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

[Grayman]

The rest of my post was in regards to the 'patriachy', not rape. There's another recent thread on rape somewhere.

I still contest that a covert patriachy exits in the west (politically, econonically and culturally), and that an overt patriachy still exits more predominantly else where including politically, economically, religiously and culturally.

Actually, I have heard the argument that male victims are largely ignored because the existence of male culture and dominion over our political realm. Male culture often required men to be strong, self reliant, and dutiful in order to have worth. A male victim fails to meet up to such standards.

Edit: This lack of concern becomes evident in other areas as well. Cancer donations, homelessness, etc.

 

[Yellow]

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.

Seeing as nearly all of these laws have strong roots in a time before feminism existed (like defining rape as a man assaulting a woman, and domestic violence as a man beating his wife), I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it feminist-driven. It goes back to the strong man/weak woman concept that's at the bottom of this whole mess.

Edit: I think Grayman just said it for me here:

Actually, I have heard the argument that male victims are largely ignored because the existence of male culture and dominion over our political realm. Male culture often required men to be strong, self reliant, and dutiful in order to have worth. A male victim fails to meet up to such standards.

Having said that, I will wholly concede that I've seen a feminist [for lack of a better term] extremist who loudly proclaimed that even in the case of pedophilia/statutory rape, it's impossible for a woman to rape a man/boy. It's nothing but ignorance and venom that belongs in the same category as saying women deserve to be violently raped for "misbehaving" (i.e. wearing the wrong clothes, drinking, refusing marital sex, etc.)

Anyway, our laws are worded poorly in general. For example, when a young boy or girl is anally raped, even to the point of requiring extensive surgery, it's still only called sexual assault. Though that particular crime normally carries a much heftier sentence than most rape charges, words have power, and they should be chosen much more carefully.

 

[Yellow]

Edit: This lack of concern becomes evident in other areas as well. Cancer donations, homelessness, etc.

Holy hell, that's a huge thing for every nonprofit organization I've come across. There is money for women with children, there is money for victims of domestic violence (men and women, though few men step forward to receive in relocation services to escape an abusive situation), there is money for homeless children. There is money for homeless veterans, for homeless women with addiction issues, people with HIV, and people on disability. But if you are a childless woman, or a non-veteran man without SSI/SSDI, your options are limited. You can try to not get kicked out of a Rescue Mission program, but other than that, no one cares. Well, lots of people care, but the grant writers, religious charities, and other funding sources just don't give a damn.

We're supposed to be moving toward family-centered initiatives as a nation, but the men are being left in the lurch. Every time we talk to bureaucrats who pretend to listen to our needs, it's the first thing every agency brings up. That we need housing and support services for whole families, and more support for single men. Because what's the point for trying to help a family if you are going to leave dad out on the street? How are things going to get better, if we just keep filling our jails and prisons with addicted and indigent men? They say (or rather imply while blaming taxpayers), "well, a man isn't going to be homeless if he doesn't want to. He just needs to step up and be a man." They don't seem to understand that you can't build a house with your penis.

 

[Sinny91]

Seeing as nearly all of these laws have strong roots in a time before feminism existed (like defining rape as a man assaulting a woman, and domestic violence as a man beating his wife), I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it feminist-driven. It goes back to the strong man/weak woman concept that's at the bottom of this whole mess.

Edit: I think Grayman just said it for me here:


Having said that, I will wholly concede that I've seen a feminist [for lack of a better term] extremist who loudly proclaimed that even in the case of pedophilia/statutory rape, it's impossible for a woman to rape a man/boy. It's nothing but ignorance and venom that belongs in the same category as saying women deserve to be violently raped for "misbehaving" (i.e. wearing the wrong clothes, drinking, refusing marital sex, etc.)

Anyway, our laws are worded poorly in general. For example, when a young boy or girl is anally raped, even to the point of requiring extensive surgery, it's still only called sexual assault. Though that particular crime normally carries a much heftier sentence than most rape charges, words have power, and they should be chosen much more carefully.

That offense is called 'buggary' in the UK, the word leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Sinny91]

Holy hell, that's a huge thing for every nonprofit organization I've come across. There is money for women with children, there is money for victims of domestic violence (men and women, though few men step forward to receive in relocation services to escape an abusive situation), there is money for homeless children. There is money for homeless veterans, for homeless women with addiction issues, people with HIV, and people on disability. But if you are a childless woman, or a non-veteran man without SSI/SSDI, your options are limited. You can try to not get kicked out of a Rescue Mission program, but other than that, no one cares. Well, lots of people care, but the grant writers, religious charities, and other funding sources just don't give a damn.

We're supposed to be moving toward family-centered initiatives as a nation, but the men are being left in the lurch. Every time we talk to bureaucrats who pretend to listen to our needs, it's the first thing every agency brings up. That we need housing and support services for whole families, and more support for single men. Because what's the point for trying to help a family if you are going to leave dad out on the street? How are things going to get better, if we just keep filling our jails and prisons with addicted and indigent men? They say (or rather imply while blaming taxpayers), "well, a man isn't going to be homeless if he doesn't want to. He just needs to step up and be a man." They don't seem to understand that you can't build a house with your penis.

Same in the UK, here single childless women, single childless men, and under 25s in general are last on the social priorities lists.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Seeing as nearly all of these laws have strong roots in a time before feminism existed (like defining rape as a man assaulting a woman, and domestic violence as a man beating his wife), I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it feminist-driven.

The current definition of rape we have in the US is the result of the, ironically named, feminist "Rape is Rape" campaign. I concede that yes, historically the definition wasn't much better, but it's feminists who expanded the definition and deliberate chose to exclude female-on-male rape, which was no accident (page 206-207). Mary Koss, specifically, seems primarily to blame here. She's been pushing this for a long time.

The Duluth Model is based on feminist ideology.

I'm not trying to argue historical points, I'm arguing against what we have now and who pushed it to be this way.

It goes back to the strong man/weak woman concept that's at the bottom of this whole mess.

Ironically, this is the narrative feminism seems to promote. Reading stuff Mary Koss has written shows this emphasis that men are agents and women are simply acted upon.

Again, it's not all feminists pushing this stuff, but it does seem to be some of the most vocal and politically influential ones.

 

[kora]

Ironically, this is the narrative feminism seems to promote. Reading stuff Mary Koss has written shows this emphasis that men are agents and women are simply acted upon.

Again, it's not all feminists pushing this stuff, but it does seem to be some of the most vocal and politically influential ones.

Yellow is absolutely right about the source of the mess being strong man weak woman dichotomy and also may I add that you are straw manning here. a re definition of the symbolism of gender roles is the central point of most, if not all academic serious feminist philosophers, psychologists and sociologists since forever such as Simone de Beauvoir or Judith Butler and of bloody course any serious feminist would advocate that one of the central goals of emancipation is for women to attain a status of active power for themselves and relinquish their status of passivity. This is THE central point in fact. After there are many strains and complexities for example does this mean absolute gender neutrality (I.e total elimination of gender symbolism) or the elevation of traditionally feminine values to be "worth" the same as masculine values (I find this difficult to uphold really because traditionally they are passiveness self effacement in order to care for others, emotions and irrationality instead of reason, in short confining of active power) a third way of looking at it is a completely new set of symbols assigned to the feminine as defined by women and not men who traditionally have had the power to shape history and assign these symbols.

I don't know where you are getting your sources but Mary Kross doesn't even have a Wikipedia page (Yes that does mean something), I had never ever heard of her, and when I typed in her name the only page I could find on her ideology was a criticism on the "a voice for men" website which shows to me that she is someone somewhat irrelevant to the principal feminist voices and is only latched onto for criticism such as you are doing. you are obviously biased in your research on feminism, these are not the main voices. Try reading "the second sex" and other main sources of feminist work (I am absolutely certain you won't but whatever. In fact I have yet to meet any male person who has bothered to read a major feminist work, not that it is necessary but I would love to meet one .)

I am not answering that much on this thread because I am very busy at the moment, and other people such as cherry cola and Blarraun are already addressing points I would have made anyway

Also I'm not sure anyone addressed yellows post (65) where she talked about the study she saw of women being taken less seriously when they speak, this is a proof of inherent prejudice on a most insidious level (patriarchy, if we really care about the term, but I generally prefer not to use it as it makes people pissed off and stuff) if yellow could link the studies that would be cool (I suppose it was 14 years ago though so...)

 

[420MuNkEy]

I don't know where you are getting your sources but Mary Kross doesn't even have a Wikipedia page (Yes that does mean something)

Yes she does. She's incredibly well known, so either you're intentionally lying or you absolutely suck at research.

Yellow is absolutely right about the source of the mess being strong man weak woman dichotomy and also may I add that you are straw manning here

Pointing out that that this narrative is pushed by feminists and has been made law BY FEMINISTS does not a strawman make.


I don't really care what your opinion about feminism in general is. I'm pointing at the actions of specific feminists and specific feminist groups and explicitly saying NOT ALL FEMINISTS.
I don't know how you could have more thoroughly misrepresented my post.

Also I'm not sure anyone addressed yellows post (65) where she talked about the study she saw of women being taken less seriously when they speak, this is a proof of inherent prejudice on a most insidious level (patriarchy, if we really care about the term, but I generally prefer not to use it as it makes people pissed off and stuff) if yellow could link the studies that would be cool (I suppose it was 14 years ago though so...)

I'd have to see the actual study, and no, the anecdote of a study read showing this, even if completely true, does not prove patriarchy in the slightest. Prejudice against women does not automatically magically translate into systemic discrimination. For that, it needs to be demonstrated that it's socially constructed and systemic.

 

[kora]

Yes she does. She's incredibly well known, so either you're intentionally lying or you absolutely suck at research.


Pointing out that that this narrative is pushed by feminists and has been made law BY FEMINISTS does not a strawman make.


I don't really care what your opinion about feminism in general is. I'm pointing at the actions of specific feminists and specific feminist groups and explicitly saying NOT ALL FEMINISTS.
I don't know how you could have more thoroughly misrepresented my post.



I'd have to see the actual study, and no, the anecdote of a study read showing this, even if completely true, does not prove patriarchy in the slightest. Prejudice against women does not automatically magically translate into systemic discrimination. For that, it needs to be demonstrated that it's socially constructed and systemic.

Ho shit I typed in kross not koss which reduced the search results massively, either inferior Se or keyboard prediction fuck up... Your post makes more sense now.
Okay okay monkey person you have my apology I was not intentionally lying or trying to misrepresent your post.
I stand by what I said though, re defining gender symbolism is a major point of many of the most well known feminist thinkers. Not my general opinion of it but fact, the ideology was practically born with that problematic in mind. Typing is very difficult right now with shit keyboard so will come back later.

 

[kora]

Mary kross is a good name for a feminist tough very cross Mary kross

 

[420MuNkEy]

I stand by what I said though, re defining gender symbolism is a major point of many of the most well known feminist thinkers. Not my general opinion of it but fact, the ideology was practically born with that problematic in mind. Typing is very difficult right now with shit keyboard so will come back later.

I fail to see how that's a straw man. I said feminism pushes the narrative of "woman weak, man strong" and you basically just reiterated and justified it by saying it was foundational to the ideology. That is to say, I wasn't misrepresenting the narrative.

Furthermore, it's been codified in laws pushed by feminists.

What am I misrepresenting? The only thing I could see is by me saying it's "not all feminists", seeing as it's pretty foundational to feminism, but there's a wide range of feminists and I'd think there's at least one sub-group of them out there that does not conform to or push the "woman weak, men strong" narrative.

 

[kora]

I fail to see how that's a straw man. I said feminism pushes the narrative of "woman weak, man strong" and you basically just reiterated and justified it by saying it was foundational to the ideology. That is to say, I wasn't misrepresenting the narrative.

Furthermore, it's been codified in laws pushed by feminists.

What am I misrepresenting? The only thing I could see is by me saying it's "not all feminists", seeing as it's pretty foundational to feminism, but there's a wide range of feminists and I'd think there's at least one sub-group of them out there that does not conform to or push the "woman weak, men strong" narrative.

You are misrepresenting feminism if you say that it generally pushes the "woman weak man strong" symbolism forward, major feminist thinkers (that I know of) are precisely arguing that this symbolism pervading society must be overturned and is in large part the basis of female subordination. This was the point I was trying to make, it would be I think fundamentally NOT feminist to assert that we must protect the poor inherently weak women against their eternal strong male predators or whatever. A feminist wants this symbolism to fuck off and be replaced with something empowering for women as active agents. This is definitely one of their main concerns, the symbolism attached to gender that determines our way of looking at each other. Hope I'm being clear this time and not misunderstanding your posts (I'm not English if that excuses me at all :-/)

I think many anti feminists do not get that this strain of thought would empower men, because eliminating such a dichotomy/prejudice would mean that sexual harassment and rape of male victims would get taken seriously instead of being dismissed as impossible because "menz are strongz not girly sissy" that's what yellow was saying too I think.

So many insults that mean feminine mean weak, this is a proof amongst others that this dichotomy exists. Actually that's another phenomenon that points to a patriarchy although probably still not proof in your eyes, I don't have statistics, but I bet you know what I'm talking about. If the symbolism attached to female means weak and the symbolism attached to male means strong in a majority of people's minds, then there is a patriarchy. An intelligent feminist insists on the point that the patriarchy, whilst it means that power is inherently associated with having a penis, actually hurts men also, because as victims in a classically "feminine" situation, they will not be taken seriously.

 

[Grayman]

@420Munkey

The older definition was worse for males and that was designed under the male political rule and has been left unchanged for 80 years. How can the feminist party be faulted when they have done a better job protecting male victims than males themselves have done? The newer definition appears to be very recent and perhaps it is just a stepping stone in progress.

 

[420MuNkEy]

You are misrepresenting feminism if you say that it generally pushes the "woman weak man strong" symbolism forward, major feminist thinkers (that I know of) are precisely arguing that this symbolism pervading society must be overturned and is in large part the basis of female subordination.

And yet feminists constantly propose legislation that amounts to special pleading, because "woman weak, man strong". Again, this isn't all feminists, but it's certainly a fair amount. This isn't a new split in feminism either, it's been going on for quite a while now.

Spoiler

(Both feminists)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyv5Fw0JSk


Christina Hoff Summers did an interesting video about this in the modern day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ewU33EdNnM

So many insults that mean feminine mean weak, this is a proof amongst others that this dichotomy exists. Actually that's another phenomenon that points to a patriarchy although probably still not proof in your eyes, I don't have statistics, but I bet you know what I'm talking about. If the symbolism attached to female means weak and the symbolism attached to male means strong in a majority of people's minds, then there is a patriarchy. An intelligent feminist insists on the point that the patriarchy, whilst it means that power is inherently associated with having a penis, actually hurts men also, because as victims in a classically "feminine" situation, they will not be taken seriously.

I wouldn't argue against the idea that the dichotomy exists and that insults can be used to reinforce gender roles, but I don't think there's anything patriarchal about that. General trends in behavior do exist and are observed and commonly known. It's unusual for men to exhibit traits typically associated with femininity and vice versa. Similar how heterosexuality is the normal (i.e., usual/common) sexuality calling someone a "fag" or "dyke" is also used as an insult.

These types of insults are typically hyperbolic and used against people for whom they don't typically apply, otherwise they're not really effective as insults. It's not really insulting to call an openly gay man a "fag" or "pretty boy". In the case of insults that, while are gendered, are not entirely gendered, they can be used against mostly anyone and have different meanings depending on who they're used against. Examples of this would be words like "bitch" and "dick". Calling a man a "bitch" is really two insults in one, as it's an attack on his gender identity as well as his character. Calling a woman the same is just a character insult.

I don't subscribe to the idea that we're blank slates, nor do I subscribe to the idea that they're anything wrong with people who don't fit the typical roles. I do, however, subscribe to the idea that these roles are typical. I don't think we should be trying to encourage more people to become gay, more women to become muscle-y, or men to become emotional simply to make it more common. Even worse is enacting legislation that treats people differently based on what's typical, specifically because there's nothing wrong with not conforming to the typical. Differences are fine, though they will be observed and often mocked.

 

[420MuNkEy]

@420Munkey

The older definition was worse for males and that was designed under the male political rule and has been left unchanged for 80 years. How can the feminist party be faulted when they have done a better job protecting male victims than males themselves have done? The newer definition appears to be very recent and perhaps it is just a stepping stone in progress.

Because they claim to care about men when they clearly don't. They pushed through legislation that excluded male victims, and as I already explained, that exclusion was deliberate. This isn't a stepping stone, this is the end goal, articulated by feminists quite a long time before this was passed (which I cited), specifically because the "woman weak, man strong" narrative.

Furthermore, if men are in power, why aren't they protecting their own interest?

 

[Sinny91]

This thread is boring, you've gone from patriachy to rape, to feminism with whiney undertones.

Id still like to discuss the patriachy, if you will go back and address my posts.

 

[Grayman]

Because they claim to care about men when they clearly don't. They pushed through legislation that excluded male victims, and as I already explained, that exclusion was deliberate. This isn't a stepping stone, this is the end goal, articulated by feminists quite a long time before this was passed (which I cited), specifically because the "woman weak, man strong" narrative.

Furthermore, if men are in power, why aren't they protecting their own interest?

They do but at the exclusion of other males. Each for himself. The most vocal male advocates draw attention away from male issues by creating conflict with the feminist movement. Real mens issues are then lost in the exchange and forgotten.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Id still like to discuss the patriachy, if you will go back and address my posts.

I already did. If you made points you think were unaddressed, please let me know what they are.

 

[Sinny91]

I still contest that a covert patriachy exits in the west (politically, econonically and culturally), and that an overt patriachy still exits more predominantly else where including politically, economically, religiously and culturally.

I'm yet to see you approach the question of the Patriachy through the avenues I highlighted here, in stead you are throwing out stats, and changing subject. Which you are no doubt aware of.

 

[Brontosaurie]

higs, look at what the feminism movement is doing and demanding instead of reading token literature like Beauvoir and just pretending that's an exhaustive, valid portrait of feminist ideas and practices today. Every feminist is saying excactly what you're saying here, but then in the next breath they are demanding a plethora of special treatments from the state, from various cultural institutions and from public discourse.

All just so women can seem more like men, take care of children less and have more manly jobs. It's weird how you people can think of yourselves as something like "feminists" actually.

Typical feminist culture: An all-female cast setup of "A Clockwork Orange" is being arranged. It is "important to show that women can be violent too". That's the kind of shit feminism is doing. It's not some outlier oddity, it's a very timely trendy concept. It's feminism in style. Clear-cut patriarchy appeasers. Highly ironic.

 

[Sinny91]

Clear-cut patriarchy appeasers. Highly ironic.

It is ironic. It's also engineered; drawing attention back to Monkeys comment about the Government's involvement in Civil liberties movements, including but not limited to 'Feminism'; a word which represents many concepts and idea's, but which is also being grossly misrepresented in this thread.

I have work shortly, but have decided to weigh in on this - I'll lead by example after work.

(Side note: One thing I've noticed on this forum is people's propensity to use a lot of words, but actually say very little).

 

[420MuNkEy]

I'm yet to see you approach the question of the Patriachy through the avenues I highlighted here, in stead you are throwing out stats, and changing subject. Which you are no doubt aware of.

Well, you're going to have to be a bit more specific than that if you want me to even be able to address it.

What do you mean by "covert patriarchy"?
What evidence to you have to contest this exists?
Give me some examples.

This is like trying to rebut the claim "Bruce Willis secretly has magical powers", with no explanation of what's meant by "magical powers", no evidence supporting it, and no examples of why it's thought to be true.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

higs, look at what the feminism movement is doing and demanding instead of reading token literature

if you bother to look a little deeper than all the psuedo-feminism dirt you see on tv making a big deal of non-issues, you will find that it's doing a lot.
eg. women have always been consistently excluded from medical research, to the point were it was not known that women experienced different heart attack symptoms until a couple of years ago. this new development in the way medical research is conducted is obviously a result of the pressure exerted by the time we live in which feminism finally has a movement

All just so women can seem more like men, take care of children less and have more manly jobs. It's weird how you people can think of yourselves as something like "feminists" actually.

no. feminism only seeks to abolish the 'old wives tale' that a woman's role is restricted to child bearing/rearing and nothing more. promoting the neglect of a child's physical and emotional needs is just dumb and irresponsible and has nothing to do with what real feminism is about.

----
obviously you and higs have different things in mind when you talk about "feminism"...this exchange will keep going in circles if you persist in holding onto your definition bronto

 

[Sinny91]

Well, you're going to have to be a bit more specific than that if you want me to even be able to address it.

What do you mean by "covert patriarchy"?
What evidence to you have to contest this exists?
Give me some examples.

This is like trying to rebut the claim "Bruce Willis secretly has magical powers", with no explanation of what's meant by "magical powers", no evidence supporting it, and no examples of why it's thought to be true.

Are you meaning to say that you have started a thread, asking us a question, about a concept you have no understanding of? Or that you do not know what meanings/definitions we have been applying this whole discussion?

Covert and patriachy are the key words.. look them up, I intend them in their literal meaning.

As for what I specifically wanted you to do; it is to offer us an overview of your evaluation of the 'question of the Patriachy'; using the aforementioned frameworks, in the quest of 'Intellectual Diversity' - after already stating my dissatisfaction at what I percieve to be a very narrow framework, constrained by western 'laws' and state/NGO statistics.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Are you meaning to say that you have started a thread, asking us a question, about a concept you have no understanding of? Or that you do not know what meanings/definitions we have been applying this whole discussion?

Covert and patriachy are the key words.. look them up, I intend them in their literal meaning.

No, I started a thread about a concept I've heard a great deal about but seen little to no evidence for. The fervent belief by its proponents despite the utter lack of evidence made me consider that, perhaps, like god, it is an unfalsifiable supposition. I thought this much was very clear from my initial post.

Provide some fucking evidence already.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

(Side note: One thing I've noticed on this forum is people's propensity to use a lot of words, but actually say very little).

is this about this particular thread or in general? anyway, my observation is the opposite; people here look down on pretentious word salads and ambiguous walls of text and are quick to call people out on them

 

[420MuNkEy]

It is ironic. It's also engineered;

I have no idea what you're talking about.

drawing attention back to Monkeys comment about the Government's involvement in Civil liberties movements, including but not limited to 'Feminism';

Apparently I wrote it, but I still have no idea what you're talking about.

a word which represents many concepts and idea's, but which is also being grossly misrepresented in this thread.

So it can mean many things, but apparently none of the things that I've claimed and had direct citations for and made specific mention of it not being representative of all of feminism?
This requires some serious mental gymnastics to be this collectivist and this separatist at the same time.

I'll lead by example

I have no idea what you're talking about. Lead what by example?

(Side note: One thing I've noticed on this forum is people's propensity to use a lot of words, but actually say very little).

Perhaps you should be a bit more verbose, because it doesn't seem like you're saying a whole lot that makes any sort of sense.

 

[Grayman]

Every feminist is saying excactly what you're saying here, but then in the next breath they are demanding a plethora of special treatments from the state, from various cultural institutions and from public discourse.

I think it is important to recognize this fact. "The effect of oppression often outlives the oppressor." Also, giving an extra hand to the recently oppressed isn't special treatment. If we disagree that they are suffering from the effects of oppression than we have to go back to the original arguments that were made in this thread about how woman are less prevelant in certain but important areas of our society.


*****************
Now going back my first sentence in this post. I do not believe the patrachry exists but I do believe the effects of its oppression still affect woman. I think that pointing out that the effects of oppression exists isn't necessarily proof that the patrachry exists.

No one has provided examples that show that actual existing and direct oppression of woman exists in western culture today. They have only provided evidence on the existence of the effects of oppression.

 

[Brontosaurie]

if you bother to look a little deeper than all the psuedo-feminism dirt you see on tv making a big deal of non-issues, you will find that it's doing a lot.
eg. women have always been consistently excluded from medical research, to the point were it was not known that women experienced different heart attack symptoms until a couple of years ago. this is obviously a result of the pressure exerted by the time we live in which feminism finally has a movement


no. feminism only seeks to abolish the 'old wives tale' that a woman's role is restricted to child bearing/rearing and nothing more. promoting the neglect of a child's physical and emotional needs is just dumb and irresponsible and has nothing to do with what real feminism is about.

----
obviously you and higs have different things in mind when you talk about "feminism"...this exchange will keep going in circles if you persist in holding onto your definition bronto

My definition pertains to the ideological movement and its corresponding cultural expectations. higs' definition pertains to old feminist canonic works and euphemistic goals which are widely used by apologetic feminists. It's employed as the motte in the "motte and bailey" fallacy which is the opposite of a strawman. The bailey is an outright claim or implication which is clearly absurd and an easy target of criticism. Typically it also represents a logical or empirical blindspot of deliberate or at least functional ignorance. The motte is a safer position to which one may retreat if ones views begin to attract the trivial and inevitable criticism instead of just being shared or accepted. In this particular case, the feminism movement supports interventions and social paradigm shifts clearly implying compensation for women's innate inadequacy - one of the notions feminism claims to oppose. When this is pointed out, any particular feminist spokesperson defends core feminist positions (motte) instead of the actions, views, implicit premises and expectations of the ideological movement at large (bailey).

Regarding medical progress, i'd attribute that to science first and foremost. Secondly, i'm not saying a person cannot meaningfully work toward a less sexist world. I don't exclude the possibility of good feminism. But nevertheless, i maintain that there is something very widely referred to as 'feminism' that constitutes an epistemic error and thus a problem. The feminism me and 420nubkey talk about us the one we describe. If for example you and higs are more sensible feminists, i would recommend (with the hopes of not being condescending or anything like that) distancing yourselves from mainstream feminism rather than taking some slanted defensive stance. It may be sad that the word has been co-opted by ill-thought extremists/trendhoppers/opportunists/cultists, but the reality is that the word has its practical extension and while it's important to note the dilemma, it isn't reasonable that this semantic quibble is to be the main point of discussion on the matter. As explained, it is clear what we mean by 'feminism'. Why emphasize the potential shortcomings of this word choice instead of going along with it?

I consider myself a feminist too deep down. Always did. Always frustrated by prejudice and coercive categorical systems in generall. But just talking about it, seeing as it's come to be dominated by postmodernism, identity politics and communism to such an overwhelming degree, it's more efficient to mean current mainstream feminism when using the word, not the ideal feminism or the sensible pro-woman stuff that i and most people agree on. It is a movement with a history and goals. It's a big medial mess as you say, but people have internalized it too. People tacitly support very moralistic, short-sighted, conjectural positions, even if indeed you are correct the big faces are more extreme, intense and insistent than people overall (US-sense "liberals", bohemians, leftists and progressivists at least and where i live, upper middle-class).There are problems about mainstream feminism and they're kinda taboo.

Talking strictly western-world. Maybe applies significantly more to my northern-european location than to west at large

 

[The Gopher]

Side rant: The problem Zerg and Bronto and a few other people are having is that like nutritionists, republicans, democrats, or pretty much any other self identifying group (or dietitian one or the other) anyone can call themselves a feminist. Personally I don't think identifying with a nebulous movement that nobody has matching definitions on or requirements to be a part of is a good idea. However if you are going to do that (in my opinion) you need to personally regulate the extremists or split. Yes you.

If you have an extremist feminist they aren't going to listen to people they think are against them. Same with any other extremist of almost any other group. (Apart from the extremist open listeners but they have their own problems) If you don't want to be associated with extreme or even mild/pop feminism you need to either join a movement with more solid definitions or exile and condemn those people that are "wrong".

Bronto is not wrong saying that feminists are like that. Sure "no true feminist" is probably like that, but that's the thing isn't it. If you say you are feminist that could mean anything. You can't define it, you can only define what it means to you. Even then some people define it "normally", then proceed to talk about killing men and feasting on their bones. (Kissing is like taste testing for a cannibal fyi) Keep in mind my definition of normally is almost certainly different to yours.

Speaking about talking a lot and saying little the next paragraph is only for people who still don't understand this.

You literally can't talk about feminism and what it is or means. At least not in a way correcting someone else about what it is or means, if you talk about it you have to be as inclusive as the social group already is which means everyone's definition or understanding of what feminists do is must be correct assuming they've seen or heard of a feminist doing it, it's not complete, it may be narrow minded, but it's not wrong. If you think it's wrong either you are narrow minded or oblivious.

Sure now the concept is out the way there there are exceptions such as saying all democrats came from the planet mars.

and now back to the patriarchy.

Edit: Oh hey just read bronto's post, we have at least one point we agree on!

 

[Brontosaurie]

We seem to agree on the lot of it, bar my polemic angle and your diplomatic one.

 

[420MuNkEy]

The little discussed field of semiotics is incredibly useful in situations like this.

 

[The Gopher]

We seem to agree on the lot of it, bar my polemic angle and your diplomatic one.

Shhh I'm trying to be diplomatic.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Shhh I'm trying to be diplomatic.

 

[Seteleechete]

One thing I learnt some time ago is that the word "feminist" is useless as a defining statement at the moment.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Zerg

........................................................
..........
K.
Fuck your diplomacy.

Sure "no true feminist" is probably like that, but that's the thing isn't it

i dont think i did a no true scotsman like ure implying. going for the original definition of the word, that is still in effect in dictionaries and books, is not the same as biasedly defining it however i like to get my own way with this conversation.

anyway, im always reluctant to use the word feminist for this reason. i realize its tarnished now and has negative connotation.

 

[Inquisitor]

@Sinny91:

Where is the "patriarchy"? Please provide names of organizations, groups, people, associations (both covert and overt) that you feel are patriarchal and why?

women have always been consistently excluded from medical research, to the point were it was not known that women experienced different heart attack symptoms until a couple of years ago. this is obviously a result of the pressure exerted by the time we live in which feminism finally has a movement

This may be true, but the flip side of it is that there is at least twice as much medical research focusing on women as there is on men. Proof of this may be found by searching for "men" and "women" on PubMed. Or if you're skeptical, you can also try any variety of other search terms like "men's health" vs. "women's health" or "men's illness" vs. "women's illness" or ...In every case, there's more research articles focused on the female gender. There are many reasons why women are less numerous than men as research subjects, but it's a stretch to assert that this is the result of institutional sexism/bias. A better explanation is that men are more willing to be enrolled in studies.

EDIT:

My father sits on an institutional review board (they approve medical research studies) and according to him (he's a professor at a top medical school in the US) the reason why women are underrepresented in medical research is due to pregnancy. If a woman is 1) pregnant or 2) not taking birth control (ie there's a chance she could become pregnant during the study) she's automatically excluded.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Do you propose that critics of this misguided feminism should use some other word instead? Hasn't that already been tried and backlashed already? From my experience, feminism is resistent to such clarification because it will assume an attack on all things feminist anyway.

 

[Grayman]

Do you propose that critics of this misguided feminism should use some other word instead? Hasn't that already been tried and backlashed already? From my experience, feminism is resistent to such clarification because it will assume an attack on all things feminist anyway.

I remember discussing this earlier this year on another thread. I thought you were involved...

 

[420MuNkEy]

I doubt anyone will bother to watch this (because of the length), though it is very entertaining, but it's relevant to this thread and the confusion of words:

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-aKyci8PMQ

 

[Yellow]

Do you propose that critics of this misguided feminism should use some other word instead? Hasn't that already been tried and backlashed already? From my experience, feminism is resistent to such clarification because it will assume an attack on all things feminist anyway.

It depends, as Gopher and others have pointed out, on what you mean by "feminism". Not all people who seek gender equality would call themselves feminists, and not all people who would call themselves feminists seek gender equality.

Spoiler

While I'm here, I think it's important to point out that very few people are advocating that men and women are exactly the same in every way. We are mildly sexually dimorphic (much less-so than most of our primate brethren). Women have a functional baby factor to build and so their bodily resources are partially diverted, whereas a man's body devotes more resources to the musculature system. As part of our instinct, women are more driven to find outside resources for the provision of food and shelter during the few months of our lives in which we are most vulnerable and least mobile (just before and after birth).

Sameness is not equality. Equality is an equal opportunity (for every demographic) to be useful to society and to seek out a life that we each find fulfilling, rather than being stunted by man-made [pun-intended] obstacles and limitations. This goes for men, women, children of every race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic group, and age [did I leave any factor out?].

So feel free to complain about feminists. Complain about their near-sightedness, irrationality, unfairness, whatever, but please don't assume that every person advocating for equality falls into your personal definition of what feminism is.

As another side note, this "extreme" attitude, as Grayman seemed to be explaining, is a reaction to past events.

Spoiler

Just like the Black Panthers (and related extant groups) were an extreme of Civil Rights movements, these "Feminazis" are another extreme. So are the "Brown Power" groups I had the pleasure of running into as a teen on the West Coast.

You see this in a very small scale in foster homes. You have a child who was very much oppressed by his parents. They've smack him when he spoke up, they'd lock him in the closet if he tried to run away. They'd starve him if he tried to report anything (and failed). So finally HRS is notified and the investigator takes action. The child goes to an awesome foster home with loving caregivers who are suddenly treating him like a real person. They're treating him like they'd treat any child -- with respect, dignity, and healthy boundaries. Well what do you think that child is going to do when he finds out that it's all over?

There are three ways he might go. Some children would just give a huge sigh, and happily integrate to the new family. They'd be grateful for the new start at life and make the most of it. This is unlikely, of course, because he's likely to be maladjusted after the years he spent being ill-treated. So most likely, he will act out. He will push every boundary the foster parents have, he'll bully the other kids, and he will try everyone's patience. Why? Because he's never had thins kind of freedom before. He wants to know where the new boundaries are, and how they will be enforced. With a little time and therapy, he's likely to settle down and happily adjust. Some children will take the middle ground. They'll act out a bit, but settle in okay once they find out things are different here. But oh my goodness will they get riled up if anyone or anything ever reminds them of their abuser, even if in a superficial way.

We see this in society when people are fighting for their equal rights. It's more complicated of course, because not everyone is on the same page when it comes to granting these rights. Women didn't wake up one day and find that all the oppressor were replaced by perfect husbands, fathers, etc. Just like Black Americans didn't wake up one day to find their White neighbors inviting them into the their homes for tea. Both genders need to give this some more time and patient until the more hypersensitive members of our sexes settle the fuck down.

By the way, I have no idea if I can find the studies again. At the time, I had that handy college-paid access to tons of publications. If I do, they'll probably be behind a pay wall, but I guess abstracts are normally enough to view the results and methods of a study. Anyway, I will look.

 

[Sinny91]

I have no idea what you're talking about.


Apparently I wrote it, but I still have no idea what you're talking about.


So it can mean many things, but apparently none of the things that I've claimed and had direct citations for and made specific mention of it not being representative of all of feminism?
This requires some serious mental gymnastics to be this collectivist and this separatist at the same time.


I have no idea what you're talking about. Lead what by example?


Perhaps you should be a bit more verbose, because it doesn't seem like you're saying a whole lot that makes any sort of sense.

Wow, am I talking to an idiot? Lol

 

[Grayman]

It is ironic. It's also engineered; drawing attention back to Monkeys comment about the Government's involvement in Civil liberties movements, including but not limited to 'Feminism'; a word which represents many concepts and idea's, but which is also being grossly misrepresented in this thread.

I have work shortly, but have decided to weigh in on this - I'll lead by example after work.

(Side note: One thing I've noticed on this forum is people's propensity to use a lot of words, but actually say very little).

drawing attention back to Monkeys comment about the Government's involvement in Civil liberties movements

I believe he stated the opposite of this. He never mentioned government involvement in feminism. He did mention feminist involvement in government.

But maybe I missed this and you can quote it so monkey and I know what you are referring to...

am I talking to an idiot?

You can evaluate his ability to comprehend or you can evaluate your own ability to communicate in order to find the answer to that question.

Me thinks, repeating the same thing a different way is not the same as elaborating, being specific, or "being more verbose" as requested by munkey.


Ultimately I am very impressed by a monkey who can use a computer let alone have solid debate and comprehension up until this final point.
Since animal trials come before human trials it is likely monkeys will take over the earth when transmonkeyism arrives. It seems that this process has already started.

 

[Sinny91]

Are you meaning to say that you have started a thread, asking us a question, about a concept you have no understanding of? Or that you do not know what meanings/definitions we have been applying this whole discussion?

Covert and patriachy are the key words.. look them up, I intend them in their literal meaning.

As for what I specifically wanted you to do; it is to offer us an overview of your evaluation of the 'question of the Patriachy'; using the aforementioned frameworks, in the quest of 'Intellectual Diversity' - after already stating my dissatisfaction at what I percieve to be a very narrow framework, constrained by western 'laws' and state/NGO statistics.

Well, does anybody else have trouble deciphering this post?

 

[The Gopher]

........................................................
..........
K.
Fuck your diplomacy.



i dont think i did a no true scotsman like ure implying. going for the original definition of the word, that is still in effect in dictionaries and books, is not the same as biasedly defining it however i like to get my own way with this conversation.

Aww I thought that was a cool name. My bad.

I don't recall implying you did a no true Scotsman I was doing a unrelated side rant about what I know now is semiotics.

I was implying or well, stating that unfortunately the dictionary definition no longer applies to the word. It's like saying "gay" still means happy. Sure in theory there was a point it did but that definition slowly slipped away over time. It's not biased defining of it. It's practically defining of it as it is practically used. In some cases it's practically used in the way Bronto is defining it. Sure it's narrow minded and incomplete. However it's not wrong.

I know how annoying it is to be misunderstood and misrepresented. However when it's used by Bronto it's not used about you. You are not all of feminism in the world in this instance. You are someone who is a feminist (I assume) and has defined that how you defined that and that is different to how others define and use the term/group. Bronto is talking presumably about others in that wide group that define things differently to you.

Edit: well okay it does still apply but not all the time.

Wow, am I talking to an idiot? Lol

As someone who has experience arguing with Munkey you are talking to someone who is very INTP.

 

[Grayman]

Covert and patriachy are the key words.. look them up, I intend them in their literal meaning.

pa·tri·arch·y
ˈpātrēˌärkē/
noun
1. a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
o a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
o a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.
plural noun: patriarchies

Can women vote? Do men outnumber woman so much that woman have no control of who represents them?

Please review this:
http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=503718&postcount=40

You obviously do not mean the literal definition because this…
“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.”
…is not in the definition. The key word in the definition is ‘excluded’.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/exclude?q=excluded

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

I remember discussing this earlier this year on another thread. I thought you were involved...

What was the conclusion of that thread?

 

[Grayman]

What was the conclusion of that thread?

Sorry looked around and I am wrong. Cannot trust my own mind. deja-vu

 

[420MuNkEy]

Wow, am I talking to an idiot? Lol

Perhaps you failed to notice, but in the post I quoted, you utterly failed to specify the subject of a sentence at times. Notice how I, in no vague terms, specified exactly what the fuck I was talking about, just there in the former sentence? If you need me to specify further, I can and will.

Just because you knew what the fuck you were talking about when you wrote something doesn't mean other people will when they read it back.

This isn't fucking poetry. Ambiguity is not welcome.

 

[Death Wizard]

I'm thinking the whole "man up" culture is drive and in service of women. Women are attracted to "strong" men not "weak" men. I doubt women would treat a "weak" man any better than men would, in fact I'm certain they would treat him worse.