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

[Sinny91]

Well this is the thing monkey, you are listing the variables, but you've hardly submitted an enlightening assessment, which disproves the 'theory' of the 'Patriachy'.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Well this is the thing monkey, you are listing the variables, but you've hardly submitted an enlightening assessment, which disproves the 'theory' of the 'Patriachy'.

That's because I'm not making an affirmative claim. Quit trying to shift the burden of proof.

I'm not saying that this is why, I'm saying: "Hey, here's some factors you don't seem to have taken into account when asserting oppression exists". There's no more evidence that the disparity between men and women in the role of CEO is because of oppression than it is because of preference. In fact, there's a substantial body of evidence suggesting that women, on average, do not prefer a work life balance similar to that a CEO would have. This isn't hidden .

Again, I'd like to underline that me providing evidence is above and beyond what's actually needed to sufficiently rebut your claims, as the burden of proof is on you to show that systemic discrimination exists, which you've shown no evidence for.

 

[Sinny91]

This is your thread Monkey boy.
You assertion remains refuted. End of story.
Well, your insinuated assertion anyway, I've already stated that I won't debate the 'proof' of the patriachy, but I was hoping for you to give me sufficient cause to doubt my own beliefs; as it stands, I find your points to be weak and short sighted, especially in comparison to the historical context which I have alluded to in regards to my reasoning.

 

[420MuNkEy]

This is your thread Monkey boy.
You assertion remains refuted. End of story.

Which assertion is that? This thread is a question of whether or not the notion of "patriarchy" is falsifiable. I gave some skepticism about the notion of "patriarchy" in the first post and you came in and said, and I quote "The patriarchy exists, mainly in big business". That's no out-of-context bullshit. That's exactly what you said.

I made no claim, you did. You are demonstrating that to you "patriarchy" is an unfalsifiable claim by being unwilling to accept the burden of proof for making it.

Well, your insinuated assertion anyway, I've already stated that I won't debate the 'proof' of the patriachy, but I was hoping for you to give me sufficient cause to doubt my own beliefs; as it stands, I find your points to be weak and short sighted, especially in comparison to the historical context which I have alluded to in regards to my reasoning.

My insinuated assertion? Are you one of those people who think agnosticism/atheism is a religion? Honestly, this is exactly the kind of tactic religious people resort to saying "well you're implying my god doesn't exist so prove it". That's not how rational conversation works.

If your unwilling to defend your ideas, perhaps they're not worth defending.

 

[Sinny91]

That's why I corrected my sentence to include 'insinuated', you started with a question, and then picked a side to defend.

Anyway forget that, as I've just said, your argument hasn't swayed me for the reasons aforementioned.

Your case study of gender preference for the role of CEO is extremely narrow point of investigation in comparison to the historical context of lawful oppression of women.

To actually explore the qualitive and quantative data to reach a true understanding of this question would require a small thesis.

 

[420MuNkEy]

That's why I corrected my sentence to include 'insinuated', you started with a question, and then picked a side to defend.

Anyway forget that, as I've just said, your argument hasn't swayed me.

I'm not trying to sway you.

How do you not get this? You made an affirmative claim. I didn't.

 

[Sinny91]

I'm not trying to sway you.

How do you not get this? You made an affirmative claim. I didn't.

Well what are you trying to do then? Not like it matters what you were trying to do, I'm letting you know what have done, and what you've led me think (aha).

 

[420MuNkEy]

Well what are you trying to do then? Not like it matters what you were trying to do, I'm letting you know what have done, and what you've led me think (aha).

I'm rebutting your affirmative claims, explaining why they're not evidence of a patriarchy.

Is this level of hand-holding absolutely necessary? Do I need to spell out exactly what I'm saying, its relevance to the thread, and a summary of the entire thread up until the post every time I post something? Seriously, your inability to follow what has happened is reaching the level of absurdity. I think Poe's law applies here.

p.s. I don't control your thoughts. You do.

 

[Sinny91]

Take a chill pill, Monkey Boy.

Well then, we were rebutting each others claims, and neither of us have budged from position , like I was explaining 2 posts ago dickwad.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Take a chill pill, Monkey Boy.

Well then, we were rebutting each others claims, and neither of us have budged from position , like I was explaining 2 posts ago dickwad.

I am completely dispassionate about this. I think you're reading more into what I wrote than was actually intended.

As I'll state again, I'm not trying to sway you. This isn't a mutual attempt to convince eachother. You made a claim. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to support or defend that claim. I've rebutted what little you have provided to support the claim (which, honestly is very minor), which you've dismissed outright with no reasoning other than it being "insufficient".

The reason my last post was less than polite is because I've explained this several times now, and you still don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I think I've stated it fairly clearly, so needing to repeat it so much is a bit absurd.

 

[Grayman]

But that's all your problem lol.

I most certainly do not expect or want you to take responsibility for my feelings and that is not why I expressed them.

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

It may be the most direct method of you communicating what you mean but I don't see it as the most effective way of achieving your greater goals and ideals in regards to gender equality.

 

[kora]

Here is some statistical evidence for what is generally referred to as the patriarchy, which basically means power imbalance within society favoring those of male sex purely because male. Politics is a good example because it is a role of direct power over society, and general media coverage such as shown above. Granted, the patriarchy is shrinking at a fast rate in western world due to widespread feminist ideas, but there is residual prejudice. Worldwide statistics are a shocker I should expect though. I haven't actually read all posts which I will go and do now. Sorry if irrelevant/already answered.

 

[kora]

Scrap my last post, let us discuss this (if you wish :-))

"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?"

What does this toy preference mean to you, what does it signify about peoples role as adults? Does it determine their roles in the future and the influence they should have on society? It certainly does not make them immune to a cultural influence, one which might be detrimental to their mental health and the overall functioning of society and individual fulfillment. It doesn't invalidate the idea that one gender is consistently associated symbolically with weakness passivity, emotiveness and decoration, whilst the other is strength independance resourceful, aggressive. Which may be limiting to people on both sides :-). Voilà voilà.

 

[Inquisitor]

Here is some statistical evidence for what is generally referred to as the patriarchy, which basically means power imbalance within society favoring those of male sex purely because male. Politics is a good example because it is a role of direct power over society, and general media coverage such as shown above. Granted, the patriarchy is shrinking at a fast rate in western world due to widespread feminist ideas, but there is residual prejudice. Worldwide statistics are a shocker I should expect though. I haven't actually read all posts which I will go and do now. Sorry if irrelevant/already answered.

Interesting stats, but doesn't qualify as evidence. The relevant concern here is the fact that the media continually reports on women's issues, but not men's issues, even though the latter arguably face much larger problems in terms of crime, education, and health. Most of the top executives/experts in society are men and not women. This has nothing to do with "patriarchy" but with the fact that men work longer and harder than women, who frequently ditch career in favor of family. For example, did you know that nearly half of all female physicians in the US work less than full-time compared to less than a quarter of all male doctors?

 

[Yellow]

You know, when I was studying journalism 14 years ago, I remember this coming up. There were a number of studies to show that the majority of people automatically assume that man knows what he's talking about (until proven otherwise), and that a woman does not (until proven otherwise). At the time, I interpreted this to say that when we quoted women, we'd need to include more credentials or risk having our placement choices questioned.

I remember looking up the studies quoted after class. While I was down the research rabbit hole, what stuck with me more, was another study I found. It showed that people were more likely to like a couple in which the man spoke more than the woman.

I didn't really process it as a gender issue at the time, but I've used that knowledge over the years to my advantage.

While it is slowly changing, our stories are the same way. Outside of a specifically "for women" genre (like anything written by a Bronte sister or "chick flicks"), women were only put into stories by most writers when absolutely necessary.

By that I mean, male characters are just characters. They're heroes, villians, minor/background characters, etc. Women were usually defined only by their relationship to a man as a wife, mother, daughter, or the prize the hero wins/earns when he saves the day. Sometimes, there were witches who got to stand on their own.

With few exceptions, I didn't start to see this change until relatively few years ago (maybe 15-20 years?). Now, we finally have some women characters who are women by coincidence, not as a necessity.

The only older examples I can think of, as exceptions to my general observations, are Star Trek (even the original show made an effort to project an egalitarian future world in which women were valuable, contributing members of all aspects of society), and The Three Musketeers (the novel). Dumas created a minor villian who stood on her own. I'd argue that despite the "treacherous woman" theme he steeped her in, he quite sensitively explored her motivations.

It comes down to the attitude I noticed before, among a few men, "women aren't people, they're women."

Strangely, while I've noticed all of these phenomena, I never really made the connection between the them until now.

 

[Sinny91]

Interesting stats, but doesn't qualify as evidence. The relevant concern here is the fact that the media continually reports on women's issues, but not men's issues, even though the latter arguably face much larger problems in terms of crime, education, and health. Most of the top executives/experts in society are men and not women. This has nothing to do with "patriarchy" but with the fact that men work longer and harder than women, who frequently ditch career in favor of family. For example, did you know that nearly half of all female physicians in the US work less than full-time compared to less than a quarter of all male doctors?

Do your stats also state WHY male doctors in the US work longer than females, or are you just choosing to allocate that to 'more hard work'?

I believe it takes 'two to tango', you speak as though it's only a woman's choice to have a child. For fair representation, you should extend your stats to include how many heterosexual couples *decided* to have a child, and had amend their roles in society from there, not to mention a thousand other variables.

Are our biological differences begrudged? Why it is, according to your wording, 'the women chose family life over work'... I believe that unless you want the human race to gradually depopulate and die, us women are required by the laws of nature to sometimes 'choose family life over work'.

And are you insinuating that working as a CEO, or a doctor is 'harder' than nurturing a family unit? Or whatever it is that you suppose women do 'instead of working as long and hard as men'?

You know, the Catholic Irish are largely a Patriarchal culture, with undertones of a matriarchy, and it's commonly stated amongst the Irish that the women work harder than the men, and are the backbone of every patriarchal family unit.

The majority of men I encounter irl still allocate sandwich making to the 'work' of a woman... so you'll have to forgive me if the lines seem blurred.

 

[Sinny91]

I most certainly do not expect or want you to take responsibility for my feelings and that is not why I expressed them.



It may be the most direct method of you communicating what you mean but I don't see it as the most effective way of achieving your greater goals and ideals in regards to gender equality.

Perhaps not, but the only reason you listed was hurt feelings

 

[Fukyo]

Interesting stats, but doesn't qualify as evidence. The relevant concern here is the fact that the media continually reports on women's issues, but not men's issues, even though the latter arguably face much larger problems in terms of crime, education, and health. Most of the top executives/experts in society are men and not women. This has nothing to do with "patriarchy" but with the fact that men work longer and harder than women, who frequently ditch career in favor of family. For example, did you know that nearly half of all female physicians in the US work less than full-time compared to less than a quarter of all male doctors?

The chase to prove which group has it worse or who gets to claim the title of the greater victim is ridiculous to say the least.

Why do we lack sensitivity toward the plight of another group so badly, we must make competing into who has it worse a thing? Why do we have do look down on struggles of others? Lack of empathy to your fellow man and victim mentality are why both Feminism and Manosphereism/MRAism are fucked.

 

[Seteleechete]

I am not gonna say there isn't a gender disparity in some occupations. But what's to say it isn't just due to factors of interest/competence(with men on average being more interested/having the better qualifications for those occupations) rather than discrimination based on gender? Presented data of disparity needs to be compared to such ulterior factors.

Based on MBTI data men on average are more likely to be thinkers so it makes sense if they occupy more jobs were this is a benefit.

 

[Sinny91]

I am not gonna say there isn't a gender disparity in some occupations. But what's to say it isn't just due to factors of interest/competence(with men on average being more interested/having the better qualifications for those occupations) rather than discrimination based on gender? Presented data of disparity needs to be compared to such ulterior factors.

Based on MBTI data men on average are more likely to be thinkers so it makes sense if they occupy more jobs were this is a benefit.

Well we all know that stats can be manipulated to represent pretty much anything we want, so let's perhaps look at some other forms of evidence.

The men are casually just ignoring the ramifications of the historical context of overt oppression, so let's look at what still happens covertly today...

Let's take a quick look at my life, and my encounters with what I term the 'patriachy'.

I was born and raised into a lage family of Irish Catholics; sat a top, head the of this family was my Grandfather, aka Sargeant Major. What he says is the law. His wife, my mom's Ma, was to stay at home and raise the kids (9) - kids who should be seen and not heard - a step out of line would cost you back hander or the belt. (I believe there was a thread recently discussing reality of overt/covert abuse by men somewhere??)

And then there's the Church. You do as the Father tells you, or you'll be damned to hell. They frown upon women reading the Bible for themselves, as the only way to God is through the Father, and what he says and what he grants you.

Now the family live in England, this is not as predominant, but the family are still entrenched in the belief systems, rituals, and social contracts ; as are all Catholics, naturally.

As I grew up, I witnessed my mother being subservient to the male members in her family, and also the men she dated. Her longest term relationship was with a Scottish Catholic, and so there was hardly any variety in belief systems. (This is important in relation to cultural aspects of patriachy, and moving away from 'legal' semantics).

Let's fast forward to my working life, and my 3 years with one of Britain's most leading institutions in commerce. Inquisitor claims that the proportion of men out number women in this field due to me non 'choosing home life over work life'; but what I have witnessed irl, poses challenge to that assertion. ..

 

[Cherry Cola]

Interesting stats, but doesn't qualify as evidence. The relevant concern here is the fact that the media continually reports on women's issues, but not men's issues, even though the latter arguably face much larger problems in terms of crime, education, and health. Most of the top executives/experts in society are men and not women. This has nothing to do with "patriarchy" but with the fact that men work longer and harder than women, who frequently ditch career in favor of family. For example, did you know that nearly half of all female physicians in the US work less than full-time compared to less than a quarter of all male doctors?

How does men being discriminated make it so that women are not? It doesn't. Two wrongs do not make a right. Men's issues are real, but the way they are always brought up as if though their existence lessens those of women is so stupid.
Though many feminists go into denial or turn stupid, defensive and combative when men's issues are brought up, I think part of the reason they do is because people do what youre doing here. Putting mens issues up against womens in some strange abstract equation where the two can nullify each other even though in reality one kind of suffering is by no means mitigated by another. That way of reasoning breeds hostility and keeps the discourse polarized and dumb.

 

[Seteleechete]

Doesn't it instantly become polarized when they specifically choose to focus on half the populations issues ignoring the other? Better to just bring it up as " let's do something about this issue(for example rape) for everyone".

I recently saw a reddit post about UK making entrance applications to universities anonymous which I think is awesome(Sweden already does this) that way you avoid unfair disparity as everyone enters only on merit. That is also the kind of equality I support, one based on equal opportunity not equal results.

 

[kora]

Yay for cherry cola.

@inquisitor, as for women dropping out of jobs for family, This is because of the traditional gender role (still pervading today) that the role is for women to take care of the babiez and to be provided for by husband. I would like to see this balanced out, equal paternal leave and a change in the symbol of the mother as primary caretaker channelled within the media. It's going to happen eventually though so I've not really got much to yell about. Unless yelling makes it go faster.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Doesn't it instantly become polarized when they specifically choose to focus on half the populations issues ignoring the other? Better to just bring it up as " let's do something about this issue(for example rape) for everyone".

Yeah it does. I don't think there's anything wrong with focusing on male or female issues specifically. Men and women have different issues in many cases. Or they have sort of similar issues, but in different magnitudes and different contexts (such as rape).

It's the whole feminists getting defensive when men's issues are brought up and vice versa that's dumb. Both groups are guilty because both have a ton of people which like to pit the issues against each other in the nonsensical fashion I tried to describe in my previous post. I'm sure I've been guilty of this myself plenty of times.

 

[kora]

Doesn't it instantly become polarized when they specifically choose to focus on half the populations issues ignoring the other? Better to just bring it up as " let's do something about this issue(for example rape) for everyone".

I recently saw a reddit post about UK making entrance applications to universities anonymous which I think is awesome(Sweden already does this) that way you avoid unfair disparity as everyone enters only on merit. That is also the kind of equality I support, one based on equal opportunity not equal results.

I agree basically, and would like to see more proceedings installed like in that University, but the idea is that the half that is being focused on...well, needs the focus. I mean, the fact of the matter is that it is women who are hyper sexualised and raped most of the time and that they are the ones who most have to deal with the threat. On the other hand, I would find it horrifying if a man's rape charges where dismissed as funny because he's meant to be manly and not in the position of a victim. The thing is, feminism done correctly in my opinion would definitely concern itself with this, because the reason a rape allegation by a man would be not taken seriously is born out of gender role where woman = weak/passive/victim and male=strong/self sufficient. I'm extrapolating quite a bit from what you wrote maybe, correct me if I'm being irrelevant.

 

[Yellow]

How does men being discriminated make it so that women are not? It doesn't. Two wrongs do not make a right. Men's issues are real, but the way they are always brought up as if though their existence lessens those of women is so stupid.
Though many feminists go into denial or turn stupid, defensive and combative when men's issues are brought up, I think part of the reason they do is because people do what youre doing here. Putting mens issues up against womens in some strange abstract equation where the two can nullify each other even though in reality one kind of suffering is by no means mitigated by another. That way of reasoning breeds hostility and keeps the discourse polarized and dumb.

You (and Fukyo, Higs, and Seteleechete) make a good point with this. It's the "misery loves company, but never competition" mentality.

 

[Seteleechete]

The thing is it creates resentment when the solutions are biased towards a group. Maybe you can focus on one group when an issue is brought up but the solutions should be general and affect all groups.(For fairness sake not necessarily because it's an equally big problem for all groups).

"Sexual harassment against females is a problem". The solution shouldn't be "let's punish males who sexually harass women" it should be "let's punish anyone who sexually harasses anyone else" so even if females are the main beneficiaries in practise, it would affect everyone who experiences the problem.

 

[kora]

The thing is it creates resentment when the solutions are biased towards a group. Maybe you can focus on one group when an issue is brought up but the solutions should be general and affect all groups.

"Sexual harassment against females is a problem". The solution shouldn't be "let's punish males who sexually harass women" it should be "let's punish anyone who sexually harasses anyone else" so even if females are the main beneficiarys in practise, it would affect everyone who experiences the problem.

I'm not really sure what we are talking about now though, because in my mind this is already what happens. "sexual harassment is a problem and perpetrators will be punished" is already the default idea within society, the only reason we then say "sexual harassment against women is a problem" a lot more is because it later turns out that women are being sexually harassed a hell of a lot more, nobody is saying with this that "sexual harassment against males is acceptable", when they talk about the disproportionate amount of women being sexually harassed. Anyone who infers that is pretty strange. Maybe I'm the weird one or missing something

For example, I have been sexually harassed more than once, and a disproportionate amount of my female friends have been at some point. I am not talking about just passing comments, I mean strangers grabbing your ass/groin, pushing you up against a wall etc...yelling abuse of sexual nature in aggressive manner, drugs in their drink, rape, attempted rape etc...stuff that really is more than a bit scary, and unless they are hiding it very well my male friends (I have many, more than female) report no such thing. Except one who interestingly is gay and rather effeminate. I don't mean to dismiss men that it has or does happen to, they must be heard, but it is not wrong to point out that women are very at risk of this sort of experience.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

I'm not really sure what we are talking about now though, because in my mind this is already what happens. "sexual harassment is a problem and perpetrators will be punished" is already the default idea within society, the only reason we then say "sexual harassment against women is a problem" a lot more is because it later turns out that women are being sexually harassed a hell of a lot more

yeah. as simple as that. i find it strange that Seteleechete would infer that kind of conclusion from people calling to put a stop to sexual harrasment

For example, I have been sexually harassed more than once, and a disproportionate amount of my female friends have been at some point. I am not talking about just passing comments, I mean strangers grabbing your ass/groin, pushing you up against a wall etc...yelling abuse of sexual nature in aggressive manner, drugs in their drink, rape, attempted rape etc...stuff that really is more than a bit scary, and unless they are hiding it very well my male friends (I have many, more than female) report no such thing. Except one who interestingly is gay and rather effeminate. I don't mean to dismiss men that it has or does happen to, they must be heard, but it is not wrong to point out that women are very at risk of this sort of experience.

i dont think ive ever met a female who has not been harassed at some point in her life(again, im excluding the passing remarks on the streets and all like you did). the answer to why women are the focus when it comes to sexual harassment is very self evident

 

[Seteleechete]

Idk, maybe I am wrong but I honestly imagine some of the people regarding these things thinking that way and some of the issues playing out that way as well.

Maybe not sexual harassment in particular but similar issues.

 

[Inquisitor]

Do your stats also state WHY male doctors in the US work longer than females, or are you just choosing to allocate that to 'more hard work'

I'm not choosing anything. They're working more hours. Period.

I believe it takes 'two to tango', you speak as though it's only a woman's choice to have a child. For fair representation, you should extend your stats to include how many heterosexual couples *decided* to have a child, and had amend their roles in society from there, not to mention a thousand other variables.

I know it takes two...how is that relevant? The issue here is that the "patriarchy" is not the reason why these women are working less.

Are our biological differences begrudged? Why it is, according to your wording, 'the women chose family life over work'... I believe that unless you want the human race to gradually depopulate and die, us women are required by the laws of nature to sometimes 'choose family life over work'.

And are you insinuating that working as a CEO, or a doctor is 'harder' than nurturing a family unit? Or whatever it is that you suppose women do 'instead of working as long and hard as men'?

You know, the Catholic Irish are largely a Patriarchal culture, with undertones of a matriarchy, and it's commonly stated amongst the Irish that the women work harder than the men, and are the backbone of every patriarchal family unit.

The majority of men I encounter irl still allocate sandwich making to the 'work' of a woman... so you'll have to forgive me if the lines seem blurred.

Not begrudging biological differences at all. Raising a family is "work" just as much as being a CEO. Just saying that the gender pay gap exists b/c of the choices women (and men) tend to make. Men are not "holding women down" anymore in US. You still have shitheads treating women badly, but nowadays women have a ton of legal options at their disposal if this happens, and they're likely to win in court. Any accusation of sexual harassment at work in the US can end a man's career. Companies take that shit extremely seriously. The last thing they want is negative publicity in that particular department.

I read about your upbringing and I don't know what you experienced exactly in the UK, so can't comment on that, especially since I've never lived there. If you feel you were treated unfairly by your superiors at work/denied promotion/advancement based exclusively on your gender, that sucks. If you were harassed by men, that also sucks. Shit like this still happens no doubt, and it needs to stop, but statistically-speaking, you're going to have a hard time making a case that these are the major reasons why women earn less than men. Actually, it's the other way around.

@inquisitor, as for women dropping out of jobs for family, This is because of the traditional gender role (still pervading today) that the role is for women to take care of the babiez and to be provided for by husband. I would like to see this balanced out, equal paternal leave and a change in the symbol of the mother as primary caretaker channelled within the media. It's going to happen eventually though so I've not really got much to yell about. Unless yelling makes it go faster.

I don't think you're giving women enough credit here. They're not brainwashed/helpless individuals. They don't give two shits about what "traditional gender roles" have been or should be. When a female professional decides to give priority to raising kids instead of her career, she's doing it b/c she wants to do it, not because she thinks she ought to. In fact, it's growing more accepted for men to be stay-at-home dads if the woman has the better career.

The chase to prove which group has it worse or who gets to claim the title of the greater victim is ridiculous to say the least.

Why do we lack sensitivity toward the plight of another group so badly, we must make competing into who has it worse a thing? Why do we have do look down on struggles of others? Lack of empathy to your fellow man and victim mentality are why both Feminism and Manosphereism/MRAism are fucked.

It's not about proving who has it worse, it's about fairness/balance in terms of media coverage. Both sexes have problems unique to their gender. That said, personally, I think it's unjust that in the US at least, the mainstream media never covers any stories about men's issues, but there's loads of coverage for the plight of women both here and abroad (Afghanistan/Pakistan/Syria are big these days). Here's another example. Pull up PubMed (the NIH database) and enter "men's health" (I got around 6000 results). Do the same for "women's health" and you'll see the number is nearly 82000, nearly 14X as much, despite the fact that men die 5 years earlier than women on average. BTW, that is not just a fluke: if you search for "men" and "women", the latter still have twice as many articles written about them (~750000).

 

[Grayman]

Perhaps not, but the only reason you listed was hurt feelings

You are having too much fun.

 

[420MuNkEy]

I believe it takes 'two to tango', you speak as though it's only a woman's choice to have a child. For fair representation, you should extend your stats to include how many heterosexual couples *decided* to have a child, and had amend their roles in society from there, not to mention a thousand other variables.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that in western society, having a child isn't a choice for a woman? There's a litany of birth control options (IUD's, The Pill, etc), morning after pills, abortion, and safe haven laws. For men there's condoms and desperate pleas to the mother. It is most definitely a choice for women.

Are our biological differences begrudged? Why it is, according to your wording, 'the women chose family life over work'... I believe that unless you want the human race to gradually depopulate and die, us women are required by the laws of nature to sometimes 'choose family life over work'.

I don't think gradual depopulation, at least to more sustainable levels would be a bad thing, but that's a topic for another thread.

The biological/psychological differences between men and women aren't begrudged, but nor are they accounted for, and they shouldn't be. This is pushing this idea of equality of outcome / gender parity again. Should there be an equal number of female garbage collectors, construction workers, and custodians? No, of course not. Those are choices. Choices that men are more likely to make, but choices nonetheless.

You can either have freedom, equality of outcome, or supremacy (by ignoring "accounting" for the differences between two groups only when it advantages the favorite one). They're mutually exclusive.

And are you insinuating that working as a CEO, or a doctor is 'harder' than nurturing a family unit? Or whatever it is that you suppose women do 'instead of working as long and hard as men'?

It honestly wouldn't matter if it were. The most your neighbor can be expected to pay for your child is in tax breaks/gov't incentives. If you want to be fully compensated for pumping out a unit, be a surrogate. Other than that, it's not a job and you won't be paid for it. As far as I know, this isn't news.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Scrap my last post, let us discuss this (if you wish :-))

"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?"

What does this toy preference mean to you, what does it signify about peoples role as adults? Does it determine their roles in the future and the influence they should have on society? It certainly does not make them immune to a cultural influence, one which might be detrimental to their mental health and the overall functioning of society and individual fulfillment. It doesn't invalidate the idea that one gender is consistently associated symbolically with weakness passivity, emotiveness and decoration, whilst the other is strength independance resourceful, aggressive. Which may be limiting to people on both sides :-). Voilà voilà.

Toy preference, as I stated in my original post, is a demonstration that humans are innately sexually dimorphic. That is to say, we're not born "blank slates", as is proposed strangely often.

Toy preference is also interesting because of the toys themselves. Boys tend to prefer the mechanically novel (e.g., a toy car with spinning wheels), while girls seem to prefer a stand-in for a baby that they can "care for". These studies have been done on infants, toddlers, and even other species and the results are fairly consistent. This is very revealing when you look at the differences in the types of careers men and women go into on average.

There's definitely some truth to women being "weaker" than men, at least on average. This is why we have segregated sports. This isn't anything against women and is quite easily explained when you look at how we evolved. Women cared for the children while the men hunted. Women being more sensitive to things like cold meant that their children would have a better chance at survival. Men being more physically fit meant a better chance at a successful hunt. Neither are more important than the other, they're just different.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Well we all know that stats can be manipulated to represent pretty much anything we want, so let's perhaps look at some other forms of evidence.

Oh boy, I hope it's something significantly more compelling than hard data with explicitly defined methodologies that can be criticized if they're flawed.

The men are casually just ignoring the ramifications of the historical context of overt oppression, so let's look at what still happens covertly today...

This isn't a gender war. It's not men vs women. It's Patriarchy proponents vs their critics (many of which are women).

Let's take a quick look at my life, and my encounters with what I term the 'patriachy'.

Oh boy... anecdotes
Because that's totally a more valid form of "evidence" than statistics.

 

[Grayman]

For example, I have been sexually harassed more than once, and a disproportionate amount of my female friends have been at some point. I am not talking about just passing comments, I mean strangers grabbing your ass/groin, pushing you up against a wall etc...yelling abuse of sexual nature in aggressive manner, drugs in their drink, rape, attempted rape etc...stuff that really is more than a bit scary, and unless they are hiding it very well my male friends (I have many, more than female) report no such thing. Except one who interestingly is gay and rather effeminate. I don't mean to dismiss men that it has or does happen to, they must be heard, but it is not wrong to point out that women are very at risk of this sort of experience.

I agree.

Not just sexual harrasment but harassment general. Even when a man is harassed it is generally from another man. That is why we need to put focus on what is going on with men to cause them to do this, while also putting focus on helping woman have the tools to ensure their safety from this.

 

[420MuNkEy]

How does men being discriminated make it so that women are not? It doesn't. Two wrongs do not make a right. Men's issues are real, but the way they are always brought up as if though their existence lessens those of women is so stupid.

By very few radical people, perhaps. I've yet to encounter anyone who self identifies as an MRA (men's rights advocate) who is not also a WRA (woman's rights advocate). You might find more extreme views when you start getting into MGTOW and PUA's, but even then it's hardly reflective of the majority of those communities.

What's often (I'd go so far as to say almost always) the case, as like I'm doing in this thread, is to contrast men against women to see if they do in fact have relative equality (both legally and of opportunity, not outcome). That is to say, to see if the patriarchy actually exists.

It seems strange to me that oppression would be claimed without having a metric by which to base that on. If you're looking for oppression of minority races in a culture, you compare against the majority race. If comparisons are not allowed, any and every inconvenience experienced by the group being examined can be seen as oppressive.

Yeah it does. I don't think there's anything wrong with focusing on male or female issues specifically. Men and women have different issues in many cases. Or they have sort of similar issues, but in different magnitudes and different contexts (such as rape).

There's not much genuine evidence supporting the idea that women are significantly more raped than men. I say "genuine", because "made to penetrate" is often counted as not rape. This holds true for domestic violence and many other issues seen as "women's issues" as well.

Sexual predation is not a gendered issue. Nor is partner violence. It affects men and women alike and is not expressed by mentally healthy individuals.

 

[Seteleechete]

Interesting thing about the toys and equal opportunity because a majority of females prefer doll like toys people push such toys on every female. There is a good argument to be made that such social/group pressure on young girls in itself prevents them from having an opportunity for developing better fitting interests for their personality(because it's seen as male). Vice versa for males and interests seen as "female". If there is a "patriarchy" and unfair opportunity in the Western world today such examples of social pressure is the most likely cause.

(The results would still probably be a majority male in some occupations because of biological differences, but my point is the cultural expectations might drive away some females who may be better suited for the job.) And vice versa of course.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Also, there's cases like Ada Lovelace, where a child is pushed into a non-traditional role for their gender. Socialization definitely plays a role. While this can result in a "positive" outcome, I think pigeonholing a child is a pretty cruel method of parenting.

 

[kora]

Toy preference is also interesting because of the toys themselves. Boys tend to prefer the mechanically novel (e.g., a toy car with spinning wheels), while girls seem to prefer a stand-in for a baby that they can "care for". These studies have been done on infants, toddlers, and even other species and the results are fairly consistent. This is very revealing when you look at the differences in the types of careers men and women go into on average.

There's definitely some truth to women being "weaker" than men, at least on average. This is why we have segregated sports. This isn't anything against women and is quite easily explained when you look at how we evolved. Women cared for the children while the men hunted. Women being more sensitive to things like cold meant that their children would have a better chance at survival. Men being more physically fit meant a better chance at a successful hunt. Neither are more important than the other, they're just different.

Hello again, sorry if this post is a bit rambling I've had 3 hours sleep and it's evening where I am.

I started having this discussion with Brontosaurie already sort of but it didn't continue, I am very interested in it, don't know why :-)

Personally I hated dolls, despite my family trying to give me some on occasions, only interested in Lego, animals (not just cute ones I mean spiders and slugs as well as kittens, much to my parents displeasure, just in case you think it's a nurturing instinct lol, I'm still fascinated with all life forms to this day) dinosaurs, I played racing cars to some extent, I wanted radio controlled machines so badly. Want to know why? Because those were the toys I grew up around, we didn't have masses of money and I inherited my brothers'. I think human brain plasticity is huge, particularly in children and I should think most children will play with any toy you present them with. I would be extremely interested to see these studies and also to determine how scientists made sure that children in question had not been culturally influenced already. Could you link these studies for me? As many as possible plz. Skip the monkey ones though because although we have a lot in common with them we also have too much that's different, they are not truly cultural creatures like us.

(As a side note I am not more sensitive to cold than the men around me lol, I don't know how to argue this except by giving my word haha)

Look at the toy adverts on cartoon network, girl toys come exclusively in shades of pink and are themed around looking pretty and taking care of babies. Boy toys are about a much wider range adventure, building things, and come in a variety of colors (except pink) cars are a modern invention, it seems funny to me that we would have evolved a preference for them but whatever... It is certain that the obsession with appearance of the female gender is excessively culturally exacerbated and mostly unhealthy, if you like I can link studies on self objectification and all its consequences in the female gender, it reduces cognitive abilities by breaking flow state, causes anxiety (that's why anorexia and bulimia sufferers are 95% female) and other stuff but I'm not sure how relevant this is to topic at hand and whether you are interested so I'll skip for the moment.

Here are some examples of societies where women traditionally hunt
http://elodieunderglass.com/2012/10/29/th-gh-the-world-of-women-who-hunt/

Agree of course women are physically weaker on the whole, I have no problems with separate sports. Although I bet if we had mixed sports you'd get the occasional girl who could compete . Tbh for some sports like running the disparity isn't that great, like the 100 M record Usain bolt holds it at 9,58 and Susan Griffith 10.49 and if you look at the list the men's world record on Wikipedia it is beaten far more frequently than women, this is because there are less women runners because they are less encouraged to go into sport basically.

I think you are underestimating the insidious ways that culture brainwashes, male and female. Many people become largely what people's expectations of them are to become, or sometimes reject it strongly, I guess it depends. The issue is complex, but there is no doubt that social pressure is a terrifically powerful force that shapes us mentally and physically.

In short, I believe there are some inherent biological tendencies but that the variations from one individual to the next varies hugely and transcends the fixed dichotomy of "women like babies and boys like cars" and other such simplistic gender roles, these fixed dichotomies are still to this day exacerbated culturally through social pressure and media representations, I think these are bigger influences than the biological.

Anyway, all this is interesting but let's get down to it. After all I have said, say you still think that it is the biological which most determines the development of the individual, which jobs and roles in society do you think are more suited for one sex? How should this play out? What types of careers should/do men go into and which types of careers should/do women go into. Also, are you saying that women should not be encouraged to go into politics and hard science and fields where they are generally less represented or do you mean something else? Is this the" fight against patriarchy" you are saying is unnecessary?

Voilà. Sorry for the length I am very interested in all this and discussing it

 

[kora]

I would define patriarchy as the unity of cultural factors that determines the general prejudices that women are passive, decorative, weak overly emotional and superficial thinkers. Also that their worth is primarily found in their appearance and ability as caregivers, and an inherent inability to pursue competitive careers. I believe the idea with many feminists would be that this prejudice, as a social expectation, means that women are not merely categorized unfairly as these things, but also develop the desire to socially conform to these prejudices.

I think I might be sounding more extreme perhaps than I wish, I should state again that I think these issues have in great part been resolved already in the past 20 years and are resolving themselves now, in about 30-40 years they might be completely gone in the West. The issue of hypersexualisation and objectification is the trickiest of all, that one actually got worse with explosion of porn culture and the "sexual liberation" movement which made it okay for advertisers to plaster naked women on cans of beans to sell them.

Maybe I'm just crazy and very tired and need to sleep lol. Night night forum.

 

[kora]

You know what I've decided I don't give a shit about any of this actually, forget above posts.

 

[The Gopher]

Yeah it does. I don't think there's anything wrong with focusing on male or female issues specifically. Men and women have different issues in many cases. Or they have sort of similar issues, but in different magnitudes and different contexts (such as rape).

It's the whole feminists getting defensive when men's issues are brought up and vice versa that's dumb. Both groups are guilty because both have a ton of people which like to pit the issues against each other in the nonsensical fashion I tried to describe in my previous post. I'm sure I've been guilty of this myself plenty of times.

I agree completely with your second paragraph.

However, if the patriarchy does exist the best way to fix that is to solve mens issues. What's an issue females have? Being seen as the primary caretaker of children. What's a way to solve that? Empower men to allow them to be the primary caretaker without prejudice! This will draw women away from being seen as the primary caretaker and thus solve that issue.

See a lot of gender problems are inverse. If you solve one side you solve the other. Women aren't seen as competent and have to prove themselves? Make being manly not about being competent at everything all the time. Make men who aren't competent exist and be visible in society in a meaningful manner and people will realise that men suck at stuff... err okay maybe not that. How about... don't judge and assume men are socially oblivious and useless at social tasks and this will in turn help women and men be seen as individuals.

Likewise let male rape be heard and taken seriously, this will increase the seriousness of female rape and lower false accusations and accusations of false accusations.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Could you link these studies for me? As many as possible plz. Skip the monkey ones though because although we have a lot in common with them we also have too much that's different, they are not truly cultural creatures like us.

Certainly. I'll throw in a bunch that aren't toy preferences either, but simply observed differences between the sexes in newborns.
NBAS ( Alternatively )
Taste
Toy
Brain / Behavioral Plasticity

More toy preference studies:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/15/3/339/
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130019 (relating to knowledge of sex roles)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1126831 (free to read with registration)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1127703 (free to read with registration)

I know you expressed disinterest in the monkey studies, but I find them fascinating as supplementary evidence for this observable preference being something passed down from earlier in the evolutionary tree and being innate.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08000949
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08001608
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513802001071


There's quite a bit more studies on this topic, but as far as I've seen they all seem to say similar things. The age range is the biggest difference, where there's more of a split once the children are old enough to know adult sex roles in society. Even then the only real difference seems to be that fewer boys seem to prefer playing with dolls than had previously where girls preferences remain similar.

(As a side note I am not more sensitive to cold than the men around me lol, I don't know how to argue this except by giving my word haha)

I think there's actually some research supporting this, but what I found was either really old (1940s) or behind a paywall.

Look at the toy adverts on cartoon network, girl toys come exclusively in shades of pink and are themed around looking pretty and taking care of babies. Boy toys are about a much wider range adventure, building things, and come in a variety of colors (except pink)

Interestingly, pink used to not be "for girls". Color preference seems to be the result of socialization (which is indicated in at least one of the studies I linked above).

cars are a modern invention, it seems funny to me that we would have evolved a preference for them but whatever...

The research seems to indicate that it's because it's mechanically novel, rather than it being a car. That is to say, you could probably get similar results with something like just a few magnets. I can't remember if this was tested or expanded upon in the studies I linked.

Although I bet if we had mixed sports you'd get the occasional girl who could compete . Tbh for some sports like running the disparity isn't that great, like the 100 M record Usain bolt holds it at 9,58 and Susan Griffith 10.49 and if you look at the list the men's world record on Wikipedia it is beaten far more frequently than women, this is because there are less women runners because they are less encouraged to go into sport basically.

I'd definitely be interested in a purely meritocratic approach to athletics, but this actually might deepen the divide. If women, on average, are at an inherent physical disadvantage they might be discouraged from even trying. I'm of the opinion that this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but if it were the case today it would almost certainly be pointed at and called oppression.

I think you are underestimating the insidious ways that culture brainwashes, male and female. Many people become largely what people's expectations of them are to become, or sometimes reject it strongly, I guess it depends. The issue is complex, but there is no doubt that social pressure is a terrifically powerful force that shapes us mentally and physically.

Quite the contrary. I realize it has a large social influence, but I still think the fundamental preference is the primary driver. The reason I think this is because in developing nations you see much more parity between men and women in the job market overall. Women in those nations have to work and don't really have a choice over what the work is. When you start getting into developed nations is when these divides really start to become pronounced, and that seems to be the result of choice. I don't have the citations for this on hand, and this has turned into a rather lengthy reply, but I'll dig them out and post them a bit later.


I know I'm cutting it a bit short. I'll reply later with more specifics the jobs men and women do in both developed and developing nations and compare and contrast a bit.

Overall, I know it's not as clear cut as "boys like trucks, girls like dolls". There's a lot at play here. My main contention is that there's insufficient evidence supporting the notion of patriarchy. The differences observed by men and women seem to be able to be better explained by other factors, numerous as they may be.

The idea that there should be gender parity is another part of it that bothers me intellectually. I think that claim in itself is something that needs to be justified. Should there be an equal number of bearded school teachers as clean shaven? Black and white, despite one being the majority demographic? I understand it might be seen as offensive and/or unfair to compare those situations, but my point is, individuals are non-random. We should not expect a roughly even spread unless there's a good reason to do so.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Voilà. Sorry for the length I am very interested in all this and discussing it

You know what I've decided I don't give a shit about any of this actually, forget above posts.

Well, that was a waste of time.

 

[Grayman]

Likewise let male rape be heard and taken seriously, this will increase the seriousness of female rape and lower false accusations and accusations of false accusations.

It is my experience that there are a lot men who don't take such things seriously. I was sexually assaulted and my wife wanted me to report it but others tld not to report it because I would likely be interrogated. Half the men I told about it just laughed and asked where to find her so they can get some...

It felt like a bigger deal to me. Maybe I am making a bigger deal of it than I should being a 30 year old male... but I have a lot of feelings about the experience and none them are funny.

The only people who treated it seriously were women.

 

[Yellow]

It is my experience that there are a lot men who don't take such things seriously. I was sexually assaulted and my wife wanted me to report it but others tld not to report it because I would likely be interrogated. Half the men I told about it just laughed and asked where to find her so they can get some...

It felt like a bigger deal to me. Maybe I am making a bigger deal of it than I should being a 30 year old male... but I have a lot of feelings about the experience and none them are funny.

The only people who treated it seriously were women.

It really is a serious thing.

The reason why so many men (and women) find male victimization laughable is basically the same reason why rape still exists at all. It's a power exchange, where one person decides that his or her needs, wants, or ego are more valuable than another person's physical autonomy.

It's the foundation idea that the strong are right to prey on the weak.

It goes further that those vulnerable to predation should integrate their vulnerability into their entire sense of self, and have inhibited social confidence. They should ingratiate and/or attach themselves to those who are stronger, or otherwise attempt to be less "tempting" to predators in order to avoid victimization. After all, victims are to blame for not protecting/disguising themselves more thoroughly, right?

People who shame/ignore the victim perpetuate the idea that rape is the victim's fault. That it's the victim's role. When people say that only women can be raped, it's like saying that it's a woman's place to be raped and a man's to be a rapist. It's thoroughly disgusting.

 

[The Gopher]

To Grey and Yellow, that was almost exactly my point. I hope you don't think I was mocking it there was a reason the smiley face was not on the end of the sentence but at the end of the paragraph. I mean I needed to include it somewhere because god forbid I talk about rape in a serious manner; that would be social suicide.

 

[Grayman]

To Grey and Yellow, that was almost exactly my point. I hope you don't think I was mocking it there was a reason the smiley face was not on the end of the sentence but at the end of the paragraph. I mean I needed to include it somewhere because god forbid I talk about rape in a serious manner; that would be social suicide.

No, I understood. I was agreeing and then adding to it.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Sexual assault, of anyone, is a serious issue.

A somewhat unrelated (to the thread) rant, but...
It's incredible that we've gotten to a point where there's essentially no way, at least in the US and UK, for a woman to be legally held to account for having raped a man short of her having penetrated him in some way. That is to say, under the current laws, being forcefully enveloped or "made to penetrate", is not rape.

This also ties into inherently unjust policies of dealing with domestic violence based on the Duluth model, which presupposes a male perpetrator, despite the evidence that partner violence is about equal between men and women. We, as a society, are in a situation where if you're a man being abused by your female partner, you have little to nowhere to go for help. If you call the police for help, they're more likely to arrest you. The circumstances where a woman is actually arrested for violence against a partner tend to be extreme, like a female partner having caused obvious life-threatening injuries with none sustained herself.

Another particularly nefarious thing that's started to creep up recently is the push for affirmative consent, which essentially requires enthusiastic and repeated verbal consent, throughout the entire sex act, for it to not be "rape". Given the flawed definition of rape, under affirmative consent, it leaves the question of whether or not any sex was rape entirely up to the woman (assuming common heterosexual sex that's not involving the male being penetrated by anything). It reverses the burden of proof and acts to erode one of the most fundamental pillars of justice: Innocent until proven guilty.

Even further, it's being pushed on college campuses that if two heterosexual people are drunk and had sex, the man raped her, because she wasn't able to meaningfully give consent. These redefinitions of consent are particularly repulsive in that they minimize the experience of real rape victims. Regretting drunken sex is nowhere near the same thing as being held down and fucked against your will and should not be treated like it is.

I know this probably sounds like "wah, men" to some people, but these are absolutely egregious institutional injustices. I'm asexual, so I have very little skin in the game, but the glaring and perverse injustice of it all is extremely concerning.

I'm not trying to pin all these failings on all proponents of patriarchy or even all feminists, but, make no mistake, all of these things are feminist-driven.