By Patriarchal Prophet
Patriarchy is a funny thing. Feminists use to justify anything, often through using it as a supposed institution that can seemingly magically make anything institutionalized, but when questioned on it Patriarchy is talked about as a hairy fairy “social system.” So wouldn’t we all like to know where this came from? I mean, most social or economics systems have a set definition or origin, and are often the namesake of their creators, but Patriarchy is quite different.
One of the first things said by a feminist when the subject of “Who is to blame for Patriarchy?” comes up is that it isn’t woman’s fault (I mean how could it be). Well then, we can rule out every queen or princess, etc that has had the authority to change or enforce that. So who is left? Men, but when I questioned one feminist, it became specific men who created specific parts of it.
“I mean, the parts that have been established by specific men are the fault of those specific men.”
https://twitter.com/BathysphereHat/status/736507035177586688
So I questioned further and after a snide “were you not taught history” line I got the response of Confucius, the Founding Fathers & the Popes, so it seems that basically all men in power create or perpetuate Patriarchy. (I suppose that works with intersectionality too). What I’m seeing here really is basically that all men want to perpetuate Patriarchy but only the ones that can (I.E. men in power) are the ones that do. The other bad part of this is that it ignores all the queens ever & all the female religious leaders, and this could be for either of two reasons but probably both:
They don’t think women can be bad people.
They don’t recognize women’s agency.
There is still a distinct issue with this. Why did these men decide to do this? Did they just think “You know what would be cool? Fucking over half of our society even though we think they are equal.” So some feminists actually acknowledge the role of biology but only to the extent of women having to give birth. I imagine many of you know how this would work: Men then get to go hunting, meet other tribes, go to war, etc., and gain power because of this, so then, because they are inherently dicks, they oppress their own wives, mothers, sisters & daughters. This then conflicts with the previous explanation by giving a reason other than some men in power that actually makes way more sense because it explains also why it is older than these men in power and extends further than their reach. One thing this does confirm, though, is that both systems rely on the idea that men are just dicks, and seemingly inherently, because how did they become dicks before Patriarchy made them assholes?
So I think we can all agree that feminists just use “Patriarchy” as a way of hating, blaming & deriding men without openly admitting this. Not that this is at all news to any of you.
by 
Apes have matriarchy, and they still sit on branches throwing shit at things
Bonobos are the matriarchial apes, and a female will bite the testicles off a man if it pisses her off, and this is called equality by feminists.
Whereas you started out with fact, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence backing up your opinion.
Biting off a man’s testicles has not really been documented (other than perhaps by Jeffrey Dahmer or Armin Meiwes), and it certainly wouldn’t meet with feminism’s approval.
I might see where you’re coming from — knowing that the base goal of feminism is “fairness and equality”, and we see that so many men are violent toward women… perhaps you just were a little awkward in your wording “[females biting off men’s testicles] is called equality by feminists.”
Be a touch more clear in the future, and no one will accidentally think you so daft again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/science/06conv.html?_r=0 <— article on the peacefulness of bonobo habitats due to egalitarianism
“we see that so many men are violent toward women.”
Only if you view things through the “females deserve the utmost level protection from society” goggles. Which everyone, from Christian conservatives to radical Muslims to feminists have on – “They’re harming their women!” being the standard cry when women have in reality always made up a minority of violent crime victims.
Whereas I agree with your claim that men’s unstoppable violence is more often aimed at other men, there is absolutely no shortage of unstoppable male rage directed at women. The biggest difference being (if we are to believe police and the FBI) that the male-on-male violence happens most often as a result of the criminal actions of the [victim] male while being assaulted by the other male in question.
Also, women are told from a very, very young age (and it is reinforced throughout women’s lives) to NEVER walk alone, to NEVER let a strange man into your home, to NEVER roll down your car window for a strange man, to NEVER risk being alone with a man you do not trust implicitly (although the vast majority of assaults upon women are in fact done exactly by those very men in her personal circle of acquaintances), to pretty much take every effort to stay out of harm’s (men’s) way. Men, on the other hand do not often get told to avoid other violent people. Or maybe men DO get told to avoid violent people… I just have never had that confirmed by so much as one single source.
Also, men’s violence upon men is quite random — a violent man will violently assault any man who so much as looks at him “funny”; whereas women tend to overwhelmingly be assaulted by men who have woman-focused violence in mind. The number one killer* of women is their male domestic partner. The number one killer* of men is “just some dude”. (*not counting health-related stuff)
Also, the FBI stats often get miscalculated (perhaps intentionally?) to read as though men are far more often victims of violence, when all stats point to the violence being darned near 50/50. The only places we hear the miscalculated claim that “women make up a minority of violent crime victims” is on ant-female websites. Which, {sigh}, bodes poorly for this increasingly fact-free site.
Congrats on not responding to the content of my post though. That came as a total surprise.
“Also, women are told from a very, very young age (and it is reinforced throughout women’s lives) to NEVER walk alone, to NEVER let a strange man into your home, to NEV ER roll down your car window for a strange man, to NEVER risk being alone with a man you do not trust implicitly (although the vast majority of assaults upon women are in fact done exactly by those very men in her personal circle of acquaintances), to pretty much take every effort to stay out of harms (men’s) way. Men, on the other hand do not often get told to avoid other violent people.”
Have you ever considered that this is precisely because society values women’s safety and protection far above men’s?
I didn’t respond to the rest of your post, because it wasn’t a response to mine, I don’t know that much about bonobos, and that line was what I took most issue with in my limited time.
You’re going to have to back that shit up, about women making up 50% of violent crime victims (not counting sexual violence, because feminists have made it damn near impossible to count in male victims of female perps) or else your narrative (which is what most of your post is based upon, the usual “war on women” bullshit).
When I think patriarchy, I look at the break off Mormon communities. For each husband that has 50 wives, dozens of young men get cast out as sinners over nothing at all. They give blue pill a whole new meaning, The wives have an unbreakable glass ceiling above them, but they don’t seem to mind, they know over 90% of the men have it worse.
Same with any patriarchy, a small fraction of the men on top, the majority of women directly beneath, and the rest of the men on the bottom. The women enforce the structure and condemn the men on the bottom for it.
Matriarchies (as in, female as head of household) only seem to exist where food and resources are abundant and plentiful.
“[…] this could be for either of two reasons but probably both:
They don’t think women can be bad people.
They don’t recognize women’s agency.”
Neither is applicable to feminist beliefs. It was feminists who decried the ghastly actions of Mary Kay Letourneau when she raped her student, while it was men who praised her and screamed how they wished that they’d had such “luck” with a hot teacher in their own youths. It is feminists who preach that human nature is flawed, ergo any evil that men can commit can also be committed by women. (Also notable, although off-topic, is that feminists also say that human nature tends to be positive, and that fathers can be just as good parents as mothers, and men can be just as empathetic and understanding and helpful as women, etc., and that other than physical bodies we are all prone to the same goods and bads.)
As for feminists (not) recognizing women’s agency… perhaps a dictionary would be in order here. You really need to look up “agency” before using it in such an entirely incorrect manner!
“So I think we can all agree that feminists just use “Patriarchy” as a way of hating, blaming & deriding men without openly admitting this. Not that this is at all news to any of you.”
Wow, talk about a non sequitur extraordinaire! After making some limp, disprovable claims, you seemingly summed up your baseless opinions with, “welp, they hate us, and we all know it, it’s a fact even though there’s no evidence whatsoever!” Come on, lol. If this was The Onion, then OK. But respect HBB a little more, eh? They need these kind of problems like Oscar Pistorius needs another dead girlfriend. “Patriarchy”, or rule by the male, is why wives still take on the surnames of their purchasers… oops, I mean owners… nope, sorry — I mean equal partners in marriage. Damn this auto-complete… Patriarchy is why women still upend their entire life’s history and replace their (father’s) surname with their new husband’s surname. Whew. There, got it out. Patriarchy is why children are automatically given (or presumed to be given) their father’s surname, not their mother’s. Patriarchy is how fathers get heirs, but mothers don’t. Patriarchy is how we consider it “normal” and perhaps even “right” that movies, TV, AND POLITICS focus primarily on what men like, what men think, what men want, and how the populace goes batcaca when a woman dares to speak up.
Here’s a neat little set of photos of Patriarchy in politics http://www.boredpanda.com/no-men-politics-video-elle-uk-alex-holder-alyssa-boni/ And before you come up with the tired little claim that there are so phenomenally few women in places of power because women don’t ever try to GET positions of power, ask yourself how many times you and your besties have voted FOR women, or even FOR laws that might benefit women. If the answer is “less than half the time”, then that slays the whole but-wimminz-never-try-to-get-elected story.
“It was feminists who decried the ghastly actions of Mary Kay Letourneau when she raped her student, while it was men who praised her and screamed how they wished that they’d had such “luck” with a hot teacher in their own youths. It is feminists who preach that human nature is flawed, ergo any evil that men can commit can also be committed by women.”
It was a feminist, Mary Koss, that advised the CDC that female-on-male rape is not as serious. (https://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/mary-koss-doesnt-think-women-can-rape-men-and-boys/)
It is feminists that have consistently called for female prisons to be abolished. It’s feminists that have spent a good part of the last few decades calling for all sexual or domestic violence to be gendered as “violence against women”.
It was feminists that pushed forth the Duluth model of domestic violence, a model based on the theory that most domestic violence is patriarchal control by the man, and that model is used by police and abuse hotlines. It was feminists that harassed researchers like Erin Pizzey and Murray Strauss because they found out that most domestic violence was in fact reciprocal, with women doing a majority of non-reciprocal violence.
“fathers can be just as good parents as mothers, and men can be just as empathetic and understanding and helpful as women, etc”
Fatherhood has always been honored. Just in a differing way than motherhood has. But I suppose you’re one of those that only sees a man being a father when he rocks a baby to sleep, not when he works 15 hours a day to put a roof over his family’s head.
Aww, throwing men a cookie. “Men can be just as” So men can, not men are? What if someone said “I’m an MRA because I believe women can be more than emotional, whining gold-diggers and whores?”
This is exactly the kind of sniveling bullshit the author of the post is calling out in feminists that think they’re being so generous to men.
“After making some limp, disprovable claims, you seemingly summed up your baseless opinions with, “welp, they hate us, and we all know it, it’s a fact even though there’s no evidence whatsoever!” Come on, lol.”
You do realize that most of the readers here are coming from a certain worldview, and that there are plenty of posts here that back up the other claims made?
“”Patriarchy”, or rule by the male, is why wives still take on the surnames of their purchasers… oops, I mean owners… nope, sorry — I mean equal partners in marriage. Damn this auto-complete… Patriarchy is why women still upend their entire life’s history and replace their (well, their father’s) surname with their new husband’s surname.”
A family unit works on one last name. Why the man’s? Well women traditionally married up, thus a married woman took on the titles and privileges of her husband, because that was to her advantage. Men also represented the family in the public sphere, while the woman ruled the private sphere, because a man can invest most of his life into being the provider as opposed to childbearing. For most of history a woman could not go “well we want two children, so I only have to get pregnant twice”. It was more like “we want two adult children, so I have to get pregnant as much as possible”.
“POLITICS focus primarily on what men like, what men think, what men want, and how the populace goes batcaca when a woman dares to speak up.”
You’ve got to be shitting me. A slew of laws specifically protecting women such as VAWA, the president of the US spouting the mythical wage gap bullshit, the PM of Canada being an avowed feminist, an entire fucking committee for women and girls at the UN, state courts practically tossing out the entire foundations of justice in sexual assault cases because of feminists, thousands of federally-funded shelters across for women and none for men, and you still think politics is about catering to men.
Your ideology is the establishment, not the rebellion.
As for the question of why there aren’t more women in official power positions… Women are the majority of voters, so it’s not like you can blame solely men. Second, politics involves risk, which men are much more willing to take (hence also why men are a majority in both CEOs and the homeless – you either win big or lose big), and there is some biological influence on that, as testosterone increases one’s aversion to risk. Thirdly, if you want to talk about pre-modern times, I’m sure this isn’t an example of someone that could have been a military leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain#Pregnancies (As opposed to any man, or one particular virgin queen.) Fourthly, women have always had power over their men (“the man may be the head, but the woman is the neck, and she can move the head any way around”), so it balances out. (Though I would argue that such feminine unofficial ‘cultural’ power is more important than holding official power positions, simply because the former rules the latter.)
So, you are quite unduly inculcated with what’s been fed to you. And I see you’ve chosen to employ the Reddit commandment of listing endless half-truths, which place your opponent in the position of addressing two versions of hell: one — being forced to agree that a portion of your statements were based in partial fact, and, two — to take a goodly portion out of my life to correct all the other three-quarters of your statements, wherein the falsehoods flourish.
If I don’t take time away from my life and my family to show how often you’re amplifying morsels of truth into a false status of “all true”, then I will be accused of not having been “able” to disprove them all; if I do however break down each of your close-to-true-but-still-more-false-than-true claims, then I still haven’t accomplished anything because you’ll never care that you started out with stilted facts anyway.
Conundrum.
~So, when slaves were purchased at auction and had their new owner’s surname attached like all other property was required, did those slaves “move up” in status too? Or is that just the mst convenient excuse you could come up with on such short notice?
~Mary Koss: an outlier who speaks more to how pre-MRA men have always felt about female-on-male rape. She is called out by feminists for trying to make one form of rape more/less important than others. It was feminists who lobbied the FBI to even include female-on-male rape AS RAPE. Even your toy soldiers site was forced to admit that “Rape by Envelopment” became recognized as — well — as rape per feminist lobbying. I only even know this because I was one of many people who not just donated to the efforts of recognizing ALL non-consenting
sexrape as rape, but I also lobbied my government and spent my own money flying to the Capitol to protest along with countless others.~“”I’m an MRA because I believe women can be more than emotional, whining gold-diggers and whores?”” Well, judging by every MRA site, this would technically be the opposite view of how MRAs believe women can be. See, back in the Mel Feit days, Men’s Rights used to be an actual pro-man thing. Now, it has devolved into an anti-woman thing, while still pretending to espouse the original vestiges of “men need some issues to be looked at and repaired”. I’ll remind you that it is feminists who say that they believe men have the willpower not to rape; it is MRAs who say women bring rape onto themselves by dressing/acting/*existing* a certain way. So the feminist belief that men can be just as positive parents as mothers =/= to your “comparison” of women not being the worst of the worst at all times. I’m actually glad you put it the toxic way you did though, as it highlights the positivity feminists feel toward men while shining a brighter light upon how MRAs feel about women.
~Nice — but not remotely unexpected — diversion tactic to my direct question of how many women you have voted for. Let’s all play Sesame Street for a second and say ZEEEEROOOO. Also, at no point did I (nor would I) “blame solely men” for politics not containing anywhere near an equitable share of gender (nor color, nor religions, nor sexuality, etc.) I don’t blame men; the patriarchy is far more obviously to blame, and women are told how to think, behave, and vote by this same patriarchy. I watched a YouTube vid on little kids who were shown drawings of male and female “people” who were looking for jobs. Even the little girls put all of the women into roles like waitress, nurse, and “stays at home, doesn’t want a job”, and the same little girls (and boys of course) put the male examples in jobs like President, “boss”, “king”, “ruler”, “guy who hires and fires you”, soldier, etc. <—That there bullshit is patriarchy.
~As for women having power over men… what you [might?] mean is men-who-want-a-chance-at-heterosexual-sex can be controlled momentarily by attractive enough women. If Kathy Bates asked any run-of-the-mill guy to do this or that for her, I am betting that he would not do much more than glance in the direction of where she’s pointing her finger. Mind you, an attractive enough woman could “control” any number of straight men long enough to get a door opened for her, but society-wise? Nope!
“So, you are quite unduly inculcated with what’s been fed to you.”
Nope, I used to buy into the exact things you’re saying. Lots of MRAs are ex-feminists, including prominent ones. And every day I see feminists abandon the ideology. One even made a documentary about her journey. It’s much like with any other religion – deconverting almost entirely goes one way.
“If I don’t take time away from my life and my family to show how often you’re amplifying morsels of truth into a false status of “all true”, then I will be accused of not having been “able” to disprove them all; if I do however break down each of your close-to-true-but-still-more-false-than-true claims, then I still haven’t accomplished anything because you’ll never care that you started out with stilted facts anyway.”
I suspect this is because we’re coming from entirely different narratives, and I interpret the facts one way while you interpret them another way. But I’m not sure how the hell pointing out all the actions of institutional feminism amounts to half-truths, if that’s what you were referring to.
“~So, when slaves were purchased at auction and had their new owner’s surname attached like all other property was required, did those slaves “move up” in status too? Or is that just the mst convenient excuse you could come up with on such short notice?”
Slaves didn’t, but women did. But if you’ve never noticed the pattern of women taking on her husband’s titles, as well as being entitled to her husband’s earnings, then… Suffice it to say women are in no way comparable to blacks during slavery, and if anything women have more in common with whites (sentencing gap, protected class, seen as ‘purer’), and upper-class people (impractical styles of clothing, seats in lifeboats).
“Can anyone here name a single white slave owner who ever died to save the lives of his black slaves? Who ever gave up a space in a lifeboat to his black slave and chose himself to go down with a ship? Who ever stood with a rifle between his black slaves and an enemy to defend their lives, rather than his right to own them?
Can anyone even imagine a white slave owner working 16 hours in a field while his black slaves stayed inside and kept his house tidy, then coming home and sharing the fruits of his labors with his black slaves?” (https://owningyourshit.blogspot.nl/2011/09/woman-and-black-are-not-same-thing.html)
“~Mary Koss: an outlier who speaks more to how pre-MRA men have always felt about female-on-male rape. She is called out by feminists for trying to make one form of rape more/less important than others.”
Perhaps a handful of online bloggers, but certainly not any major feminist organization, certainly no prominent blogger has ever said a damn thing about male rape victims other than perhaps to shift the blame to ‘patriarchy’, but never the female rapist, certainly not the feminists that constantly refuse to acknowledge that women are just as prone to rape as men, certainly not the feminists that put men in “consent classes” and not women, certainly not the feminists that take women’s studies and come out learning that rape is a tool that men use to subjugate women.
“It was feminists who lobbied the FBI to even include female-on-male rape AS RAPE. Even your toy soldiers site was forced to admit that “Rape by Envelopment” became recognized as — well — as rape per feminist lobbying.”
Proof? Because AFAIK “rape by envelopment” is still not recognized as rape, only as “sexual assault”.
This is there in the CDC as well, which is where we get these numbers: https://67.media.tumblr.com/5961eaa6b1e9c648a38df73d283f0646/tumblr_mezr4bi1Xy1rluoaco1_1280.jpg
Notice how men are only counted as rape victims when they are penetrated, so it’s only rape if another man sticks it in (or a woman sticks a toy/finger in).
This is the same as the FBI definition as well, only if a man is penetrated he is considered to be raped. ” “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
So we go from “men can’t be raped at all” to “men can only be raped if they’re penetrated”. It’s the same in the UK (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/notes/division/5/1/1).
“I only even know this because I was one of many people who not just donated to the efforts of recognizing ALL non-consenting sex rape as rape, but I also lobbied my government and spent my own money flying to the Capitol to protest along with countless others.”
I’m…not sure what policy change you’re referring to, because like I quoted, the latest from the FBI still has only “rape by penetration” as the definition: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/recent-program-updates/new-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions
Same goes for the latest CDC.
Now, if you genuinely fight for “rape by penetration” to be included as rape, most MRAs will be willing to work with you (though maintain suspicions on other aspects of your ideology). The MRM has been quite friendly with feminists like CH Sommers who do work for men’s issues (without simply shrugging it all on ‘patriarchy’), and MRA sites have posted content by feminists when they do work for men’s issues. (Of course, MRAs will be cautious about the feminist label and for good reason, but if you prove yourself you’ll be okay.)
All the genuinely egalitarian feminists I’ve heard of, I learned through the MRM and not feminism, which has been ex-communicating them instead.
“~””I’m an MRA because I believe women can be more than emotional, whining gold-diggers and whores?”” Well, judging by every MRA site, this would technically be the opposite view of how MRAs believe women can be. See, back in the Mel Feit days, Men’s Rights used to be an actual pro-man thing. Now, it has devolved into an anti-woman thing, while still pretending to espouse the original vestiges of “men need some issues to be looked at and repaired”.
MRAs have started up a men’s shelter (http://www.menandfamilies.org/about-us/vision_mission_values/), and done infinite work in raising awareness of men’s issues, in spite of a budget of relative pennies compared to feminism’s billion-dollar industry. And by the way, look at what happens every time MRAs try to do something for men – feminists shut them down, from pulling fire alarms at suicide talks to calling billboards that highlight female-on-male domestic abuse to be ‘misogynistic’.
“I’ll remind you that it is feminists who say that they believe men have the willpower not to rape; it is MRAs who say women bring rape onto themselves by dressing/acting/*existing* a certain way.”
Feminists assume that ‘patriarchy’ says that men must rape and it’s the woman’s fault. It’s a false assumption, because if you look anywhere in history you can see rapists being lynched and demonized as the worst scum of society.
‘Patriarchy’ does not say that men are naturally inclined to rape. No one actually says this, except for a minority of radical conservatives and lots of radical feminists. The closest is that ‘patriarchy’ only recognizes rape as something men do to women, but this isn’t the same as “men are naturally inclined to rape”.
More ‘moderate’ feminists like you are operating on this premise and thinks the way out is to act as if all men are potential rapists that must be cured with consent classes and feminism.
So feminists end up doing what is in practice the same as the strawman of ‘patriarchy’ – acting as if all men are potential rapists.
I’ve never seen MRAs argue that women “bring rape upon themselves” by dressing a certain way. I have however seen countless feminists say that “men bring their problems onto themselves”.
Simple safety measures are not victim-blaming. Telling someone not to walk into a dangerous neighborhood is not the same as saying that it is no longer a crime that they were assaulted. It’s still a crime. We cannot change the mind of a rapist psychopath*, and so the best we can do is take measures to protect ourselves, and look back on what we could have done differently to avoid it happening next time. (MRAs also note that police ask questions like “what were you wearing?” in order to collect DNA and determine the rapist’s operandi modus, not to victim-blame.)
*This is the biggest damage feminism has done, because feminists have made it so that rapists are not seen as the psychopaths they are, and psychopaths (both male and female) cannot be simply told “rape is bad, don’t do it”. They know, but they don’t care. For decades, feminism has also taught that rape is a crime of power, not lust, and this has done irreparable damage, from ignoring that rape rates decline when sex work and porn is commonplace, or the fact that female rape victims are largely younger and attractive (even though older women would be easier to physically subdue).
“So the feminist belief that men can be just as positive parents as mothers =/= to your “comparison” of women not being the worst of the worst at all times. I’m actually glad you put it the toxic way you did though, as it highlights the positivity feminists feel toward men while shining a brighter light upon how MRAs feel about women.”
Way to miss the point I was making, that you don’t get a cookie for viewing men as merely *capable* of being human. Not anymore than some Christians get to tout their LGBT-friendliness by saying that they believe gay people are capable of not being sinners.
I’m sure men feel that “positivity” next time a man gets beaten by his weapon-wielding wife, calls an abuse hotline only to be referred to a program for batterers, calls the police only to be arrested, because it was feminists that taught police that domestic violence is men trying to control women. I’m sure men feel that “positivity” when a man is raped by a woman only to be told “women have it worse” by feminists and he’s “derailing”. Or when a man is falsely accused of rape because of a vengeful ex whose lies keep falling apart every paragraph, and feminists scream for “listen and believe”. I’m sure men feel that “positivity” when a young man sits in a “consent” course and is presumed he’s a rapist from the beginning, or when feminists drink out of their “male tears” mugs, or claim that men are by default misogynists.
“~Nice — but not remotely unexpected — diversion tactic to my direct question of how many women you have voted for. Let’s all play Sesame Street for a second and say ZEEEEROOOO.”
I’m an anarchist that’s also never been eligible to vote in any major elections in any country I’ve lived in since 18.
You’re absolutely adorable in your desperate attempts to prove I’m a sexist, by the way. “ZEROOOOO! I’m right! OMG! I’m right!”
“Also, at no point did I (nor would I) “blame solely men” for politics not containing anywhere near an equitable share of gender (nor color, nor religions, nor sexuality, etc.) I don’t blame men; the patriarchy is far more obviously to blame, and women are told how to think, behave, and vote by this same patriarchy.”
So…you believe women are also to blame for the propagation of ‘patriarchy’, but also that ‘patriarchy’ controls women in general? Which is it?
“I watched a YouTube vid on little kids who were shown drawings of male and female “people” who were looking for jobs. Even the little girls put all of the women into roles like waitress, nurse, and “stays at home, doesn’t want a job”, and the same little girls (and boys of course) put the male examples in jobs like President, “boss”, “king”, “ruler”, “guy who hires and fires you”, soldier, etc. <—That there bullshit is patriarchy."
Gender roles, yes, but I wouldn't call it 'patriarchy' in the feminist sense.
First of all, most people in official power positions are men. This doesn't mean that most men are in official power positions. We as a society only see the top 1% of men who are visible. What ('patriarchy' and) feminism has taught you to ignore is the bottom 99% of men, the men who have no power and do not benefit from sharing genitals with the 1% on top. The war casualties, coal miners, serfs, builders, most death penalty victims, the 93% of prisoners being men, the men that fall into the gender suicide gap, all those men are ignored because men are disposable. This is the 'patriarchal' gender role that feminism exacerbates, but at least 'patriarchy' respected men that sacrificed.
To restate, traditionally the top 1% of men were in power, the remaining 99% men were at the bottom of society, with women as a group falling in-between. All feminism has done is say "we need more women in the top 1%" and ignored the gender gap in the bottom 99%. This is why we see endless pandering to women in STEM, but no effort to fix that men are 91% of workplace deaths. Feminists want more female politicians, but ignore that only men have had to sign up for Selective Service, and mock MRAs because it's a "dead issue". Then when the possibility of women being subject to it, feminists scramble to call it misogyny, claim biology exempts women, or at best talk about abolishing it (while also not acknowledging it is currently sexist against men).
Let me also ask you this: What do you think of the FAR more common trope in children's media, of girls being princesses and boys being builders and truck drivers? I think that's a more interesting way to explore things, given how I've noted that feminine styles mimic that of the upper-class (less practical clothing and hair), or female advantages mimic upper-class and white advantage in systematic ways, such as the sentencing gap, prison disparity, lifeboat seats, etc.
"~As for women having power over men… what you [might?] mean is men-who-want-a-chance-at-heterosexual-sex can be controlled momentarily by attractive enough women. If Kathy Bates asked any run-of-the-mill guy to do this or that for her, I am betting that he would not do much more than glance in the direction of where she's pointing her finger. Mind you, an attractive enough woman could "control" any number of straight men long enough to get a door opened for her, but society-wise? Nope!"
"Society-wise"? Hell yes. It isn't just opening doors for attractive women, though attractive (white) women do have more power than older, unattractive women. It's when world leaders talk about how we as a society need to do more for women. It's when white women could point a finger at a black man and white men would rush to burn him alive.
I think Karen Straughan put it best, again:
"If men hate women, then how do men feel about men? On any given day, any given male is more likely to assault a male, undermine a male, ignore a male in need, murder a male, celebrate the suffering of a male wrongdoer, hit his male child, make a decision to mutilate his male child, arrest a male, convict a male, and sentence a male to incarceration or death, than he is a female.
And yet women–yes, women–have allowed a narrative to become entrenched in all our systems and institutions that males favor other males at the expense of females."
"For god sake, have you ever gone on a conservative website and seen what the people there write about Islam and misogyny? These men couldn't care less that for every 1 woman executed for adultery in Saudi Arabia, 500 men are executed for less serious crimes. They couldn't care less that 80% of women in Saudi Arabia DON'T want the driving ban lifted, because it would mean giving up the privilege of being waited on by male family members. Those conservatives say, "OMG, look at how those horrible Islamists treat their women! They objectify and sexually exploit them!" And what do you think the Islamists are saying about Americans? "OMG, look at how those horrible Americans treat their women! They objectify and sexually degrade them!"
And somehow, a minority of women (feminists) have convinced all of society that men hate women.
No wonder men are afraid of you. If you [women] can convince society that it hates women, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, then you have a power that is unfathomable to the average man. A power that is unfathomable to the most powerful man. You have the power to convince society that men hate you because they don't love you 10 or 100 or 1000 times as much as they love other men, and you have the power to convince society to enact legislation an policy based on that completely stupefying false belief, and these powerful men who supposedly hate you and are in charge of everything will do it. They'll lie and they'll cheat and they'll throw less privileged men under the bus just to prove to you that they're not misogynists."
Whoever you are, I am speechless.
Well, thank you.^^
“Don’t commit crime”
Do you also tell this to low-class people, given that low-income neighborhoods (and entire countries) also have higher rates of crime? Or black people, who also make up a relatively large proportion of both criminals and victims in the US?
“Don’t go out at night alone
Don’t walk to your car alone
Always call a friend to tell him where you’ll be and with whom
Don’t dress in a way to attract bad people’s attention
Be sure to look in your car’s backseat prior to getting in
Always carry mace
Never backtalk any men
Don’t drink unless you are home alone, or being watched carefully by a sober friend
Take self-defense classes”
Yep. I encourage men to take all these safety measures, except that I’m gonna say not to backtalk anyone, man or woman, that seems crazy or threatening. Just get the fuck away.
And yet I don’t think victimized men deserved it, either.
The drinking one is more complicated, because while I encourage anyone, male or female, to be careful when drinking, today it’s more likely for a man to get in trouble for messing with a consenting drunk (and conscious) woman, even if the man was equally drunk. In fact there’s plenty of stuff by MRAs cautioning men to be incredibly more careful around these situations.
And by the way, men traditionally do fear being murdered, in the sense of “spare me, I have a wife and children.” The first thing is how their family will do without them. Not their life, like with women.
“Yes, I am being intentionally sarcastic with that last line, as women are told precisely this when one of us falls prey to violence. “Why were you walking there?” “Why were you alone though?” “I bet if you had been smarter, that wouldn’t have happened to you.” So, yeah, if anyone actually cares about men and men’s safety… print out the list of women’s safety rules to follow at all times, and constantly badger men into living lives of constant self-policing.”
Personally, I’ve barely heard that sort of thing online or offline.
It’s white women that receive extensive victim media coverage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome The kind of people that say that to women are even MORE likely to say that to men, if they even care about male deaths. Male victims are forgotten about in the media far quicker than a female’s. We talk extensively about female victims and not male victims, and there will always be some discussion on what could have been done to avoid that in the future, because criminals will always exist. You also have to keep in mind that when a tragedy happens, it’s normal for the human brain to try to rationalize up why something like that must have happened.
So no, I don’t buy the idea that the reason for less female victims is solely or mostly because women are more careful. We can see the higher status of female lives everywhere, and the reluctance for most men to harm a woman.
Boko Haram was willing to burn thousands of boys alive, while only kidnapping a few hundred girls. Do you actually think this is because the schoolgirls were more cautious? Do you also think that the reason the Srebrenica massacre killed mostly men and boys was because women were more careful around the Serb forces?
I’d say it goes both ways, with women being told to value their lives more, while at the same time men are far more likely to spare a woman than another man.