Is the notion of "patriarchy" falsifiable, given a state of relative freedom?

[420MuNkEy]

With the strong push for "Social Justice" over the past few years, I've encountered a lot of people blaming perceived oppressions on "the patriarchy", and every time they've brought up an example it's been pretty easy to account for the difference between men and women they're pointing at without invoking oppression.

We're a sexually dimorphic species with different preferences. At least some of these differences are innate, as thoroughly demonstrated in essentially every toy preference study ever published. It seems to me that, what's called "patriarchy", is largely a result of these sexually dimorphic preferences. Does this not invalidate the whole notion? If not, what would, short of restricting the freedom of choice?

While sex differences aren't the only factor, I think it's the most broadly applicable refutation of "evidence" for a "patriarchy". Other examples would include things like the legal definition of rape in Western countries excluding "made to penetrate" as being rape, the inability of men to legally and/or financially abdicate their parental responsibility, the prevalence and acceptance of male genital mutilation, etc.

I'm not trying to push an agenda or deny that patriarchy can exist, but it seems the current popular interpretation of the idea is something that can't not (I know, double negative) exist. What amount of evidence is enough to show we, in western societies, do not live in a patriarchal society?

 

[Yellow]

I've never met anyone in real life who has used the word "patriarchy" in reference to Western culture. I thought it was just a femi-tumblr/manosphere issue online. I suppose they claim that it comes up in "women's studies" in university settings, but I was a science major in my university-immersion years, so I wouldn't know. Is it possible that it's an issue of a teeny-tiny minority being blown out of proportion for the sensationalism?

 

[420MuNkEy]

I've never met anyone in real life who has used the word "patriarchy" in reference to Western culture. I thought it was just a femi-tumblr/manosphere issue online. I suppose they claim that it comes up in "women's studies" in university settings, but I was a science major in my university-immersion years, so I wouldn't know. Is it possible that it's an issue of a teeny-tiny minority being blown out of proportion for the sensationalism?

It's a pretty common feminist talking point, and while they're a minority, they're extremely powerful and are being seriously listened to by organizations like the UN.

 

[Hadoblado]

There is certainly an evidence and expectation issue, for both sides imo (sweeping generalisation). There are clear-minded people if you look closely, but they're in a sea of white male privers, femenazis, polar apologists, misogynists, white-knights etc. There's no clear lines between the rational and the insane, and escalative antagonism pervades every exchange.

Most of those involved in the internet skirmishes I witness don't seem to even realise that the allegations of unfair treatment are statistical.
A male doing something that could be interpreted as sexist does not a case for patriarchy make. Nor does providing individual cases of role reversal that goes unsensationalised imply there is no issue whatsoever. Sexual dimorphism exists, but that doesn't mean there isn't bias as well. Judging individual ambiguous cases of sexism is a futile exercise in gerrymandering that only serves to perpetuate controversy. It's not the sort of evidence required to convince the other side that there is/isn't a problem.

So I think OP is right on the money to call into question the nature of the evidence required to prove/disprove the existence of the patriarchy as depicted by various feminist sources. It seems like the question that should be asked before delving into anything more specific.

In answer to whether it does exist, I think it patently absurd to think there isn't male privilege in the world. The question then becomes one of locality and magnitude. Is it a universal? Certainly not. Narrowing it down to the OP's initial train of thought, is it represented in Western society as a universal? Well... No. It can't be if there's a single man who isn't sexist/priveliged. But is it represented more than matriarchal structures? Is more wealth and power held by men than women than sexual dimorphism would predict alone? To what extent is Western Society submerged in partiarchy? (it could be a relatively small effect even if there is one after all). This requires a near personal analysis of each culture/locality, because a patriarchy may be a system of male privilege, but assuming such a system requires clear consistent inarguable expressions of privilege is hoping for too much too often.

I don't really know, but my guess would be that there is an substantial effect, larger than sexual dimorphism would predict and larger than any social construct that favours women, even the ones intended specifically to counter-balance the patriarchy. I'm not well read on the topic, so this is naked intuition and experience. I guess that most of the structure is implicit and thus resistant to conscious belief, making it more difficult for both sides to argue in a relevant way. I don't really sympathise with many people on either side of the fence, the reasoning and experience they bring to the table tends to be largely irrelevant to a larger picture (a picture I'm not personally heavily invested in).

An illustration of underlying sexism I found compelling was the Bechdel test.

An illustration of how ridiculous both sides are is the success of Cassidy Boon on social media. Blatantly obvious lazy sensationalist 'satire'. Pretending to sue a man for having raped her by saving her from drowning. While she seems to depict a feminist, it's not the feminists that come away from this looking bad... People seem unable to tell they're being led on. People are so ready to see feminists as crazy they just believe anything. She's selling these suckers tshirts with her face on them and a derogatory slur. "Don't you dare where these $30 tshirts! Don't you head over to ebay and buy one right now!". It's perverse.

 

[Sinny91]

The patriarchy exists, mainly in big business.
Also, fraternities are extensive. Masons being patriarchal, and in charge of big business, it doesn't get much more exclusive that that.

I'm patiently waiting for the FemiNazis to take over, I wouldn't mind lording it up over ya'll.

To elaborate, I've just been watching a debate in the house of commons regarding women's sanitary products, and the notion to have them removed from their 'luxury' status at a 5% tax charge.

My fellow women in the house of commons notion that the patriarchy, in their folly, classified these items as luxury, when in fact, to the female species, they are a necessity.

It was further commented on, how situations like this were created by design.

 

[Sinny91]

In regards to male genital mutilation, are you referencing circumcision ?
I think you'll find that, that was a creation of the male patriarchy.

As is female circumcision.

 

[420MuNkEy]

An illustration of underlying sexism I found compelling was the Bechdel test.

I don't find this test too compelling, as it would include things like lesbian bondage porn and exclude things like a sci-fi story about an asexual race, where no women are present at all. I think quite a few romance novels, most of which are written by and for women, would fail it as well. It's a test that exclusively focuses on the presence and actions of women in media, labeling anything outside it as inherently sexist.

If the story in question is specifically focused a particular character, male or female or variations thereupon, then it can often not make much sense to include two characters having a conversation about anyone or anything that isn't about the main character unless it directly affects the main character.

Also, there's the issue of preference again. People seem to really want a love interest crammed into every movie, and given that this usually occupies quite a bit of screen time, time for things such as irrelevant conversations between two characters is going to be minimized.

All of this isn't to say the Bechdel test is never right, but it certainly has a lot of false positives and negatives.

The patriarchy exists, mainly in big business.
Also, fraternities are extensive. Masons being patriarchal, and in charge of big business, it doesn't get much more exclusive that that.

Even if this was historically the case, which is a can of worms I'd rather not open because of the compounding nature of the desire to rewrite history, but sororities exist and are extensive. The research done on the topic seems to indicate that females typically have a significantly stronger in-group preference as well.

There's nothing preventing women from getting in business. In fact, there's unfortunately quite a few quotas (which with some mental gymnastics could probably be attributed to "patriarchy") which would give less qualified women (not saying that all or even most women are less qualified, just using the concept of "less qualified" to illustrate it being unfairly weighted towards including women) over more qualified men. The reverse is not true.

Even if there weren't quotas and men had a strong fraternity-driven in-group preference, there's nothing at all stopping women from starting their own companies. This has been true for hundreds of years in the west and only became a semantic issue when that woman happened to be married, at which point she could still run the business, but it was in her husband's name due to him being legally and financially responsible for his wife.

I'm patiently waiting for the FemiNazis to take over, I wouldn't mind lording it up over ya'll.

So you're not in favor of equal human rights? That's pretty fucked up.

To elaborate, I've just been watching a debate in the house of commons regarding women's sanitary products, and the notion to have them removed from their 'luxury' status at a 5% tax charge.

My fellow women in the house of commons notion that the patriarchy, in their folly, classified these items as luxury, when in fact, to the female species, they are a necessity.

It was further commented on, how situations like this were created by design.

I don't know a lot about the politics of UK tax, but there seems to be quite a lot of necessities subject to it, not just products exclusive to women. While I do agree this should probably be changed, it hardly seems like an example of oppression and more an example of the larger problem of a lot of things being misidentified as a luxury.

In regards to male genital mutilation, are you referencing circumcision ?
I think you'll find that, that was a creation of the male patriarchy.

As is female circumcision.

This is kind of the point of the whole post. Anything and everything, regardless of who it affects, seems to be attributable to "patriarchy" with the presupposed notion that women have not been a major influence in anything throughout history.

 

[Sinny91]

Actually, I was rather specific in my examples of patriarchy.
If you'd like to challenge them properly, go ahead.

All false exptrapolations on your part

This is kind of the point of the whole post. Anything and everything, regardless of who it affects, seems to be attributable to "patriarchy" with the presupposed notion that women have not been a major influence in anything throughout history.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Actually, I was rather specific in my examples of patriarchy.
If you'd like to challenge them properly, go ahead.

All false exptrapolations on your part

What is left unaddressed? The modern-masonic-order conspiracy theory?


If you mean VAT, as I said, it seems to apply to other essentials it probably shouldn't as well, not just female products. Things like electricity, gas, mobility aids for the elderly, radiators, boilers, car seats, etc.


Also, regarding male genital mutilation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19397222
There's no legal protections against mutilating male genitalia, but there is for female genitalia and the mother is 12x more likely to make the decision (at least in African American communities).

 

[Sinny91]

What is left unaddressed? The modern-masonic-order conspiracy theory?


If you mean VAT, as I said, it seems to apply to other essentials it probably shouldn't as well, not just female products. Things like electricity, gas, mobility aids for the elderly, radiators, boilers, car seats, etc.

Well the peers in the house of commons seemed to think there was a historical agenda, I'm sure they have good reason to make such a claim, I'm sure neither of us can be bothered to check the historical context.

To further expand, it's only been in recent modern history that women have been granted 'equal' status as men.

Heck in was only in 2013 I could legally, as a woman, play on the snooker table in the UK, (in many public instiutions).

So my point is, there is plenty of residual bias left over from the middle age patriarchy, to state otherwise is just silly. (Same can be said for all civil liberty movements).

The gender pay gap remains an elephant in the room.

P.s 'what was left unaddressed?'.. you addressed everything, but insufficiently, but I'm not that interested, so we'll move on.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

snooker table

This sounds dirtier than it should.

The gender pay gap remains an elephant in the room.

Uh oh. As someone who often witnesses Munk's facebook comment section arguments I know that he's going to have a thing or two to say about this.

*contemplates getting popcorn, then realizes he's not actually invested in this thread and contemplates deleting what is overall a completely useless post*


To actually contribute what little I can:
I'm in the same boat as Yellow. I've actually never heard anyone (aside yourself, Munk) mention the patriarchy in any way other than making a joke.
(eg. there was a meme circulating the dorms when I lived in them that started when a misogynistic rap song was played as a joke (forget the exact song) and some girls walked by looking offended and yelling "crush the patriarchy!" became our way of "making up" for any "opressive/misogynistic" actions. It eventually just turned into us yelling "crush the patriarchy!" at oddly timed moments)

 

[420MuNkEy]

Well the peers in the house of commons seemed to think there was a historical agenda, I'm sure they have good reason to make such a claim, I'm sure neither of us can be bothered to check the historical context.

To further expand, it's only been in recent modern history that women have been granted 'equal' status as men.

Which, arguably, is a step down from their historical position of privilege. People go on about things like suffrage, ignoring the fact that it was a privilege of citizenship afforded to those who could be conscripted to go to war.

You'll also often hear "women were property". Well, yes, they were their husband's property, in a semantic sense, not a practical one. The status of being "owned" meant that they were not obligated to do anything. Their husbands were required to provide for them and could often be held legally responsible for the actions of his wife. They could go down to the store and say "just bill my husband" for whatever they wanted. If her husband didn't want his wife doing this he'd have to go to each store one by one and tell them not to sell things to his wife.

Being "owned" didn't mean you weren't free. Women could work, if they wanted. The reason they got paid less is because they did different jobs than men. If they worked at a coal mine, they weren't actually in the mine, swinging the pickaxe and getting the coal out of the earth. They'd be outside loading it onto a truck or something similarly less labor intensive and/or dangerous.

Going forward, we'll even see people complain that today school staff who serve food get paid less than the custodians and they'll say it's because sexism, when in reality it's because they're two different jobs. If you want to clean up shit and vomit, there's nothing stopping you from working as a custodian other than, perhaps, your preference to do a less demanding job.

This is, of course, a general view of western history. There have been times of legitimate sexist oppression, but they were the historical exception, not the rule. There's little to no remaining legacies from these times.

There's a litany of other examples, but it would really require a lot of time and effort to fully flesh out just how wrong the notion that women, in the west, have somehow been subordinate to men throughout all, or even most of western history. To do so would require quite a lot of historical context and citations that I just don't have the time or patience to go into. I'll gladly address specific historical points, but sweeping generalizations about how history was are very time consuming to address.

Heck in was only in 2013 I could legally, as a woman, play on the snooker table in the UK, (in many public instiutions).

So my point is, there is plenty of residual bias left over from the middle age patriarchy, to state otherwise is just silly. (Same can be said for all civil liberty movements).

I don't know much about UK sports, but I'm assuming, like most sports, it's segregated by sex so that it's fair. I'd be very surprised to learn if there was a law prohibiting women from playing the game at all or having their own tables.

I couldn't find any information on the change in 2013 or what the problem was before then, so it's hard to address with any specificity, being unaware of what the state was before and after 2013. I'd be interested in the specifics if you could provide them.

There are, seemingly, similar situations in the US where there haven't been (American) football teams for women at schools. When they finally got pressured into creating them, no one joined. No women actually wanted to play, they just wanted the opportunity to play. Making it worse there's also been instances where this has happened and there was mandated parity in participation for male teams and female teams, meaning that if women didn't play, men couldn't either.

The gender pay gap remains an elephant in the room.

This is addressed in my first post with sexual dimorphic preferences. Essentially all of the wage gap can be directly accounted for by differences in preferences between the sexes, and the little that isn't is due to the lack of methodology to account for the difference. There's no more evidence attributing the actual disparity to sexism than there is to attributing the rest to preference.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf

Furthermore, equal pay has been written into law (in both the UK and US) for quite some time. So if there is a difference in pay for the actual same work, it's not legal.

Even further, it would seem that if employers could get away with paying women less, why wouldn't they hire women exclusively? That would be financially amazing. I doubt sexism trumps greed, though I'm unaware of any studies that have tested it.

P.s 'what was left unaddressed?'.. you addressed everything, but insufficiently, but I'm not that interested, so we'll move on.

If you'd like citations for any assertion I made I'd be happy to provide them. If evidence contradicting the claims of "patriarchy" isn't enough, then I guess you've answered my question. No, in fact, "patriarchy" is not falsifiable.

I'm in the same boat as Yellow. I've actually never heard anyone (aside yourself, Munk) mention the patriarchy in any way other than making a joke.

I think a lot of this is due to people holding the opinion that we live in a systemically patriarchal society, but not ever talking about it. Belief in a "patriarchy", in my experience, doesn't seem to be a rare view when it's actually brought up.

 

[Sinny91]

It's not a 'rare view', because the view has basis, and is typically widely accepted. I can't be bothered to argue the case for there being a patriarchy, because plenty of other people out there are, irl.

 

[420MuNkEy]

It's not a 'rare view', because the view has basis, and is typically widely accepted. I can't be bothered to argue the case for there being a patriarchy, because plenty of other people out there are, irl.

Then why are you on a forum at all if you don't take things said on the internet seriously?

I'm your critic. Right here. I'm a real, flesh and blood person, questioning your asserted position. Convince me.

 

[onesteptwostep]

What amount of evidence is enough to show we, in western societies, do not live in a patriarchal society?

Hillary could be the next president? Angela Merkel is chancellor of Germany? Samantha Power (female) is representative of the US for the United Nations?

The 'west' certainly isn't a patriarchal society for sure, it's actually very pluralistic in nature. If we're talking about entire societies being a 'patriarchy' we'd have to look to Islamic nations in the Middle East.

If I were to comment on the 'feminists' in western society in general, they're the asymmetrical 'douchebags' of douchebag males, in respective degrees.

*slowly walks out from topic...*

 

[Sinny91]

Then why are you on a forum at all if you don't take things said on the internet seriously?

I'm your critic. Right here. I'm a real, flesh and blood person, questioning your asserted position. Convince me.

I'd rather not.
I'm busy on another thread.
I only replied to tell you that I wouldn't be engaging because the alternative was to leave you 'hanging'.
I am selective in what I'll dedicate my time to.

 

[Yellow]

...You'll also often hear "women were property". Well, yes, they were their husband's property, in a semantic sense, not a practical one. ...

Women were considered owned in a way that children were owned. Short of murder (and sometimes including murder in cases of infidelity), the owner/husband/father was at liberty to decide how to make the other humans in the household behave to suit his wants, needs, and whims, as long as he wasn't caught doing something "perverse". A few cruel, petty, and emotionally unstable men abused with a relish. Most men "raised their hand when necessary". Some men used good leadership skills to guide their families, and granted their wives "equal but different" status. A few non-confrontational or inconsistent men either had to find a docile wife, or risk being exposed as a hen-pecked or even a battered man.

In any case, it was perfectly understandable to occasionally blacken an eye or fracture a bone, so long as you didn't make a public spectacle of yourself. Just like it was acceptable to belt/whip/switch the hell out of your children as long as you either called them in sick, or left your marks in a "covered" area.

The only way to get in any trouble under the ownership philosophy was if the school nurse or a community leader (or influential family member in older times) found your wife or children injured, couldn't be soothed by "your side of the story", and had a reasonable local justice system to address it.

I suppose it's not unlike today in that socially disadvantaged people were at the greatest risk for abuse. That is, people who don't have a concerned family around to rescue or protect them from a dangerous partner or parent. Only, now we have public services in place to try to fill that gap for people. We've also evolved as a society to the point to where abuse isn't acceptable to most people. (It's not perfect by any means, but statistically, it's gotten better for men, women, and children)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I'm your critic. Right here. I'm a real, flesh and blood person, questioning your asserted position. Convince me.

I don't think it's worth arguing with a person who believes it's completely legal and reasonable to allow people to sell themselves into complete slavery (and I don't mean jobs, I mean the ancient definition of slavery). And that people sold that way shouldn't be protected by immutable human rights if their contract didn't specifically allow them to do so.

If your view is that people should be free to sell themselves and their owners should be able to use them as they please and that it benefits both sides, I don't see a way to even convince you of any systemic instances of slavery such as outdated marriage from the previous century, etc.

If you want to know where it's from, well I remember you discussing it on this forum, maybe your actual views are different, but for me it's a, so far, lasting impression of your worldview.

 

[420MuNkEy]

I don't think it's worth arguing with a person who believes it's completely legal and reasonable to allow people to sell themselves into contractual slavery.

If your view is that people should be free to sell themselves and their owners should be able to use them as they please and that it benefits both sides, I don't see a way to even convince you of any systemic instances of slavery such as outdated marriage from the previous century, etc.

If you want to know where it's from, well I remember you discussing it on this forum, maybe your actual views are different, but for me it's a, so far, lasting impression of your worldview.

What the actual fuck are you talking about? How as that at all relevant to this topic?

If you'd like to start a separate thread pertaining to that, I'd happily argue the point there.

Your argument is basically: "You said something I disagree with and is unrelated. Therefore you're evil. Therefore you're not worth listening to".
Seriously, fuck you.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

What the actual fuck are you talking about? How as that at all relevant to this topic?

If you'd like to start a separate thread pertaining to that, I'd happily argue the point there.

Your argument is basically: "You said something I disagree with and is unrelated. Therefore you're evil. Therefore you're not worth listening to".
Seriously, fuck you.

No, you see, there's a logical connection between patriarchy and slavery.

I don't care if you don't see it. You can stop your childish offensive because it's not getting anywhere.

I don't call you evil, moral denomination is unimportant here.

 

[420MuNkEy]

No, you see, there's a logical connection between patriarchy and slavery.

I don't care if you don't see it. You can stop your childish offensive because it's not getting anywhere.

I don't call you evil, moral denomination is unimportant here.

You're misremembering a point you think I raised at one point and falsely connecting it to this. You're an absolute an utter twat. Go fuck yourself.

 

[Sinny91]

Somebody's knickers are in a twist

Sorry (not really), there isn't much else to read with my notbeenasleep coffee.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Somebody's knickers are in a twist

Sorry (not really), there isn't much else to read with my notbeenasleep coffee.

Yes, when someone flies in out of nowhere spouting some unrelated misremembered positions they think I hold, and then saying I should be dismissed because of them, I'll react unkindly.

It's about as valid as him coming in and saying "well he thinks it's alright to kill kids. It's not worth arguing with him", despite there not being any evidence to support that. I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth or trying to do a drive-by character assassination.

In fact, I think that behavior is reprehensible and should be greeted primarily with contempt.

 

[Sinny91]

Bit hypocritical , considering you make a habit of putting words in people's mouths yourself...

But if it makes you feel any better, I just had a quick karmic return for poking fun at you D:

 

[420MuNkEy]

Bit hypocritical , considering you make a habit of putting words in people's mouths yourself...

But if it makes you feel any better, I just had a quick karmic return for poking fun at you D:

Uh... when did I do that? If you believe I've taken you out of context, please let me know.

I think it's quite a bit harder to take people out of context when I'm going off actual quotes rather than just memory.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Women were considered owned in a way that children were owned. Short of murder (and sometimes including murder in cases of infidelity), the owner/husband/father was at liberty to decide how to make the other humans in the household behave to suit his wants, needs, and whims, as long as he wasn't caught doing something "perverse". A few cruel, petty, and emotionally unstable men abused with a relish. Most men "raised their hand when necessary". Some men used good leadership skills to guide their families, and granted their wives "equal but different" status. A few non-confrontational or inconsistent men either had to find a docile wife, or risk being exposed as a hen-pecked or even a battered man.

In any case, it was perfectly understandable to occasionally blacken an eye or fracture a bone, so long as you didn't make a public spectacle of yourself. Just like it was acceptable to belt/whip/switch the hell out of your children as long as you either called them in sick, or left your marks in a "covered" area.

The only way to get in any trouble under the ownership philosophy was if the school nurse or a community leader (or influential family member in older times) found your wife or children injured, couldn't be soothed by "your side of the story", and had a reasonable local justice system to address it.

I suppose it's not unlike today in that socially disadvantaged people were at the greatest risk for abuse. That is, people who don't have a concerned family around to rescue or protect them from a dangerous partner or parent. Only, now we have public services in place to try to fill that gap for people. We've also evolved as a society to the point to where abuse isn't acceptable to most people. (It's not perfect by any means, but statistically, it's gotten better for men, women, and children)

I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of history. Beating your wife has seldom been socially acceptable and in fact the punishments for doing so, even for things like giving her a black eye, were quite severe.

Children, on the other hand, are a different story entirely.

 

[Russ]

I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of history. Beating your wife has seldom been socially acceptable and in fact the punishments for doing so, even for things like giving her a black eye, were quite severe.

Children, on the other hand, are a different story entirely.

This depends on how far back in history you go.

As far as current society in US, UK and Asian countries I think we have the stage set for "patriarchy" to be forgotten. However, even as laws change to protect everyone equally it's the people who keep concepts like this alive. Culture is the actual "Law". Culture dies out with its people.

So as far as the evidence, I don’t think there can be any. Just, someday they will teach kids at school about a time when superstitious people believed in gender superiority.

 

[Analyzer]

. Culture is the actual "Law". Culture dies out with its people.

This...I believe the further you get into understanding the cross sections of history between philosophy, anthropology, psychology, and political economy you realize it's all culturally relative. But this doesn't suggest that criticism is not important, rather the exact opposite.

 

[onesteptwostep]

This...I believe the further you get into understanding the cross sections of history between philosophy, anthropology, psychology, and political economy you realize it's all culturally relative. But this doesn't suggest that criticism is not important, rather the exact opposite.

Welcome to the Game.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You're misremembering a point you think I raised at one point and falsely connecting it to this. You're an absolute an utter twat. Go fuck yourself.

I think you need to try harder.

Spoiler

Paraphrasing, according to you, a person entering a legal contract, i.e. marriage, assuming the contract nullifies their freedom, safety and rights, should be deprived of all their rights as a human being and the government should instead respect the rights of married/contract bound people as a single entity. You even compare it to a corporate merger.

So any violence and abuse within this two people contract is merely a self-harm or allowable execution, rather than crime. What a perspective to have.

You are quite disgusting to interact with so I won't continue.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I think you need to try harder.

Spoiler

Paraphrasing, according to you, a person entering a legal contract, i.e. marriage, assuming the contract nullifies their freedom, safety and rights, should be deprived of all their rights as a human being and the government should instead respect the rights of married/contract bound people as a single entity. You even compare it to a corporate merger.

So any violence and abuse within this two people contract is merely a self-harm or allowable execution, rather than crime. What a perspective to have.

You are quite disgusting to interact with so I won't continue.

While I agree, his idea of contractual obligation and willing slavery has some flaws, I don't think this necessarily relates to his OP about proving/disproving the existence of the "patriarchy."

In fact, rereading your posts, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make other than "Munkey is a monster and this discussion he has created should be ignored because of that, regardless of the subject matter's own merit as a topic worthy of discussion."



I do think, though, that the conversation as a whole has gone a little off the rails. I don't see how most of the posts in this thread relate to whether or not the "patriarchy" exists.

 

[Inquisitor]

It's an interesting and old topic. 420 I notice a lot of libertarian tendencies in your posts. That's highly characteristic of us INTPs (resistance to Te-systems) I've noticed. We like to go our own way and not get coerced by external authority. I've had more than enough discussions about feminism online, and I don't really have a desire to re-visit the topic, but I just wanted you to know that you're not alone in your beliefs.

"Patriarchy" is indeed just a word social justice warriors and ardent feminists use to advance their agenda. It does not exist. In fact, the real power is currently held by the "diversity & women's rights" groups that basically set the media agenda. That's why we hear so many stories on the news about minorities/race/women's problems, but we rarely, if ever, hear anything about men's problems. The legal system is tilted in favor of women in the US, women initiate 70% of all divorce filings, and the workplace has been and continues to shift in favor of "collaboration" over "competition" thus giving women an edge. I'm just scratching the surface, but I linked to some websites you can peruse if you're interested in learning more.

The whole women's liberation agenda was started by Government in order to expand the labor supply and therefore the economy/tax base as well. Anyone interested in this can view former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich's highly informative documentary on Netflix: Inequality for All.

Some websites and articles you might enjoy written by a (likely INTP) career counselor:

Marty Nemko: Men's Issues

This article is good starting point.

Nemko actually has some really good nuggets concerning careers and many other topics in life. He's a member of mensa, radio show host, and concert pianist among other things. Unfortunately, he doesn't put much stock in typology, but I think that's because he was never properly acquainted to begin with.

This website advancing men's rights was founded by some pretty impressive women:
Womenformen

Any material you might need to counter/assess propaganda spewed forth by the SJWs can be found there.

Ultimately, my view on this whole issue is that if you're an INTP (and you identify as such apparently), and male, it can be quite infuriating to learn all the different ways that men are marginalized in our society...and no one seems to be talking about it! Ultimately, though, once you've been angry about this whole thing for long enough, the question remains, what to do about it? Basically, get a prenup no matter what, be very careful in what you say at work regarding gender/race, always keep it in the back of your mind that even an accusation of sexual harassment can destroy your career, and just generally remember always that in the event of a lawsuit/criminal investigation, the legal system favors the woman and you stand to get the shaft (or the mallet in this case).

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

While I agree, his idea of contractual obligation and willing slavery has some flaws, I don't think this necessarily relates to his OP about proving/disproving the existence of the "patriarchy."

In fact, rereading your posts, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make other than "Munkey is a monster and this discussion he has created should be ignored because of that, regardless of the subject matter's own merit as a topic worthy of discussion."

Hmm, I don't want to stop anyone of you from interacting with munkey, I was expressing personal disbelief in his openness to change opinion on the subject based on his generally expressed views.

It appears as something "serious sounding" because he started throwing the usual f's, but my questioning was very neutral. I think his position was more to ridicule the topic, but maybe that's my perception, I don't really care. I'm kind of disconnected from the topic to the point where I don't think I'll choose to explain or participate so it should't matter, maybe I shouldn't derail it further.

 

[420MuNkEy]

I think you need to try harder.

Spoiler

Paraphrasing, according to you, a person entering a legal contract, i.e. marriage, assuming the contract nullifies their freedom, safety and rights, should be deprived of all their rights as a human being and the government should instead respect the rights of married/contract bound people as a single entity. You even compare it to a corporate merger.

So any violence and abuse within this two people contract is merely a self-harm or allowable execution, rather than crime. What a perspective to have.

You are quite disgusting to interact with so I won't continue.

There is a wide gap between what I think should be the case and what is the case, which is what mistake you made in your initial post. I wasn't suggesting a return to or advocating for the historical concept of marriage, I was putting forward the notion that personal ownership is absolute, but not immutable. You are free to do with yourself as you see fit.

In the example I gave of marriage, which was largely stemming from me thinking marriage is stupid and if it should exist at all, it should be fairly extreme, was that of mutual ownership.

I don't think it's worth arguing with a person who believes it's completely legal and reasonable to allow people to sell themselves into complete slavery (and I don't mean jobs, I mean the ancient definition of slavery).

it's completely legal and reasonable

This is where you misrepresented me. I never said or implied that it was legal. I never said or implied that it was reasonable. I think entering into such a contract, much like getting a student loan, is completely unreasonable and would advise people against doing so. I would not, however, deny them the ability to do so.

Furthermore, my proposal for a "slavery" contract in that example you cited was very specific to only be mutual, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, any way that slavery has been done before. To call it such without explaining that important difference is completely disingenuous.

Even further, you're citing drunken ideas stated in the fucking chatbox of all places, from a long time ago, which may not reflect my current views at all. Instead of simply asking me about my position as it pertains to this thread, instead you came in and attempted to assassinate my character with half-remembered opinions stated informally a long time ago.

As I'll say again, you sir, are an utter twat.
I think you need to "try harder".

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Okay, granted, I understand your position better, I'm sorry if my question made you feel insecure or overly aggravated.

I don't see anything wrong with citing any source, however remote or bleak and I'm not responsible for your mental state at any point in time.

I don't like you personally so I guess we agree.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Okay, granted, I understand your position better, I'm sorry if my question made you feel insecure or overly aggravated.

No, you don't. You don't understand my position any better because I didn't give it. I gave what my position was at the time of writing that. This thread isn't about personal ownership or the mutability of rights. If you'd like to actually know about my current position on those topics, go make a thread about it and I'll respond there.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Sure, hmm. I didn't express myself correctly.

I didn't mean I understand your position and I don't want to understand it or make a thread about it.

I think the two were connected enough that explain my correlation, this may be externally considered a memory failure or my overreaction of some kind, frankly I don't care, I felt it appropriate to address you with that initial post and your answer is satisfactory. I no longer feel any need to exhaust this topic and I assure you it was a very idle assertion or musing on my part to even write that initial post.

I think there's a tendency towards drama on this forum and I think it's just another set posts being exchanged back and forth, so I'd like to make it clear I didn't seek to offend you and I don't feel offended by you.

I did what I did because I found it appropriate at the time of writing that post, I'm cool about it.

I can move our exchange to another thread to prevent clutter, so that the proper idea exchange can continue, I'll do it if I have your consent, from my perspective the impression I get of what was said is on topic, but I can't be further bothered to explain it, maybe it only exists from my perspective.

My apologies for littering your thread and going off on tangents and I didn't even contribute to the op. Apologies aren't sincere but they are due, I don't feel bad about what I did, nor should you.

 

[Sinny91]

It's an interesting and old topic. 420 I notice a lot of libertarian tendencies in your posts. That's highly characteristic of us INTPs (resistance to Te-systems) I've noticed. We like to go our own way and not get coerced by external authority. I've had more than enough discussions about feminism online, and I don't really have a desire to re-visit the topic, but I just wanted you to know that you're not alone in your beliefs.

"Patriarchy" is indeed just a word social justice warriors and ardent feminists use to advance their agenda. It does not exist. In fact, the real power is currently held by the "diversity & women's rights" groups that basically set the media agenda. That's why we hear so many stories on the news about minorities/race/women's problems, but we rarely, if ever, hear anything about men's problems. The legal system is tilted in favor of women in the US, women initiate 70% of all divorce filings, and the workplace has been and continues to shift in favor of "collaboration" over "competition" thus giving women an edge. I'm just scratching the surface, but I linked to some websites you can peruse if you're interested in learning more.

The whole women's liberation agenda was started by Government in order to expand the labor supply and therefore the economy/tax base as well. Anyone interested in this can view former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich's highly informative documentary on Netflix: Inequality for All.

Some websites and articles you might enjoy written by a (likely INTP) career counselor:

Marty Nemko: Men's Issues

This article is good starting point.

Nemko actually has some really good nuggets concerning careers and many other topics in life. He's a member of mensa, radio show host, and concert pianist among other things. Unfortunately, he doesn't put much stock in typology, but I think that's because he was never properly acquainted to begin with.

This website advancing men's rights was founded by some pretty impressive women:
Womenformen

Any material you might need to counter/assess propaganda spewed forth by the SJWs can be found there.

Ultimately, my view on this whole issue is that if you're an INTP (and you identify as such apparently), and male, it can be quite infuriating to learn all the different ways that men are marginalized in our society...and no one seems to be talking about it! Ultimately, though, once you've been angry about this whole thing for long enough, the question remains, what to do about it? Basically, get a prenup no matter what, be very careful in what you say at work regarding gender/race, always keep it in the back of your mind that even an accusation of sexual harassment can destroy your career, and just generally remember always that in the event of a lawsuit/criminal investigation, the legal system favors the woman and you stand to get the shaft (or the mallet in this case).

What I highlighted in orange. I think you are way off base, and just because we are seeing a rise in the the feminist movement, savory or not, doesn't mean that the patriarchy doesnt exist. Are you suggesting its the womens rights groups who have more agency than the 'patriachy'?? You openly admit that many of the civil liberties groups have been created by the Government, and so don't you think there is a little more to it, than which you have currently extrapolated?

I've got 20 minutes till I leave for work, I'll read the rest of the thread and expand when I can.

 

[Grayman]

I find the term to be more of an expression of distaste at the inequality in political power between men and women. There is currently no direct passing of power from male to male. This is a democracy and men do not greatly outnumber females.

Although a patriarchy does not currently exist there does exist an unequal opportunity between male and female in various forms of power with men most often getting the upper hand.

 

[Sinny91]

Although a patriarchy does not currently exist there does exist an unequal opportunity between male and female in various forms of power with men most often getting the upper hand.

That is what we refer to as the patriachy.

 

[Grayman]

That is what we refer to as the patriachy.

That was my very first sentence...

To be honest, I don't like the word because it is a form of blame casting and although its intended meaning is true, it is an exaggeration.

My manager is a woman and I feel safe and confident under her leadership. But when a woman uses this term, patriarchy, I instantly feel as if they may have a bitterness and comptempt built up as a result of the injustices they received and faced. As a man I do not feel safe under their authority and feel as if their contemt could lead them to allow me to come to harm.

When I look for a female leader I look for the female version of martin Luther who looked past his injustices and sought out the greater ideal of peace and equal respect.

 

[Inquisitor]

Are you suggesting its the womens rights groups who have more agency than the 'patriachy'??

Yes. If you actually look at the legal codes and the way court battles play out, women have the upper hand.

You openly admit that many of the civil liberties groups have been created by the Government, and so don't you think there is a little more to it, than which you have currently extrapolated?

Like what? I got news for you: Hillary Clinton attended Bilderberg this year. Power is not restricted to males only. Used to be that way, but we're in a new era now. The push across America at least is for putting more women in positions of power. (Lean In for example) The White House itself has a commission on women and girls but none for men/boys, even though the latter are more likely to face imprisonment and less likely to go to college/graduate. Since you're a woman, you may not have taken the time to read about the counter-arguments on this issue, but if you take the time to peruse the links I posted, I think you'll find them informative.

I know you're really into conspiracy theories, and they are fascinating. They may or may not be true. At some point though, you have to go with the facts that are definitely known to be true and not conjectures. If we stay with the facts, there's no way anyone could win an argument/debate anywhere taking the position that we still live in a patriarchal society where women are treated as second class citizens. All evidence points to the contrary.

The only thing you could possibly use to make your case that we still "secretly" live in a patriarchy is the existence of a handful of private gentlemen's clubs, the most prominent of which is the Bohemian Club. (I actually know a member, the former CEO of GM) But that's easily countered by noting that women have their own version called the Belizean Grove. Once you get to the upper levels, it's such a small group that your insights/experience vis-a-vis how to run/control the world are virtually guaranteed to be valuable in some capacity.

FWIW, I went through several years in my twenties where I was totally absorbed by conspiracy theories, and I'm well-versed in many of them. I do believe that the elites interact and decide many things in private/with little oversight/accountability. Power has always been about choosing the lesser of two evils, but you always end up doing harm.

 

[Yellow]

My manager is a woman and I feel safe and confident under her leadership. But when a woman uses this term, patriarchy, I instantly feel as if they may have a bitterness and comptempt built up as a result of the injustices they received and faced. As a man I do not feel safe under their authority and feel as if their contemt could lead them to allow me to come to harm.

I can see that being an issue. I imagine I'd feel the same way working for someone who spouts manosphere-ish rhetoric. I'd feel the same way if I had an African American supervisor with "Black Power" posters on the wall. It's not appropriate in the workplace. Heck, it's pretty inappropriate here, when applied directly.

Our male contemporaries aren't really to blame for the problems we face. You've inherited just like we have. A few men may hold the vestiges of the generations past, but they now have the opportunity to see things more rationally, and we should try to be as patient with them as possible (as long as they aren't violent). In the end, our lingering inequality issues contribute to the problems for both men and women, and the solution should be approached collaboratively.

 

[420MuNkEy]

What I highlighted in orange. I think you are way off base, and just because we are seeing a rise in the the feminist movement, savory or not, doesn't mean that the patriarchy doesnt exist.

"The existence of science doesn't mean that god doesn't exist" is essentially what this says in my eyes. Claiming that a system of oppression exists is something that requires some proof. It's an affirmative claim. Those claiming it have the burden of proof.

All the "evidence" that's been brought up has been rebutted and/or not fully understood. You've just handwaved these rebuttals away as being "insufficient" without addressing any points at all. It seems as if you're coming to this with the belief that patriarchy exists but are unwilling to justify that belief or seriously consider challenges to it. That is to say, your belief is unfalsifiable. It's a religion to you.

This does not seem to be unique to you. This is pretty universally my experience with people claiming "patriarchy", which is why I made this thread in the first place.

 

[Sinny91]

That was my very first sentence...

To be honest, I don't like the word because it is a form of blame casting and although its intended meaning is true, it is an exaggeration.

My manager is a woman and I feel safe and confident under her leadership. But when a woman uses this term, patriarchy, I instantly feel as if they may have a bitterness and comptempt built up as a result of the injustices they received and faced. As a man I do not feel safe under their authority and feel as if their contemt could lead them to allow me to come to harm.

When I look for a female leader I look for the female version of martin Luther who looked past his injustices and sought out the greater ideal of peace and equal respect.

But that's all your problem lol.

You admit that it's intended meaning is true, and so why shy away from the most direct avenue of communicating this meaning?

 

[Sinny91]

"The existence of science doesn't mean that god doesn't exist" is essentially what this says in my eyes. Claiming that a system of oppression exists is something that requires some proof. It's an affirmative claim. Those claiming it have the burden of proof.

All the "evidence" that's been brought up has been rebutted and/or not fully understood. You've just handwaved these rebuttals away as being "insufficient" without addressing any points at all. It seems as if you're coming to this with the belief that patriarchy exists but are unwilling to justify that belief or seriously consider challenges to it. That is to say, your belief is unfalsifiable. It's a religion to you.

This does not seem to be unique to you. This is pretty universally my experience with people claiming "patriarchy", which is why I made this thread in the first place.

 

[420MuNkEy]

 

[redbaron]

But that's all your problem lol.

You admit that it's intended meaning is true, and so why shy away from the most direct avenue of communicating this meaning?

It's a statistical truth, just like, "blacks have lower IQ on average than whites."

Using it as a form of justification for (or the judgment of) individual behaviours and motivators is lazy argumentation that promotes an accusatory and falsely dichotomous interpretation of issues surrounding equality.

 

[Sinny91]

Who said anything about using it as a justification to persecute individuals?

 

[420MuNkEy]

It's a statistical truth

That can be explained by factors like personal choice. It's not really oppression of women if the state is a result of the personal choices of women on average, unless of course women are oppressing themselves with their own choices, which I don't think would count as "patriarchy".