes me, is that demonising men with concepts like "toxic masculinity" may do more harm than good. " I'd not heard anything about it until you brought it on here. The problem is it sounds like you are demonising the whole concept from the wild statements of one or two people, whether you meant to or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Solve all forms of mental illness and criminal and deviant behaviour with "education"? Lofty Are you explaining patriarchy away with mental illness ?? And yes I agree with poster - education as a means out of poverty and as a foundation for problem solving, empathy and walking away from violence and bad choices is actually a good start. " Im blaming abhorrent acts on the deviant behaviour of a few...not the many | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We understand the motivations, now illuminate us on the desired outcome.... What's the plan? It's not complicated, and it isn't a matriarchy. It's a society where men and women have true equal opportunity. We are getting there. Why use the word 'destroyed' ?? It is immediately confrontational and sets the scene of something bad happening. MrB That's the question I'm asking. Destroy isn't my language. All the feminists on reddit are talking about burning everything to the ground. A few tweaks here and there are welcome. Respect for all and opportunity for all. Liberty and prosperity. One thing that strikes me, is that demonising men with concepts like "toxic masculinity" may do more harm than good. “All the feminists?” Really? So they are a homogeneous group? " No of course not, but at least those who said it...like yourself earlier. What did you mean exactly when you said it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow, this is weird" Yet not even slightly surprising. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like I asked a question with no straight answer "We want we want we want".. "Ok, fair enough, what do you want?" "Not sure.. But we want it“" I think you asked a hypothetical question to people who have never said the thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like I asked a question with no straight answer "We want we want we want".. "Ok, fair enough, what do you want?" "Not sure.. But we want it“" Equality And it means many things because inequality and every day sexism is so ingrained in society You are seeking a simple answer to a complicated and multifaceted problem. I sense you are attempting to undermine a worthwhile movement by trying to appear smart and clever with your re-questioning, when indeed you don’t seem to grasp the concept of patriarchy in the first place | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like I asked a question with no straight answer "We want we want we want".. "Ok, fair enough, what do you want?" "Not sure.. But we want it“ Equality And it means many things because inequality and every day sexism is so ingrained in society You are seeking a simple answer to a complicated and multifaceted problem. I sense you are attempting to undermine a worthwhile movement by trying to appear smart and clever with your re-questioning, when indeed you don’t seem to grasp the concept of patriarchy in the first place " Not being clever - just a little critical thinking. Just "equality" is far too simplistic. If it was really about equality we'd see much more action on certain mens problems and with a bit of holistic thinking we'd see that healthy, happy men are better for women too and we would be getting closer to a true version of equality... We heard here today in this thread about ending violence against women, a fine ideal I agree but we'd be incongruous if we didn't also that acknowledge that more men have suffered more violence for all of humanity. Here we are getting into problems of pragmatism....how do we end all violence when there has always been violence in society and humanity? How do we end all sexual assault when a subsection of society has always been deviant? Do we want 50/50 men/women in all jobs or just the ones at the top? Do we want a magic wand to fix all self esteem issues? If it came in a pill form, would we read about the side effects? Do we want to disrupt established legal principles to usher in presumed truthfulness for all women? Do we want to acknowledge the differences between men or women or do we want to fit all squares and triangles in a round hole? (i'm talking biochemistry, hormones and how they affect our actions). Until feminism knows what it wants and can present a credible vision and course of action how do you expect us to get behind it? Apart from the guys who pretend to be card carrying feminists in order to get their dick wet (we've all met one or two of those..) I'm hoping we usher in a 5th wave that is focused on humanism and irons out some of these ideological anomalies as teething problems. I think men and women got along better 10 years ago than now.....now one side are "crazy" and the other side are "creepy". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like I asked a question with no straight answer "We want we want we want".. "Ok, fair enough, what do you want?" "Not sure.. But we want it“ Equality And it means many things because inequality and every day sexism is so ingrained in society You are seeking a simple answer to a complicated and multifaceted problem. I sense you are attempting to undermine a worthwhile movement by trying to appear smart and clever with your re-questioning, when indeed you don’t seem to grasp the concept of patriarchy in the first place " . That's coz it's a load of bollocks for over educted nitwits to chatter about over lattes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Patriarch is a myth" There's a thread on manosphere available. Sounds like it might be right up your street. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do want the complicated and multifaceted answer to a complicated problem. Save me the oversimplified memes. " Your last sentence is a dismissive sweep away at valid points. You’ve failed to acknowledge anything raised as a start of a conversation to give you the answers that you seek because you appear intent on undermining the movement. That you chose to bring up the “plight of men” as being ignored as part of the movement for me only confirms that you did not start this from a position of wishing to learn, debate or open your mind to other views - only to justify whatever stand point you have (reading between the lines it’s not pro feminism). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do want the complicated and multifaceted answer to a complicated problem. Save me the oversimplified memes. Your last sentence is a dismissive sweep away at valid points. You’ve failed to acknowledge anything raised as a start of a conversation to give you the answers that you seek because you appear intent on undermining the movement. That you chose to bring up the “plight of men” as being ignored as part of the movement for me only confirms that you did not start this from a position of wishing to learn, debate or open your mind to other views - only to justify whatever stand point you have (reading between the lines it’s not pro feminism). " Yes it's clearly not pro-feminism because feminism has come to undermine equality (just as the equivalent manosphere stuff does). You've failed to take my later points on. I'm someone who is very much a libertarian and humanist but I see more harm being done than good with a lot of the rhetoric and language around these topics lately and that is why i'm a firm critic. It's illuminating how if I show concern for men that I'm almost "part of the problem" to quote another weaponised phrase. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok I'm in bed now and have a bit of time, so I'll try to put this out there. The patriarchy is a dead meme, feminists use this imaginary clandestine boys club as a stick to beat men who disagree with them (I should point out at this point that I don't mean all feminists, just the radical ones who mock male issues) The matriachy however, is here and not going anywhere "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are there any laws that specifically protect men over women, or any laws that make it possible for a man to do something but prohibits a woman from the same activity/vocation/lifestyle? " No, there aren't. If there is a Patriarchy it's doing a terrible job. Work place fatalities? Educational performance? Suicide? War death? Homelessness? Jail sentences? The list goes on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I completely agree with classicist and historian Mary Beard on this one, femminism and equality is natural for a modern society, though third wave femminism is an exclusive club of middle class women who seek to imfluence social policy without getting into other aspects of politics. I imagine most people would like to see the 'patriachy destroyed' though in the western world it pretty much has been. How many young men and women do you see now exploring work and passtimes which 30 years ago were considered 'boy/girl only'? I see it a lot and its fine. The problem is, is that many modern day feminists conflate a man in a position of power to being a man who is patriachal, or who is part of a 'toxic, masculine power system'. Which is bollocks. Most men and women earn what ghey get out of their careers and lives. We have destroyed the patriarcy already, what is left are a few sexists from a dying age and power abusers, which there slways will be." I liked what Will Durant said in The Lessons of History about liberal vs. conservative ideas and how they temper each other exactly so we don't throw out all our time tested practices in order to make a few corrective tweaks. I paraphrased hugely but that's the gist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are there any laws that specifically protect men over women, or any laws that make it possible for a man to do something but prohibits a woman from the same activity/vocation/lifestyle? No, there aren't. If there is a Patriarchy it's doing a terrible job. Work place fatalities? Educational performance? Suicide? War death? Homelessness? Jail sentences? The list goes on" As men have found a voice to talk about male problems, we are finding brick walls around every corner, men make up 40 percent of all reported domestic abuse victims, yet there is a totally disproportionate amount of female only shelters to shelters that allow men, now I'm not saying close women's shelters, I'm saying open mens shelters, especially ones for men who are escaping violence with their children | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do want the complicated and multifaceted answer to a complicated problem. Save me the oversimplified memes. Your last sentence is a dismissive sweep away at valid points. You’ve failed to acknowledge anything raised as a start of a conversation to give you the answers that you seek because you appear intent on undermining the movement. That you chose to bring up the “plight of men” as being ignored as part of the movement for me only confirms that you did not start this from a position of wishing to learn, debate or open your mind to other views - only to justify whatever stand point you have (reading between the lines it’s not pro feminism). Yes it's clearly not pro-feminism because feminism has come to undermine equality (just as the equivalent manosphere stuff does). You've failed to take my later points on. I'm someone who is very much a libertarian and humanist but I see more harm being done than good with a lot of the rhetoric and language around these topics lately and that is why i'm a firm critic. It's illuminating how if I show concern for men that I'm almost "part of the problem" to quote another weaponised phrase. " Then you are, unfortunately, taking the voices on Reddit as the spokespeople for the whole movement - and they are not. There is no single figurehead for feminism, there are many branches and points of view on what it means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I’m sure the irony of men declaring that Patriarchy, something that is embedded in social, political and legal constructs (and others) and that is experienced by women, across the globe, is a meme and done and dusted isn’t lost on anyone. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are there any laws that specifically protect men over women, or any laws that make it possible for a man to do something but prohibits a woman from the same activity/vocation/lifestyle? No, there aren't. If there is a Patriarchy it's doing a terrible job. Work place fatalities? Educational performance? Suicide? War death? Homelessness? Jail sentences? The list goes on As men have found a voice to talk about male problems, we are finding brick walls around every corner, men make up 40 percent of all reported domestic abuse victims, yet there is a totally disproportionate amount of female only shelters to shelters that allow men, now I'm not saying close women's shelters, I'm saying open mens shelters, especially ones for men who are escaping violence with their children " And that is the fault of patriarchy - the celebrated male form would not be a victim to abuse so why would the system (which is only recently not run entirely by men) create shelters for something it doesn’t recognise ? Don’t forget the current shelters were established by women in response to a problem they were facing but that no system gave help to (at one time - things are changing) because it was accepted that what went on behind closed doors between a man and a woman is nobodies business but theirs (a man had rights to his wife’s body until legal challenge in the 1990s that changed the law on r@pe - prior to this r@pe in marriage didn’t exist) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are there any laws that specifically protect men over women, or any laws that make it possible for a man to do something but prohibits a woman from the same activity/vocation/lifestyle? No, there aren't. If there is a Patriarchy it's doing a terrible job. Work place fatalities? Educational performance? Suicide? War death? Homelessness? Jail sentences? The list goes on" Solving one problem doesn't stop other problems being addressed too. Your list is painting a misleading picture though. For example, women have only been allowed military front line combat roles for about a year, so war deaths will be less. Women attempt suicide more than men, but men are more 'successful' in the attempt, and men commit more violent crime than women, so receive longer custodial sentences on average. That list is often used by people wanting to paint men in a hard done by picture. Most people want both sexes to have equal opportunities and treatment. Pointing at extremist views doesn't help any sensible discussion. MrB | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I completely agree with classicist and historian Mary Beard on this one, femminism and equality is natural for a modern society, though third wave femminism is an exclusive club of middle class women who seek to imfluence social policy without getting into other aspects of politics. I imagine most people would like to see the 'patriachy destroyed' though in the western world it pretty much has been. How many young men and women do you see now exploring work and passtimes which 30 years ago were considered 'boy/girl only'? I see it a lot and its fine. The problem is, is that many modern day feminists conflate a man in a position of power to being a man who is patriachal, or who is part of a 'toxic, masculine power system'. Which is bollocks. Most men and women earn what ghey get out of their careers and lives. We have destroyed the patriarcy already, what is left are a few sexists from a dying age and power abusers, which there slways will be. I liked what Will Durant said in The Lessons of History about liberal vs. conservative ideas and how they temper each other exactly so we don't throw out all our time tested practices in order to make a few corrective tweaks. I paraphrased hugely but that's the gist. " Agreed, you can boil this down into human behavioural processes. Women score higher on apathy tests and show a preference to problem solvig using apathy. Whilst men score higher on tests involving physical replicatable processes and prefer to solve problems this way. Some people say this is sexist, or evidence of the patriarchy but until the collected data changes, this is likely fact. And it makes sense, more oestrogen, more apathy, more testosterone, greater focus when the individual has access to an outlet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agreed, you can boil this down into human behavioural processes. Women score higher on apathy tests and show a preference to problem solvig using apathy. Whilst men score higher on tests involving physical replicatable processes and prefer to solve problems this way. Some people say this is sexist, or evidence of the patriarchy but until the collected data changes, this is likely fact. And it makes sense, more oestrogen, more apathy, more testosterone, greater focus when the individual has access to an outlet. " What is problem solving using apathy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are there any laws that specifically protect men over women, or any laws that make it possible for a man to do something but prohibits a woman from the same activity/vocation/lifestyle? No, there aren't. If there is a Patriarchy it's doing a terrible job. Work place fatalities? Educational performance? Suicide? War death? Homelessness? Jail sentences? The list goes on Solving one problem doesn't stop other problems being addressed too. Your list is painting a misleading picture though. For example, women have only been allowed military front line combat roles for about a year, so war deaths will be less. Women attempt suicide more than men, but men are more 'successful' in the attempt, and men commit more violent crime than women, so receive longer custodial sentences on average. That list is often used by people wanting to paint men in a hard done by picture. Most people want both sexes to have equal opportunities and treatment. Pointing at extremist views doesn't help any sensible discussion. MrB" The statement of those fact isn't a view. They are what they are. The discrepancy in sentencing was found when looking at like-for-like crime. Remember the 'beautiful young woman' as an Oxford Student stabbed her boyfriend after taking drugs. The judge said imprisonment would ruin her future career. Can you see a man receiving similar sentencing leniency? The male suicide rate is 4 times as high as women's. The 'attempts' women make are often attention seeking. Men just get on with it. To compare attempt and succeeding in this context is misleading. Shall we include the women who think about it? Homelessness stands. When it comes to the Military historically (and not in the UK admittedly) the draft only affected men. OK, so more front line roles are now filled with women, will their proportionate casualty rate reflect this? I doubt it. But I feel suitably admonished for looking at extremist data. Shall we continue with your 'sensible' discussion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are there any laws that specifically protect men over women, or any laws that make it possible for a man to do something but prohibits a woman from the same activity/vocation/lifestyle? No, there aren't. If there is a Patriarchy it's doing a terrible job. Work place fatalities? Educational performance? Suicide? War death? Homelessness? Jail sentences? The list goes on Solving one problem doesn't stop other problems being addressed too. Your list is painting a misleading picture though. For example, women have only been allowed military front line combat roles for about a year, so war deaths will be less. Women attempt suicide more than men, but men are more 'successful' in the attempt, and men commit more violent crime than women, so receive longer custodial sentences on average. That list is often used by people wanting to paint men in a hard done by picture. Most people want both sexes to have equal opportunities and treatment. Pointing at extremist views doesn't help any sensible discussion. MrB The statement of those fact isn't a view. They are what they are. The discrepancy in sentencing was found when looking at like-for-like crime. Remember the 'beautiful young woman' as an Oxford Student stabbed her boyfriend after taking drugs. The judge said imprisonment would ruin her future career. Can you see a man receiving similar sentencing leniency? The male suicide rate is 4 times as high as women's. The 'attempts' women make are often attention seeking. Men just get on with it. To compare attempt and succeeding in this context is misleading. Shall we include the women who think about it? Homelessness stands. When it comes to the Military historically (and not in the UK admittedly) the draft only affected men. OK, so more front line roles are now filled with women, will their proportionate casualty rate reflect this? I doubt it. But I feel suitably admonished for looking at extremist data. Shall we continue with your 'sensible' discussion? " But those are outputs of patriarchy - it paints a damaging stereotype of alpha male being the accepted form (as well as the subservient and lesser female) - it leads to things like unfair child access following divorce (females are care givers, men are not), suicide rates being higher in men (men are not allowed to talk about feelings or cry). What youve laid out is support for the premise that patriarchy is still part of the system and that it’s damaging to everyone. Hence the need for equality | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are there any laws that specifically protect men over women, or any laws that make it possible for a man to do something but prohibits a woman from the same activity/vocation/lifestyle? No, there aren't. If there is a Patriarchy it's doing a terrible job. Work place fatalities? Educational performance? Suicide? War death? Homelessness? Jail sentences? The list goes on Solving one problem doesn't stop other problems being addressed too. Your list is painting a misleading picture though. For example, women have only been allowed military front line combat roles for about a year, so war deaths will be less. Women attempt suicide more than men, but men are more 'successful' in the attempt, and men commit more violent crime than women, so receive longer custodial sentences on average. That list is often used by people wanting to paint men in a hard done by picture. Most people want both sexes to have equal opportunities and treatment. Pointing at extremist views doesn't help any sensible discussion. MrB The statement of those fact isn't a view. They are what they are. The discrepancy in sentencing was found when looking at like-for-like crime. Remember the 'beautiful young woman' as an Oxford Student stabbed her boyfriend after taking drugs. The judge said imprisonment would ruin her future career. Can you see a man receiving similar sentencing leniency? The male suicide rate is 4 times as high as women's. The 'attempts' women make are often attention seeking. Men just get on with it. To compare attempt and succeeding in this context is misleading. Shall we include the women who think about it? Homelessness stands. When it comes to the Military historically (and not in the UK admittedly) the draft only affected men. OK, so more front line roles are now filled with women, will their proportionate casualty rate reflect this? I doubt it. But I feel suitably admonished for looking at extremist data. Shall we continue with your 'sensible' discussion? " No. But feel free to rant away. Have fun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The discrepancy in sentencing was found when looking at like-for-like crime. Remember the 'beautiful young woman' as an Oxford Student stabbed her boyfriend after taking drugs. The judge said imprisonment would ruin her future career. Can you see a man receiving similar sentencing leniency?" You mean like Brock Turner who was basically let off because a criminal sentence would ruin his swimming scholarship? There are countless examples of men, both here in the UK and internationally, who are let off for crimes against women because people beleived they were 'respectable' or because it would ruin their careers or lives. An article in the Guardian this morning made reference to the fact that actually, women who commit domestic violence against men (even if that domestic violence was in self-defence) receive harsher sentences and punishment then men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what I'm getting from this is that the patriarchy is responsible for the problems of both men and women, but the patriarchy is purely the construct of men? " You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. Not men alive now, but men who lived in the past. However there are many, many men alive now who recognise the benefits that a patriarchal system brings them and therefore wish to see it continue. (Kyriarchy is technically a better term than patriarchy, because it covers more structures of oppression than just gender.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what I'm getting from this is that the patriarchy is responsible for the problems of both men and women, but the patriarchy is purely the construct of men? You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. Not men alive now, but men who lived in the past. However there are many, many men alive now who recognise the benefits that a patriarchal system brings them and therefore wish to see it continue. (Kyriarchy is technically a better term than patriarchy, because it covers more structures of oppression than just gender.)" If by "seriously simplifying" you mean using less words then yeah, but I would like to know what benefits a Patriarchy system would bring, and what percentage of the population it would be a benefit for. Because I can't think of one benefit of female suppression, or maybe I don't think that way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what I'm getting from this is that the patriarchy is responsible for the problems of both men and women, but the patriarchy is purely the construct of men? You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. Not men alive now, but men who lived in the past. However there are many, many men alive now who recognise the benefits that a patriarchal system brings them and therefore wish to see it continue. (Kyriarchy is technically a better term than patriarchy, because it covers more structures of oppression than just gender.) If by "seriously simplifying" you mean using less words then yeah, but I would like to know what benefits a Patriarchy system would bring, and what percentage of the population it would be a benefit for. Because I can't think of one benefit of female suppression, or maybe I don't think that way" One benefit of patriarchy for men: Patriarchy says that women should be in the care-giving and child-rearing roles. This brings quite a few related benefits - it means that men do not have to worry about splitting child-rearing 50/50, that their siblings are likely to take the lead on caring for their elderly parents. Just one very small example. If you wanted to find out more you could perhaps do a quick google rather than expecting people to give their labour and explaining it to you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what I'm getting from this is that the patriarchy is responsible for the problems of both men and women, but the patriarchy is purely the construct of men? You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. Not men alive now, but men who lived in the past. However there are many, many men alive now who recognise the benefits that a patriarchal system brings them and therefore wish to see it continue. (Kyriarchy is technically a better term than patriarchy, because it covers more structures of oppression than just gender.) If by "seriously simplifying" you mean using less words then yeah, but I would like to know what benefits a Patriarchy system would bring, and what percentage of the population it would be a benefit for. Because I can't think of one benefit of female suppression, or maybe I don't think that way One benefit of patriarchy for men: Patriarchy says that women should be in the care-giving and child-rearing roles. This brings quite a few related benefits - it means that men do not have to worry about splitting child-rearing 50/50, that their siblings are likely to take the lead on caring for their elderly parents. Just one very small example. If you wanted to find out more you could perhaps do a quick google rather than expecting people to give their labour and explaining it to you?" No its ok, I believe that if someone wants to challenge my opinion the least they can do is explain it themselves, but if you would like to use Google in order to form basis for your opinion then feel free | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No its ok, I believe that if someone wants to challenge my opinion the least they can do is explain it themselves, but if you would like to use Google in order to form basis for your opinion then feel free" My opinion comes out of 8 years of academic study. Not Google. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No its ok, I believe that if someone wants to challenge my opinion the least they can do is explain it themselves, but if you would like to use Google in order to form basis for your opinion then feel free My opinion comes out of 8 years of academic study. Not Google." Then you might just be a better source than Google then, wouldn't you agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No its ok, I believe that if someone wants to challenge my opinion the least they can do is explain it themselves, but if you would like to use Google in order to form basis for your opinion then feel free My opinion comes out of 8 years of academic study. Not Google. Then you might just be a better source than Google then, wouldn't you agree " Yes, for advanced discussion on the subject. But there are some really bloody excellent articles about 'Feminism 101' out there on the internet that do a fantastic introduction to the main problems of things like the patriarchy and the benefits of getting rid of it. There's really no point in repeating stuff that is taught in secondary schools nowadays when so many good resources already exist and are freely accessible. (And if you look really hard, you might even find my rant about repeatedly being told by men that they want *my* take on the subject rather than reading the articles and books that I spent so long reading to form my opinions). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh and I have to add re leniency in sentencing - there is a very well publicised case in the USA involving a young man found guilty of r@pe (literally caught in the act by 2 men) and because he was a promising athlete his sentence was greatly reduced - so examples of gender bias go both ways. Ultimately I’m still to have a man show me that the world I know and I experience as a woman is fair and equal and be able to show me that the inequalities I face aren’t there because of years of institution and systems that were built by men. You only have to look to the church to see how long it’s been going on " You exhibited a lot of point twisting and personal bias in your answers (“the world I know“.... Aka My possibly flawed perception) while dragging up "evidence" from the 90s when we are 2018 and anecdotes which are single data points and have still failed to plot or even hint at a course of meaningful action. We are only hearing about the problem and not the solution. There is a gaping hole in what you are saying also if you don't think that women have contributed to the formation of society and institutions either directly or indirectly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ohh, is this the thread for a few men to be very angry how being asked to not be raging shits is just the height of unfairness? It's been a while..." Look at what a reasonable debate was had without your usual influence... We`ll just ignore your trolling. "raging shits" for having considered opinions......grow up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No its ok, I believe that if someone wants to challenge my opinion the least they can do is explain it themselves, but if you would like to use Google in order to form basis for your opinion then feel free My opinion comes out of 8 years of academic study. Not Google. Then you might just be a better source than Google then, wouldn't you agree Yes, for advanced discussion on the subject. But there are some really bloody excellent articles about 'Feminism 101' out there on the internet that do a fantastic introduction to the main problems of things like the patriarchy and the benefits of getting rid of it. There's really no point in repeating stuff that is taught in secondary schools nowadays when so many good resources already exist and are freely accessible. (And if you look really hard, you might even find my rant about repeatedly being told by men that they want *my* take on the subject rather than reading the articles and books that I spent so long reading to form my opinions)." You assume that I've not read anything on the subject, and that I'm just talking out of my hat, I'm not, I've had many in depth discussions with feminists from all across the spectrum, don't assume that because I'm not regarded as "woke" that I know nothing, I'm fascinated by the subject, but even after all of the reading and conversion, my opinion is what it is, and to dismiss me as knowing little about the subject compared to your 8 years academic study is quite frankly a little arrogant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You exhibited a lot of point twisting and personal bias in your answers (“the world I know“.... Aka My possibly flawed perception) while dragging up "evidence" from the 90s when we are 2018 and anecdotes " Oh the irony... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No its ok, I believe that if someone wants to challenge my opinion the least they can do is explain it themselves, but if you would like to use Google in order to form basis for your opinion then feel free My opinion comes out of 8 years of academic study. Not Google. Then you might just be a better source than Google then, wouldn't you agree Yes, for advanced discussion on the subject. But there are some really bloody excellent articles about 'Feminism 101' out there on the internet that do a fantastic introduction to the main problems of things like the patriarchy and the benefits of getting rid of it. There's really no point in repeating stuff that is taught in secondary schools nowadays when so many good resources already exist and are freely accessible. (And if you look really hard, you might even find my rant about repeatedly being told by men that they want *my* take on the subject rather than reading the articles and books that I spent so long reading to form my opinions). You assume that I've not read anything on the subject, and that I'm just talking out of my hat, I'm not, I've had many in depth discussions with feminists from all across the spectrum, don't assume that because I'm not regarded as "woke" that I know nothing, I'm fascinated by the subject, but even after all of the reading and conversion, my opinion is what it is, and to dismiss me as knowing little about the subject compared to your 8 years academic study is quite frankly a little arrogant " This is my feeling too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You assume that I've not read anything on the subject, and that I'm just talking out of my hat, I'm not, I've had many in depth discussions with feminists from all across the spectrum, don't assume that because I'm not regarded as "woke" that I know nothing, I'm fascinated by the subject, but even after all of the reading and conversion, my opinion is what it is, and to dismiss me as knowing little about the subject compared to your 8 years academic study is quite frankly a little arrogant " Your comment of: "So what I'm getting from this is that the patriarchy is responsible for the problems of both men and women, but the patriarchy is purely the construct of men?" Suggests that you have not done any reading or talking of the basics of what feminism is. Or if you have, you have not been paying attention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. " And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really " It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it." In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll leave this conversation stew for now. I've heard the usual hackneyed feminism 101 stuff on repeat and no one has given a good stab at answering my original question about developing a vision and course of action. Have a good day folks " In answer to your original question, my model would be the same as my model for the replacement of organised religion, just stop being a dick to each other | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more" I think that the reality of patriarchal assumptions still exist throughout society and our denial as men of their existence serves to reinforce them. They are present in our use of power and in relationships. While we deny their existence and don’t inquire into them with women we continue to perpetuate what we deny exists any longer....? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more" I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll leave this conversation stew for now. I've heard the usual hackneyed feminism 101 stuff on repeat and no one has given a good stab at answering my original question about developing a vision and course of action. Have a good day folks " The vision is created through a process of mutual inquiry to expect others to have the answer is to miss the point of the process of getting there perhaps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ohh, is this the thread for a few men to be very angry how being asked to not be raging shits is just the height of unfairness? It's been a while..." Thank God. WHITE KNIGHT COMES TO SAVE TO DAY!!!!!!!!!! Not getting you laid though is it Mr on site for over a year and no verifications. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working." Yeah and we need to encourage more men to be beauticians and nurses, and air hosts, cause women have been unfairly dominating these fields, and the subliminal message is always they are not for men unless they are gay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working." But through inquiry together we can seek to remove the barriers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working. Yeah and we need to encourage more men to be beauticians and nurses, and air hosts, cause women have been unfairly dominating these fields, and the subliminal message is always they are not for men unless they are gay." Patriarchal assumptions at play again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working. Yeah and we need to encourage more men to be beauticians and nurses, and air hosts, cause women have been unfairly dominating these fields, and the subliminal message is always they are not for men unless they are gay." Men won't, because other men will ridicule them for it. Plus, they don't pay well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working." By all means have equality opportunity of opportunity but it's not good to force equality of outcome. By all means encourage women to go into engineering and computing. Some will be excellent, some not. Just as is the case with men. Friend of mine is a male primary school teacher. He's the only male member of staff in the school. If there a Guardian Style uproar about this every so often? Not really No. There are other areas where women are chronically underrepresented and this needs that change in order to be fair. For examples, driving on the M6 at 2am. Road workers were out - all male. Got tyres change at Kwik Fit. All male staff apart from the officer clerk. Perhaps people make different career/life choices and as much as you want to socially engineer we have freedom of choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men won't, because other men will ridicule them for it. Plus, they don't pay well." The media will ridicule them. Jermey clarkson and crew couldn't go one episode without ridiculing a guy for being a hairdresser. The only people who are under constant attack by the media, are straight white men. They are nearly always the villains in films, they are emasculated over and over, told that being proud of being straight is wrong, that they can not verbalize their sexuality, that they must do more to give their job to women, and people of colour, but that it is their fault when their family falls apart, and when they can not provide for their family, and it is their fault for asking for money because of this pressure and they should not, they should ask for less to be paid the same as women. It's non stop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working. Yeah and we need to encourage more men to be beauticians and nurses, and air hosts, cause women have been unfairly dominating these fields, and the subliminal message is always they are not for men unless they are gay. Men won't, because other men will ridicule them for it. Plus, they don't pay well." The perhaps women make similar choices. As I previously said, repair roads at 2am in the pissing rain. Ew, no thanks. Pays quite well though I am told. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working. Yeah and we need to encourage more men to be beauticians and nurses, and air hosts, cause women have been unfairly dominating these fields, and the subliminal message is always they are not for men unless they are gay. Patriarchal assumptions at play again?" Another WHITE KNIGHT HERE TO SAVE THE DAY!!!!! Doesnt appear to be getting you laid either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working. Yeah and we need to encourage more men to be beauticians and nurses, and air hosts, cause women have been unfairly dominating these fields, and the subliminal message is always they are not for men unless they are gay." Straight of the bat, you dismiss the sensible. You do realise all these inverse arguments aren't mutually exclusive don't you? Areas where men and women are held behind can BOTH be helped. Sounds like sour grapes that action is being taken to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Another WHITE KNIGHT HERE TO SAVE THE DAY!!!!! Doesnt appear to be getting you laid either." Who are you calling a White Knight, him or me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Another WHITE KNIGHT HERE TO SAVE THE DAY!!!!! Doesnt appear to be getting you laid either. Who are you calling a White Knight, him or me?" Him, not you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working." We are living still in a hangover period of victorian values, where men had to be men, and women had to be subservient to those men, the women's movement made giant leaps from the 60s to the 90s but then sections of feminism felt that equality was not enough, so we are left with radicals that believe that nothing has changed in 100 years and the fight is real, when in actual fact feminism should have proudly hung up its boots long ago, and enjoyed the fruits of its labour, and continued the work of great women by just living the life provided for them by women of the past, and letting our daughters know that you can do what ever job you want to do, if you want to bean engineer be an engineer, ifyou want to be a housewife be a house wife, that's the thing about freedom, when you tell people that they can't do something because it goes against the rhetoric of a few people, you piss all over the values and ideals of those who fought and sometimes died to give you the freedom under which you live. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working. By all means have equality opportunity of opportunity but it's not good to force equality of outcome. By all means encourage women to go into engineering and computing. Some will be excellent, some not. Just as is the case with men. Friend of mine is a male primary school teacher. He's the only male member of staff in the school. If there a Guardian Style uproar about this every so often? Not really No. There are other areas where women are chronically underrepresented and this needs that change in order to be fair. For examples, driving on the M6 at 2am. Road workers were out - all male. Got tyres change at Kwik Fit. All male staff apart from the officer clerk. Perhaps people make different career/life choices and as much as you want to socially engineer we have freedom of choice." I don't want to socially engineer anything. All I said was the current balance of gender in a profession can stop people from entering it. I'm an engineer and it is mostly male, I wouldn't want my daughter feeling excluded from it. I'm not a ball crunching feminist, I can just see that old school ways of working are hard to overcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or tell them that they 'have to' do something so that the gender ratios appease the proponents of social justice." I dont see anybody saying that, do you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working. By all means have equality opportunity of opportunity but it's not good to force equality of outcome. By all means encourage women to go into engineering and computing. Some will be excellent, some not. Just as is the case with men. Friend of mine is a male primary school teacher. He's the only male member of staff in the school. If there a Guardian Style uproar about this every so often? Not really No. There are other areas where women are chronically underrepresented and this needs that change in order to be fair. For examples, driving on the M6 at 2am. Road workers were out - all male. Got tyres change at Kwik Fit. All male staff apart from the officer clerk. Perhaps people make different career/life choices and as much as you want to socially engineer we have freedom of choice. I don't want to socially engineer anything. All I said was the current balance of gender in a profession can stop people from entering it. I'm an engineer and it is mostly male, I wouldn't want my daughter feeling excluded from it. I'm not a ball crunching feminist, I can just see that old school ways of working are hard to overcome." I don't agree. Gender imbalance is in itself is not a barrier. And if it you wanted to push the point and say that it was, the extent to which it was would vary from person to person. It a bit wishy washy social science. Perhaps the gender distributions in this dage and age are reflections of choices made. Jordan Peterson's work on this is very good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or tell them that they 'have to' do something so that the gender ratios appease the proponents of social justice. I dont see anybody saying that, do you?" Not far off it. Women only shortlists for Labour party Parliamentary posts. My point is that gender ratios in employment sectors can be product of choice and not some mythical, oppressive force keeping women down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or tell them that they 'have to' do something so that the gender ratios appease the proponents of social justice. I dont see anybody saying that, do you? Not far off it. Women only shortlists for Labour party Parliamentary posts. My point is that gender ratios in employment sectors can be product of choice and not some mythical, oppressive force keeping women down." Most sensible people aren't blaming a mythical force. There are old stereotypes all over reflected in workforce sex. Apart from Labour where have you experienced this job forcing? In industry I've never seen or heard of it happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes but the debate on smashing the patriarchy doesn't tend to sensible. Universities are rife with the talk of 'affirmative' action and quotas for fields where women are underrepresented. Same for politics. The mantra seems to be that if only women were in charge then no bad things in the world would happen. " Doesn't mean it has to be countered with equal but opposite non-sensible comments. Sensible people can have sensible conversations about things, without pointing out straw man examples from elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are seriously simplifying what 'patriarchy' is. The most basic way I could explain it is a system of social orders and behaviours. It has primarily been men that have created this system of social orders and behaviours historically so yes, patriarchy is largely the construct of men. And this was your explanation of the patriarchy, there's not a lot in it is there really It is also reinforced by the ongoing actions of men and women, consciously and unconsciously, but men created it. In this modern age, there is no patriarchy in the same way as there was in the days of Emiline pankhurst and Emily Davidson, back then women really were treated as second class citizens or worse, as property but this modern image of a clandestine organisation akin to super villans, is so out of touch, it's just not like that any more I (mr) agree that I don't think a clandestine operation is in effect. But for example, I work in engineering and manufacturing. Historically and now, most engineers and nearly all senior staff are men. That isn't anyones 'fault' or current design. It does paint a picture for young women coming in to the industry that those positions are not for them. We try to encourage women into it, but the subliminal signs say otherwise. Changing things like that is difficult, not through peoples current will, but because of historical ways of working. Yeah and we need to encourage more men to be beauticians and nurses, and air hosts, cause women have been unfairly dominating these fields, and the subliminal message is always they are not for men unless they are gay. Patriarchal assumptions at play again? Another WHITE KNIGHT HERE TO SAVE THE DAY!!!!! Doesnt appear to be getting you laid either."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll leave this conversation stew for now. I've heard the usual hackneyed feminism 101 stuff on repeat and no one has given a good stab at answering my original question about developing a vision and course of action. Have a good day folks " Nobody knew what Europe without monarchs would look like, but we went and did that anyway. Likewise, nobody knew what Ireland without English rule would look like, but that didn't stop anyone either. When something is harmful we ought to do away with it, and rightfully heap scorn on the mewling from the sidelines about "but what will a world without this thing look like". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ohh, is this the thread for a few men to be very angry how being asked to not be raging shits is just the height of unfairness? It's been a while... Thank God. WHITE KNIGHT COMES TO SAVE TO DAY!!!!!!!!!! Not getting you laid though is it Mr on site for over a year and no verifications." If that's the best you can do, maybe you should just not participate, there's a good boy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ohh, is this the thread for a few men to be very angry how being asked to not be raging shits is just the height of unfairness? It's been a while... Thank God. WHITE KNIGHT COMES TO SAVE TO DAY!!!!!!!!!! Not getting you laid though is it Mr on site for over a year and no verifications. If that's the best you can do, maybe you should just not participate, there's a good boy." Yes, that would also appear to be an ad hominem argument or, for those who don’t want to google it, “playing the man not the ball” is my favourite analogy. Stick to the arguments, and don’t sling mud at your verbal opponents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It makes me wonder that if someone looks at a person's verifications to see if they should listen to them, does it mean that if someone with hundreds of verifications told him that the sky was green he'd unquestioningly accept it." . Nah not really, it's just a guide to who's a forum troll and who's not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It makes me wonder that if someone looks at a person's verifications to see if they should listen to them, does it mean that if someone with hundreds of verifications told him that the sky was green he'd unquestioningly accept it.. Nah not really, it's just a guide to who's a forum troll and who's not "I do believe the formal definition of a troll is someone who lacks the good graces to agree unquestioningly with the opinions of someone with a fragile ego. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It makes me wonder that if someone looks at a person's verifications to see if they should listen to them, does it mean that if someone with hundreds of verifications told him that the sky was green he'd unquestioningly accept it.. Nah not really, it's just a guide to who's a forum troll and who's not
I do believe the formal definition of a troll is someone who lacks the good graces to agree unquestioningly with the opinions of someone with a fragile ego. ". Or somebody on all day and night and yet still finds time to flit between Ireland and Canada  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It makes me wonder that if someone looks at a person's verifications to see if they should listen to them, does it mean that if someone with hundreds of verifications told him that the sky was green he'd unquestioningly accept it.. Nah not really, it's just a guide to who's a forum troll and who's not
I do believe the formal definition of a troll is someone who lacks the good graces to agree unquestioningly with the opinions of someone with a fragile ego. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It makes me wonder that if someone looks at a person's verifications to see if they should listen to them, does it mean that if someone with hundreds of verifications told him that the sky was green he'd unquestioningly accept it.. Nah not really, it's just a guide to who's a forum troll and who's not
I do believe the formal definition of a troll is someone who lacks the good graces to agree unquestioningly with the opinions of someone with a fragile ego. "Well you do lack good graces that bit is true. We don't have men as a ruling class in answer to your point on monarchs and british rule. I'll point you to exceptions like Teresa May or Angel Merkel before you bore us all with a generalised it's mostly men in power type of answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It makes me wonder that if someone looks at a person's verifications to see if they should listen to them, does it mean that if someone with hundreds of verifications told him that the sky was green he'd unquestioningly accept it.. Nah not really, it's just a guide to who's a forum troll and who's not
I do believe the formal definition of a troll is someone who lacks the good graces to agree unquestioningly with the opinions of someone with a fragile ego. .
Or somebody on all day and night and yet still finds time to flit between Ireland and Canada"Planes. They're amazing things. You should read about them some time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It makes me wonder that if someone looks at a person's verifications to see if they should listen to them, does it mean that if someone with hundreds of verifications told him that the sky was green he'd unquestioningly accept it.. Nah not really, it's just a guide to who's a forum troll and who's not
I do believe the formal definition of a troll is someone who lacks the good graces to agree unquestioningly with the opinions of someone with a fragile ego.
Well you do lack good graces that bit is true.
We don't have men as a ruling class in answer to your point on monarchs and british rule.
I'll point you to exceptions like Teresa May or Angel Merkel before you bore us all with a generalised it's mostly men in power type of answer. "Not what I said. Read it again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody knew what Europe without monarchs would look like, but we went and did that anyway. Likewise, nobody knew what Ireland without English rule would look like, but that didn't stop anyone either. When something is harmful we ought to do away with it, and rightfully heap scorn on the mewling from the sidelines about "but what will a world without this thing look like"." This is all in direct opposition to everything you have to say on brexit. It wouldn't be like you to mix up your ideologies or contradict yourself now would it
Hard to be a man of principles when they get jumbled up with emotive opinions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody knew what Europe without monarchs would look like, but we went and did that anyway. Likewise, nobody knew what Ireland without English rule would look like, but that didn't stop anyone either. When something is harmful we ought to do away with it, and rightfully heap scorn on the mewling from the sidelines about "but what will a world without this thing look like". This is all in direct opposition to everything you have to say on brexit. It wouldn't be like you to mix up your ideologies or contradict yourself now would it
Hard to be a man of principles when they get jumbled up with emotive opinions."It is not. And as you've made a claim I'd like for you very much to back it up, or simply admit you were lying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't feel that removing a clear ruling structure and the so far undefined removal of an invisible or hard to characterise “patriarchial structure“ were analogous. I also felt that you were trying to say that all changes are positive....no unintended consequences One is a very clear change, one is blurry as fuck (which again brings back my original question on what do you want to change?....Tangibly!?) Not some fluffy "peace in our time" style of answer" I want to destroy the patriarchy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I want to destroy the patriarchy." Fine, but what is it? Let's start by blowing up all buildings they were mostly built by men... shall we do the hospitals and schools first? What's next? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I want to destroy the patriarchy. Fine, but what is it? Let's start by blowing up all buildings they were mostly built by men... shall we do the hospitals and schools first? What's next? "Asking less stupid questions would be a start. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I want to destroy the patriarchy. Fine, but what is it? Let's start by blowing up all buildings they were mostly built by men... shall we do the hospitals and schools first? What's next?
Asking less stupid questions would be a start."Exactly, you can't just destroy something you need to identify it and what is wrong with it first. "Destroy the patriarchy" is almost as stupid as "kill the war mongers, smash violence" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look John, enough Trolling. Talk about a circular thread - any chance you can elaborate on how all this destroying will happen? Original question at the start of thread.... Practical steps? Milestones? WHAT DO YOU WANT?" To destroy the patriarchy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I want to destroy the patriarchy. Fine, but what is it? Let's start by blowing up all buildings they were mostly built by men... shall we do the hospitals and schools first? What's next?
Asking less stupid questions would be a start.
Exactly, you can't just destroy something you need to identify it and what is wrong with it first. "Destroy the patriarchy" is almost as stupid as "kill the war mongers, smash violence" "Well, lots of people have identified exactly what patriarchy is and what's wrong with it. However it seems lots of people want to deny that all of this academic work has been happening over the past... oh I dunno... fifty years... and would instead prefer to debate if the patriarchy actually exists like some kind of crazed conspiracy theorists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I want to destroy the patriarchy. Fine, but what is it? Let's start by blowing up all buildings they were mostly built by men... shall we do the hospitals and schools first? What's next?
Asking less stupid questions would be a start.
Exactly, you can't just destroy something you need to identify it and what is wrong with it first. "Destroy the patriarchy" is almost as stupid as "kill the war mongers, smash violence" "We know what's wrong with it. So that's that step taken care of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's actually more stupid. At least we generally know who the war mongers are if we were to go try kill them all (in the name of peace...lol) Anyway...I say that we ignore the troll and get back to our debate. It's a fine example of how difficult the brain washed ideologues can be - all WANT WANT DESTROY DESTOY No plan....no vision....no way forward How can we get seriously get behind that? " Yes, the remove of a toxic social system that harms everyone is the very definition of "No plan....no vision....no way forward". How astute of you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's actually more stupid. At least we generally know who the war mongers are if we were to go try kill them all (in the name of peace...lol) Anyway...I say that we ignore the troll and get back to our debate. It's a fine example of how difficult the brain washed ideologues can be - all WANT WANT DESTROY DESTOY No plan....no vision....no way forward How can we get seriously get behind that? Yes, the remove of a toxic social system that harms everyone is the very definition of "No plan....no vision....no way forward". How astute of you." REMOVE IT HOW? Is this keyhole surgery or full on chemo? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Academic Theory* Of arguably biased researchers Not all that happens in Academia is worthwhile..tendencies to bad science especially in social science, publish or perish pressure, disconnect from the real world Those who can do, those who can't etc. " Oh, you should tell your doctor next time they prescribe you medication that you don't want it, because it was researched by academics. And those who can't, teach. Etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Academic Theory* Of arguably biased researchers Not all that happens in Academia is worthwhile..tendencies to bad science especially in social science, publish or perish pressure, disconnect from the real world Those who can do, those who can't etc. Oh, you should tell your doctor next time they prescribe you medication that you don't want it, because it was researched by academics. And those who can't, teach. Etc." Medicine is an empirical field | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's actually more stupid. At least we generally know who the war mongers are if we were to go try kill them all (in the name of peace...lol) Anyway...I say that we ignore the troll and get back to our debate. It's a fine example of how difficult the brain washed ideologues can be - all WANT WANT DESTROY DESTOY No plan....no vision....no way forward How can we get seriously get behind that? Yes, the remove of a toxic social system that harms everyone is the very definition of "No plan....no vision....no way forward". How astute of you. REMOVE IT HOW? Is this keyhole surgery or full on chemo? " Yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Academic Theory* Of arguably biased researchers Not all that happens in Academia is worthwhile..tendencies to bad science especially in social science, publish or perish pressure, disconnect from the real world Those who can do, those who can't etc. Oh, you should tell your doctor next time they prescribe you medication that you don't want it, because it was researched by academics. And those who can't, teach. Etc. Medicine is an empirical field "Nah alot of medicine is about asking people their feelings and making judgements about the trends shown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"New years resolution is not to argue with idiots or trolls - have a nice day John. " I mean, I'd suggest that a better new years resolution would be for you to stop posting misogynistic shit on internet forums. But hey, looks like you're having fun! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Academic Theory* Of arguably biased researchers Not all that happens in Academia is worthwhile..tendencies to bad science especially in social science, publish or perish pressure, disconnect from the real world Those who can do, those who can't etc. Oh, you should tell your doctor next time they prescribe you medication that you don't want it, because it was researched by academics. And those who can't, teach. Etc. Medicine is an empirical field
Nah alot of medicine is about asking people their feelings and making judgements about the trends shown. "I forgot to add thst I've a healthy suspicion of that too. Do you know what iatrogenics are? In simple terms it means that intervention can often do more unintended harm than good and I think for the modern (2018!!) western world where things are reasonably OK I think it's a good thing to be mindful of before you can on an ill thought out and undetermined course of DESTRUCTION | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"New years resolution is not to argue with idiots or trolls - have a nice day John. I mean, I'd suggest that a better new years resolution would be for you to stop posting misogynistic shit on internet forums. But hey, looks like you're having fun!" I'm far from misogynistic - that's a lazy argument rolled out by feminists who don't have a decent response to what you are saying. Superflash loves all the girls | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"New years resolution is not to argue with idiots or trolls - have a nice day John. I mean, I'd suggest that a better new years resolution would be for you to stop posting misogynistic shit on internet forums. But hey, looks like you're having fun! I'm far from misogynistic - that's a lazy argument rolled out by feminists who don't have a decent response to what you are saying. Superflash loves all the girls " He just doesn't think they should say anything that contradicts his worldview. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Anyway...still no clear answers to my original questions
We must conclude that Feminism has lost it's way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Much like yourself there John
Anyway...still no clear answers to my original questions
We must conclude that Feminism has lost it's way."No, I don't think that's true at all. But I do know it's the conclusion you started with and have worked backwards from. Which makes me wonder why you waste other people's time demanding that everyone jump through evermore elaborate hoops and chase your constantly moving goalposts if all you're ever capable of is declaring you were right all along. That doesn't sound like the kind of thing that would be worth anyone's time, so why ought you be indulged? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well the distinct lack of an answer to my questions has proven me more right than wrong in saying that feminism doesn't know what it wants, except that it wants it. " If you say so. But I think it's very easy to come to that conclusion when you just don't listen to anything you're told, and just insist that everything is exactly as you always believe. " All sides of the identify politics gender war are misguided brainwashed and naive "The important thing is you've fooled yourself into that that's true, and that you're above it all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Much like yourself there John
Anyway...still no clear answers to my original questions
We must conclude that Feminism has lost it's way."I disagree, feminism as such was the start, to complete the task we must look at achievements and failures of the past 50 years and look globally at others achievements and failures. Then society needs to identify targets both idealistic and realistic, and set about achieving them. An end to domestic violence would be an idealistic target. Not possible because some people are just bad... So how to we minimise domestic violence could be a realistic target. Also we have to accept that this is never going to be global. We don't have a world government, so can only work within our own areas of influence. This is no longer an issue of feminism, it is not a pat v mat solution, it's about an equal and fair society. The answer is not to destroy anything but instead learn and build. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think a more interesting question is - Can humanity ever have true equality? " Or want it? Lots of things women can do I have no interest in experiencing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But how can we possibly build anything good on the basis of something so utterly without merit." I don't know about where you live, here we have structures to live in, medical systems which can keep people healthy schools and universities that give equal opportunity to males and females often in the same classroom. Equal opportunities at work. In fact quite a lot of merit. It's not perfect, but we are only 1 generation into trying it. So learning as we go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But how can we possibly build anything good on the basis of something so utterly without merit. I don't know about where you live, here we have structures to live in, medical systems which can keep people healthy schools and universities that give equal opportunity to males and females often in the same classroom. Equal opportunities at work. In fact quite a lot of merit. It's not perfect, but we are only 1 generation into trying it. So learning as we go." Given that we've been building infrastructure since the first cities, you may as well attribute that to racism, slavery, or divine sun kings. So, no, patriarchy has no merit and hurts us all. We can no more build on it than we can build a house on sand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Much like yourself there John
Anyway...still no clear answers to my original questions
We must conclude that Feminism has lost it's way.
I disagree, feminism as such was the start, to complete the task we must look at achievements and failures of the past 50 years and look globally at others achievements and failures.
Then society needs to identify targets both idealistic and realistic, and set about achieving them. An end to domestic violence would be an idealistic target. Not possible because some people are just bad... So how to we minimise domestic violence could be a realistic target.
Also we have to accept that this is never going to be global. We don't have a world government, so can only work within our own areas of influence.
This is no longer an issue of feminism, it is not a pat v mat solution, it's about an equal and fair society.
The answer is not to destroy anything but instead learn and build. "
To a new refined version, interested in real equality not a sense of retribution for the past. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, no, patriarchy has no merit and hurts us all. We can no more build on it than we can build a house on sand. " We can build house on sand, years of getting it wrong has taught us the right way of doing it ..... not dissimilar to changing the things that are wrong in society until we get them right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, no, patriarchy has no merit and hurts us all. We can no more build on it than we can build a house on sand. " Says the man...who just paid for a transatlantic flight, has shoes on his feet and is posting on the internet with his computer or phone. No sense of what's important or how could we (men and women alike) have it in the western world. Who what or where is the omnipresent force? Scorch the earth and start again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, no, patriarchy has no merit and hurts us all. We can no more build on it than we can build a house on sand. Says the man...who just paid for a transatlantic flight, has shoes on his feet and is posting on the internet with his computer or phone. No sense of what's important or how could we (men and women alike) have it in the western world. Who what or where is the omnipresent force? Scorch the earth and start again? " You're fixated on the lie that removing a toxic social system will require a return to the middle ages. Presumably, because you don't value honesty in your discourse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, no, patriarchy has no merit and hurts us all. We can no more build on it than we can build a house on sand. We can build house on sand, years of getting it wrong has taught us the right way of doing it ..... not dissimilar to changing the things that are wrong in society until we get them right. " You can not build on a system you seek to remove. It must be replaced, otherwise we cannot hope to be rid of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can not build on a system you seek to remove. It must be replaced, otherwise we cannot hope to be rid of it. " But you can't replace it, you have no idea which walls needs knocking down, or which ones are structural. So you have to reinvent within the constraints if this house built on sand (which is pretty tough, if you melt it and make glass btw) Just give me the first patriarchal thing that needs to go and I will pop in with my hammer and get started.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, no, patriarchy has no merit and hurts us all. We can no more build on it than we can build a house on sand. We can build house on sand, years of getting it wrong has taught us the right way of doing it ..... not dissimilar to changing the things that are wrong in society until we get them right. You can not build on a system you seek to remove. It must be replaced, otherwise we cannot hope to be rid of it. " Come on tinfoil hat man....HOW do we replace it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can not build on a system you seek to remove. It must be replaced, otherwise we cannot hope to be rid of it. But you can't replace it, you have no idea which walls needs knocking down, or which ones are structural. So you have to reinvent within the constraints if this house built on sand (which is pretty tough, if you melt it and make glass btw) Just give me the first patriarchal thing that needs to go and I will pop in with my hammer and get started.... " Toxic masculinity. Off you go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Toxic masculinity. Off you go." Already started on that one, apart from really annoying the BDSM crowd by removing the D. There are in most countries laws against many other aspects defined in toxic masculinity that certainly over the last 20 to 30 years have made a big impact. E.g. homophobia is much decreased in reality. Even most churches don't actually promote it anymore. Suppressed emotions is a difficult one, society requires you to work alongside and with a number of people who really are annoying. Opening the valve on that one too quickly could be very destructive. But other coping strategies are on the increase and emotions are handled better than they used to be. Self reliance, can't help with that, along with its partner self responsibility, I think it is something we need more of in both genders. Under the humour most negative aspects defined as toxic masculinity are now illegal and progress has been made in reducing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can not build on a system you seek to remove. It must be replaced, otherwise we cannot hope to be rid of it. But you can't replace it, you have no idea which walls needs knocking down, or which ones are structural. So you have to reinvent within the constraints if this house built on sand (which is pretty tough, if you melt it and make glass btw) Just give me the first patriarchal thing that needs to go and I will pop in with my hammer and get started.... Toxic masculinity. Off you go." With talk of removal and destroying and how you cant fix whats broken, I think you are one ideological step away from #killallmen if you arent already there. Weird! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
