I am the Patriarchy

a reply to: InTheLight

If the government was the only oppressor, you might be right.

a reply to: InTheLight

One point I found really interesting in Karen's speech was how when feminism got started and still to this day feminists would point to the men at the top of the societal ladder and howl inequality.

What they would never do is look at the bottom and note that it is mostly men. If women wanted more equality in roles such as leadership then they need to take the risks necessary to get there.

Here's a quote from searchlightsinc: "Would you not agree that being disposable would depend large part on your social status? For example, if you're working class and no skill's, your more likely to be the first sacrificed rather than a middle-class man who brick lays for a living?"

And a quote from you: "How is equal numbers in leadership roles (equal gender representation) sexist (preferential treatment?)."

So men who don't have to power or skills to be relevant are disposable. But women who want leadership roles should just be given them until it's 50/50 male/female? Assuming that the women placed in those roles had more merit than their sisters is it still fair if each of those spots could have been filled by a man who is better suited and worked harder to get there?

I'm just saying I'm noticing a double-standard. I'd be perfectly fine with ALL leadership and power roles being assumed by women assuming they had earned their spot.

a reply to: corvuscorrax

I believe in fair representation for all, not just some.

Women of the past didn't howl inequality, they pointed it out most dramatically through protests, demonstrations and being thrown in jail.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

 

That video was awful.

How so?

:-)

Here are some progressive articles about the role of feminism today in a more contemporary context.

sherights.com...

Rather than attacking the institution of masculinity itself, several recent campaigns have attempted a sort of masculinity triage, trying to eliminate violence against women, while still flattering men with the label of protector. These campaigns, such as “real men don’t buy girls,”“my strength isn’t for hurting,”are various incarnations of “how would you feel if someone said that to your mother /sister /girlfriend,”and have proven to be enormously popular, achieving prodigious re-blogs, conferences, and media airtime.

They are, by many metrics, successful, and have gotten institutions long silent on the rights of women to speak up. I believe we are the better for them, but I also believe that they do not go far enough, and we all must, as feminists, radicals and progressives, push against our comfort zones.

In these campaigns, the masculine mystique is still very present, albeit a kinder, gentler version. By flattering men’s strength and asking them to use it to protect women, we once again place men in the driver’s seat of culture, asking for them to renounce violence and be less vile guardians.

story.news-cloud.co.uk...

Feminists aren't 'man-haters' – we just don't like men who are sexist

Or who use their power to discriminate against women in a desperate bid to maintain their status. But not all men are misogynists


Tom M: "Why don't you just say 'I don't like men' and get it over with?" (in response to 'Men who use nicknames for women to win fights are creepy, sexist and dumb')

Great question, Tom! Thanks for taking the time to call me perhaps the oldest and most tired anti-feminist insult there is: man-hater. You must feel so proud.

I'm going to sort of agree with your comment and expand on it. I think "I don't like men who ..." is a more accurate portrayal of my worldview.

I don't like men who are sexist. I find that males who think of themselves as above me because of gender are generally unlikeable fellows. (And, for whatever strange reason, are usually terrible spellers, too.) I don't like men who call women they don't know "sweetie", "honey" or cutesy nicknames – it's obnoxious and condescending. I don't like men who harass women on the street, making comments about their bodies or telling them to smile. I don't like men who control women in relationships, abuse them or hurt them sexually. I don't like men who use the social and political power they have to further discrimination against women in a desperate bid to maintain their status.

I don't like men who leave boring comments about what a man-hater I must be for not enjoying the tidal wave of sexism that women endure in small and large ways daily. I really don't like them.

Amazingly, despite this list of the types of men I don't like - and I probably could go on with more "dislikes" if you asked me to – I have the most amazing men in my life. My father, who bought me chemistry sets and robots for every tea set or doll. My husband, an incredible feminist who is an equal partner in parenting and the home. My male friends, who believe that gender justice is important and worth fighting for. I don't have a hard time finding these amazing men because - shockingly - most men are pretty cool guys.

So here's the thing, Tom. I think it's you who doesn't like men - how could you, given that you seem to assume all men are blithering sexists? I realize it might be more comfortable to imagine that most men are misogynists; it might make your own sexism feel more justified. But I operate under the assumption that sexists are in the minority, that most men are invested in ridding the world of sexists, and that they'd therefore would like to hear how to help out.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Excellent post.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

"Men" are not the true holders of power, the Elite are and always have been. You have been deceived into viewing man as your eternal oppressor and not the real culprits - the very same people who bankrolled your movement.

Since you enjoy dishing out links for people to read, perhaps you could find the time to read the following:

Leaving the sisterhood: A recovering feminist speaks

There is a recently published book by a group of feminists in the UK, entitled The Lightbulb Moment. It is a collection of accounts by women about the precise moment they “saw the light” and became feminists. Religious, Road To Damascus style imagery aside, this book’s title resonates with me. I have experienced quite a few “lightbulb moments” myself with regards to feminism, especially in the last two years. But my realizations and illuminations have been of a quite different nature to those described in the book. For I am writing this after having been raised, educated and – yes – indoctrinated in feminist dogma for over 40 years, but my “journey” has involved leaving the sisterhood. And the sisterhood, that lovely, touchy-feely, all-girls-together, “feminine” club has punished me severely for my decision.

In 2010 I began writing a blog, using the pseudonym Quiet Riot Girl. I have been a participant in a few online communities over the years, and I have always enjoyed the way they give us the opportunity to play with our identities, develop personas and explore ideas and practices we may not have done under our “real names.” But when I created Quiet Riot Girl, I had no idea just how life-changing my explorations would be. I was still a feminist when I started blogging (and tweeting) in 2010. As a critical feminist, I was aware how divided and sometimes incoherent feminists are on important issues such as sex, economics and bodily autonomy. But I was a “sister” nonetheless. If you take a look at my first QRG Blog you will see how clearly I identified as a feminist back then. But only a year later I had completely split from feminism and was writing as an “anti-feminist,” for example in my controversial essay, Against Feminisms.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

"Men" are not the true holders of power, the Elite are and always have been. You have been deceived into viewing man as your eternal oppressor and not the real culprits - the very same people who bankrolled your movement.

Since you enjoy dishing out links for people to read, perhaps you could find the time to read the following:

Leaving the sisterhood: A recovering feminist speaks

There is a recently published book by a group of feminists in the UK, entitled The Lightbulb Moment. It is a collection of accounts by women about the precise moment they “saw the light” and became feminists. Religious, Road To Damascus style imagery aside, this book’s title resonates with me. I have experienced quite a few “lightbulb moments” myself with regards to feminism, especially in the last two years. But my realizations and illuminations have been of a quite different nature to those described in the book. For I am writing this after having been raised, educated and – yes – indoctrinated in feminist dogma for over 40 years, but my “journey” has involved leaving the sisterhood. And the sisterhood, that lovely, touchy-feely, all-girls-together, “feminine” club has punished me severely for my decision.

In 2010 I began writing a blog, using the pseudonym Quiet Riot Girl. I have been a participant in a few online communities over the years, and I have always enjoyed the way they give us the opportunity to play with our identities, develop personas and explore ideas and practices we may not have done under our “real names.” But when I created Quiet Riot Girl, I had no idea just how life-changing my explorations would be. I was still a feminist when I started blogging (and tweeting) in 2010. As a critical feminist, I was aware how divided and sometimes incoherent feminists are on important issues such as sex, economics and bodily autonomy. But I was a “sister” nonetheless. If you take a look at my first QRG Blog you will see how clearly I identified as a feminist back then. But only a year later I had completely split from feminism and was writing as an “anti-feminist,” for example in my controversial essay, Against Feminisms.

I am not impressed with her at all, yes, there are many types of feminist groups, but it appears to me she had the right intentions at the outset but just didn't find her niche. I think she could spend her time on pursuits for women's equality rather than dwell on her bitterness and past mistakes.

I am also the patriarchy. To put it bluntly, I do not treat women as my equals, I treat them like women. I treat them as what they are, and what they were put on this earth to be. Not a man, not equal to a man, but a woman distinct and complimentary to her male counterpart.

originally posted by: Gallowglaich
I am also the patriarchy. To put it bluntly, I do not treat women as my equals, I treat them like women. I treat them as what they are, and what they were put on this earth to be. Not a man, not equal to a man, but a woman distinct and complimentary to her male counterpart.

We women do not give you the right to define us in any way.

originally posted by: Gallowglaich
I am also the patriarchy. To put it bluntly, I do not treat women as my equals, I treat them like women. I treat them as what they are, and what they were put on this earth to be. Not a man, not equal to a man, but a woman distinct and complimentary to her male counterpart.

I believe in a woman's (and a man's) right to be who and what they want to be. I once worked for a woman who was high up in corporate management. She was very good at what she did - she was a tough but fair manager, and was good at running a company. She made an excellent living, and was one smart cookie. Her husband lost his job and was struggling a little to find another one. In the meantime, he stayed home and took care of the house and kids. They talked it over, and both decided that it would be a good decision for the whole family if he just became a permanent stay-at-home dad while she continued working to make the living. He enjoyed cooking and taking care of the kids. She really enjoyed her high-powered career. They switched the traditional roles, but it works for them. There was a time when that kind of situation would just not be acceptable, but I think thanks to feminism - it now is.

Feminism is riding the "we are for equal" too long. The equality is already accomplished, now they are on the verge to step into men's rights.

If average men wanted to hate Female, there would be no feminism, no women's rights and women would be locked inside houses in this era like a property.

You are taking your anger against men who didn't oppress you.

Who knows what would happen in the future if feminism keep going down that path? Will i see the day when people get assaulted for being a feminist? i hope not.

Oh also a picture. I love these!

We should all start shifting our thinking to 'humanism'.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: InTheLight

I am also the patriarchy. To put it bluntly, I do not treat women as my equals, I treat them like women. I treat them as what they are, and what they were put on this earth to be. Not a man, not equal to a man, but a woman distinct and complimentary to her male counterpart.

Is there still a woman to love in "woman"? The definitions of gender are so watered down that we can only rationally accept or deny them on an individual basis. We already know that physiologically speaking the genders are different, and that should suffice enough to differentiate the two or three or more genders that there are. I mean, what's left to really define? But in the end, it will be up to the individual to define herself by her own powers of creativity and self-defining, and not to adhere or limit oneself under some definition as put forth by anyone before them.

a reply to: luciddream

Feminism is riding the "we are for equal" too long. The equality is already accomplished, now they are on the verge to step into men's rights.

If average men wanted to hate Female, there would be no feminism, no women's rights and women would be locked inside houses in this era like a property.

You are taking your anger against men who didn't oppress you.

Who knows what would happen in the future if feminism keep going down that path? Will i see the day when people get assaulted for being a feminist? i hope not.

Oh also a picture. I love these!

By the logic of feminism, the only way to get more rights is to further the rights of men, so that feminists have more rights to attain.

originally posted by: Gallowglaich
I am also the patriarchy. To put it bluntly, I do not treat women as my equals, I treat them like women. I treat them as what they are, and what they were put on this earth to be. Not a man, not equal to a man, but a woman distinct and complimentary to her male counterpart.

WTF does that mean, "I do not treat women as my equals, I treat them like women." ?

Something or someone that is different cannot have the same value?

An apple and a pear cannot be equally valuable, because they have different characteristics?
There has to be one that is superior and one that is inferior??

This is the common male thought pattern of hierarchial categorizing the world,

(which arises from the capacity to determine personal preference and choice- what I want, or am is necessarily superior to what I don't want and am not)

That, I tend to challenge, as a woman. This is part of why we are valuable to men- to teach them another way of thought possible-
that two things, two choices, or two people, can be different but equal.

It is perfectly possible to treat someone who is different than you as an equal, even taking into account their differences.

Sure it is also a useful thought tool to be able to place your own choices or preferences above others' sometimes,
but you can be more successful in life (in all areas) if you have both of these in your mental tool box to use according to circumstance and context.

a reply to: Bluesma

WTF does that mean, "I do not treat women as my equals, I treat them like women." ?

An apple and a pear cannot be equally valuable, because they have different characteristics?

Yes it's a tough one. "Equal" is a slippery word. Physically we are not equal, meaning we are not the same—different parts and hormones and so-forth. This is why we use different labels for classification.

Apples and pears are not the same. They come from different trees, they taste different, different shape, one is more expensive at the grocery store.

In logic, A=B is false. And I think this is what he was trying to state. We are different and thus unequal, and instead we are counterparts, working together, preferably in a unity. He's saying he values the differences just as much as the similarities.

That being said, I disagree, because, I'm sorry, but value is not inherent, it requires learning about the value in someone before deciding that they are valuable or not. This is why we choose certain partners over other partners. No one is the same.

I must admit that at different times I prefer the company of a woman over a man and vice versa depending on the situation. Whether I am conditioned to think this way or it is natural is unclear. When I was a child I was literally chased by girls, who always saw fit to kiss the boys they trapped. Boys at that age, of course, were too young to see any good in it, and hanging out with the boys was the only way to escape this frightening madness. So perhaps I am conditioned in that way.

Well this has been a heck of a read

And pardon my abyssmal spelling in this post

I'm just going to throw my comments out there directed at nobody in particular (other than possibly OP since he started the thread)

I've seen people supposing things about the situation. She's a feminzai! She's a man hater!

Well I like to suppose as well.

She may have been talked down to her whole life. She may be oppressed as well...oh that's right...because guys say oppression doesn't exist then it doesn't exist. I forgot that after we gave women the right to vote that the world changed overnight and women were 100% given equal oppurtunity to me as a guy.

Well listen, I realize I am dripping with pure 100% Agave Sarcasm right now so let me try a bit of reason and take a breath

We live in a world where in many cases and historically speaking, women have been oppressed. If you choose to deny this I feel for you. The problem I have is people seem to think that because we 'threw women a carrot" in voting and abortion rights and such that all the little microaggressions and macroaggressions dissapeared. We have this idea that somehow because women are finally startin to gain ground and gain oppurtunity that all should be forgiven and we should hold hands and walk into the sunset.

Now I actually agree with that...IF it weren't for the fact that equality still hasn't been achieved. I see men all over playing the victim card "oh poor me" and all I can say is really? So women being allowed on the front line is poor you? Women making headway in companies, getting equal pay and trying to enter the political arena is poor you?

Look I am (sometimes) reasonable albeit human and prone to mistakes. I agree there are so-called feminazis out there that want complete female domination. Yes I said it...they exist. But to pretend that they make up a majority or entirety or feminism is so foolish. They sometimes can be the loudest but that doesn't equate to a majority hold

Like it or not, feminism...true feminism is about equality and nothing more. The reason it may look like women push so damn hard is because frankly society NEEDS to be pushed that hard. The thing is feminism is about male equality too! I mean that 100% If a man wants to be a nurse then go be a nurse! If a woman wants to be a surgeon the go be a surgeon! If a woman wants to battle on the front line the go and fight!

The problem is that from childhood, and still in 2014, we are telling women through our sometimes subtle and sometimes overt mthods that they are lesser than us men. Look around you in this forum alone. It exists whether we want to admit it or not

Ok, so I am a self-proclaimed Socialist. Sarah Palin scared the poop out of me when she ran as VP. The thought of her being in power terrified me. Ok fair enough, but look at media. Look at ALL the networks. It was about her being a ball buster, or what she wore or how how she is. I mean how many times do we have to hear "I wanna sleep with Sarah Palin" or "Palin is a milf" before we take a step back and realize we have a problem?

I'll be the first to stand up and admit I have a history of objectifying women and I will be the first to admit that I still do sometimes without realizing it. Yeah I see Jennifer Lawrence and think 'wow!" But at some point in time I have to realize that I am the problem and that is what I learned a few short years ago. I was taught (yes taught) by society that Jennifer Lawrence is hot first, an actress second, and then finally talented. Go on websites (which I won't name due to TOC) and look up JLaw...and be honest? What did you come home with? Was it a barrel full of sites saying "jeebus that woman is a hell of an actress!" or was it a barrel full of sites saying "good golly I want to *********""? I won't finish that sentence...but seriously...be honest here for a moment and look around.

We don't judge a guy for his 'sexual conquests"

I could go out TONIGHT and sleep with 30 women and cheat on my wife. Sure some people would say I am scum and rightly so, but I'd probably be forgiven by society. Maybe even garner a sex addiction label!

Have my wife do the same and BAM she is a (well you know the words)

I'm sorry...yes men deserve to be equal but to pretend woman have achieved full 100% oppurtunity and quality is absolutely sickening to me

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

In logic, A=B is false. And I think this is what he was trying to state. We are different and thus unequal

The masculine view tends to come from the relativity with the I, the feminine tends to come from a more global wider perspective. That is what I tried to highlight.

Sure, A does not = B. They are not the same, from one perspective. - Or the perspective of One.

But A and B are both letters. They are more equal to each other than, say A and 5.
When one is speaking with the whole of potential characters on their keyboard in mind, yes, A and B are the same . 1 and 8 are the same. & and % are the same. Women (and mens feminine sides of their mind) will tend to come from a view of the whole. Of humanity, of all the many living creatures on earth.

It is only from the point of view of an individual, with an individual agenda and goals, that ANY of these keys gain a different value, and the smaller differences between them become important. Analysis, breaking down, deconstructing, and critical thought is the path towards discrimination of which has more value to YOU.

(which you illustrated well in your example- not all women are equal to you, you choose a specific mate for that reason, or choose a specific gender to hang out with at specific times).

But in this discussion, I will first tend to be coming from the thought that men and women are the same in that they are all human.
I am always conscious of the other life forms around us. Often when writing or speaking I will use the words "beings" or "entities", precisely because I am including animals and plants (though I am not sure all people grasp that ).

Value is not inherent, yes, I would agree there. But - all of us here are humans.

Survival and all that contributes to that is valued as "good" for us , all that is detrimental to survival being devalued, for all of us .

Both genders have the same value from the point of view of humanity. Humanity cannot continue to survive if you take one or the other out of the system we live in on earth.
A bee might be more valuable to us than a musk rat- our survival might be threatened more by the absence of one than the other. But not so with women and men, either group goes, the other is doomed.

Though that value upon the survival of humanity is not inherent, it is a goal or intent that we can most safetly assume we all have in common. It is as close to inherent values as we can get here.

Discussing shared value bases, we pull out from the view of "I" and together into a "We".


But yeah after that shared group viewpoint, as individuals, we all have preferences and different intents and motivations which indicate that nothing or no one is equal then. Even two apples are no longer equal, as you might find one more appealing than the other.

The expansion of view, from "I" to "Us" is what many of us females express. It is what this woman in our OP was doing- trying to get you to see yourself as part of a wider more whole system.

Of course, you may not feel comfortable with that, as most men don't- they feel more at ease with individuation. But I point out that you could have answered her, and done your part of being a promoter of individuation!
Like suggest to her that she concentrate her view to here and now and her self- as an individual interacting with another individual; two distinct systems into their selves. To micrify her view.

(it might be received easier if you acknowledge a bit the view of you both as part of a larger whole first, people like exchange)

I guess ultimately what I am saying to you (to differenciate between that and what I said to the other poster)
is- we appreciate your eloquent and thought provoking posts here, always, but it would probably be constructive if you did it in that situation too. -And maybe some disagreements or daily clashes are "good " events, (for individuals and the whole).

People always want to identify with those who are in power- they want to be the same. They want to be equal with them.

Not with the losers, not with the less powerful.

This is sometimes even contrary to what we are consciously aware of (why you can hate your tyrant father, and still end up becoming an adult more like him than your sweet -but -passive mother). The Will to Power.

The very fact that so many WANT to be like men, that they want to be the same, they want the same jobs, activities, roles, is because it is a male dominated society.


Perhaps if less value and focus was placed on the official society and markets, and more on the home, family, community, then more women would be willing to consider their huge role of power in those areas…?