Gender

[Paddy™]

@MyRedneptune

Spoiler below!

Guess what - any kind of inequality is evidence for a "patriarchy".

No it isn't. Patriarchy is when women aren't in control of their own destinies, and men rule everything, deliberately and consciously. How that has anything to do with racism, sectarianism, classism, etc. is beyond me. Unless, of course, all of society's ills are caused by maleness?

Society has many imbalances which aren't by design. I don't believe for a second that the patriarchy is handing out privilege coupons to people with cocks. It's a conspiratorial fantasy which isn't helping anyone.

And yes, my hypothetical conversation about women's privilege in court was supposed to be contradictory - that was the point of it. Feminists want to have their cake and eat it; they want to scream oppression on the one hand and present their gains and privilege as even more evidence of oppression on the other.

I'm all for the evening out of these privileges amongst genders. But as we'll get to in a moment, I don't think feminism has any constructive role to play.

And before you jump on that statement and tell me that men are discriminated against just as much as women or something like that, ask yourself this: what are considered to be the most valuable personal achievements in our modern capitalistic society? Power, knowledge, money, fame, recognition, respect - probably one of those, right? Well, the funny thing is that, for some peculiar reason, men tend to be more successful in those fields than women. Hmm, I wonder why that is?

I agree, I'm not saying society is fine the way it is, we need to even things out, but I don't see any of this as something that feminism is uniquely qualified to deal with. If you look back to its Marxist beginnings in around 1969, and look at what they said and how they behaved, you'll see why it has no place in any constructive progressive society. It's like using the IRA to end sectarianism! And no, things haven't changed since then, the core ideology is still the same. There are still books being written by well-respected feminists about how men are defective women, are useless, stupid, that the world needs to reduce the male population size down to about 10% of what it is now, that sex is rape if initiated by the male, that men are natural rapists and abusers of women, etc. They're extremists, and just because the philosophy gets diluted as it trickles down into the moderate, progressive feminist viewpoint, that doesn't make it any less dangerous or counter-productive.

Sure, women have some privileges over men. They are privileged in matters of family and emotional health. But you can't claim they are more privileged than men, or even as privileged as men.

If you wanted to list all of the ways in which one gender might have an easier time than the other I'm sure you could come up with a winner, but my point is that I don't consider this to be a conspiracy by the patriarchy. Like I said, there are many imbalances in all areas of society that aren't "by design" or part of an overarching plan. It's not helpful to view every problem as a gender issue when there's usually a much less sinister explanation.

Now, this is just alien logic to me. Why the hell would it matter who does the dirty work - it's the fact that discrimination exists that matters, right? Let me repeat something that has been stated more than once in this thread: most feminists are not against men. Most feminists do not blame anything on men as a whole.

Feminists even do things that can help men. Holy cow!

For further information, please go to this web page and watch the video at the 3:59 mark: (link)

"Not all feminists are like that", or NAFALT, has its own designation as an argument now. That's how often it's used as a defence of feminism.

I already explained why I think feminism isn't helpful in a previous part of this post, but I want to make it clear that I don't think you, Abraxas or anyone else who argues on behalf of feminism from a moderate position hates men. But why call yourselves feminists in the first place? You clearly don't believe that men are rapists, restrained only by law and social norms not to abuse women, but if you tow the feminist line this is what you're promoting. This is what the most vocal feminists believe and preach, this is what the people who push for the laws and lobby the politicians believe. You're presenting a prettier picture of feminism and inadvertently giving cover and access to the bigotry which drives the change-makers. You don't hate men, but the people with the lobbyist's pens and the book deals almost certainly do.

You can help women without being a feminist, the word feminism isn't a synonym for "doesn't hate women".

P.S. I hope you can get past the excessively rude tone of this post. I still love you and all.

I didn't find it rude

I find it interesting, from an anthropological perspective, why humans have an innate need to argue with each other when they disagree on something. I think it's because we all love big egos, and winning an argument and proving an opponent wrong helps satisfy our self-esteem.

It's a debate thread! XD

Debate has utility, it's not necessarily a way of wanking one's ego. Although I do enjoy a good wank.