I am the Patriarchy

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: InTheLight

I don't know where this idea that "because women represent about 50% of the population, that they should hold 50% of positions in the fields of politics and business by virtue of their sex alone" comes from, but it's a grossly illogical philosophy.

It's like me saying "well men represent 50% of the population, why don't they hold 50% of jobs in the nursing and beauty industries?"

The truth is that men and women tend to show an interest in different careers and excel at different things. This explains the larger number of male politicians and businessmen, not an "oppression of women" as some would suggest.

I agree in part with that philosophy, but in reality that glass ceiling specifically in business still exists...in my experience. But looking deeper, why would I continue to pursue a perceived high status career in a male-dominated field when my efforts were always thwarted, or I was expected to bring to the table more than everyone else because of my gender? Answer: I wouldn't or couldn't expend that much energy for any length of time depending upon many personal and economic factors.

I have attempted to work in several male-dominated careers in my lifetime and the harassment and unequal (unreasonable) expectations were not to be borne by me.

So, as with LM's releasing his grip on the door while the woman was half-way through the door - after relaying her philosophy on just one small iota of her desired equality or her attempt at relaying her stance for educational purposes - is a deeper glimpse into the permeating fear and indignation prevalent with some people in today's society; by no means anecdotal.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: BDBinc

It's ok Bdb,Think whatever you want. But your little fantasy isn't going to make something true.
I interacted with the woman, and deduced from what I saw. I at least have something to base my conclusions on.
You weren't there, possess zero facts, and are imagining things, which, by the way, do not sound healthy, nor do they validate your personal reactions. End of story.

Fact : You shut a person in the door then made up a story to try to validate your aggression.
You will keep telling yourself that in your fantasy the victim/ human being was "a feminist " and to you this label seems to justify your violence.

a reply to: InTheLight

You are talented at blaming men for your woes. If power and money and opportunity is what you want, seize it as everyone else has done.

a reply to: BDBinc

You should get out more. Go tell a victim of assault or abuse what you think violence is, and they'll likely laugh at you. And then make up another story so you can convince yourself you are right.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

You are talented at blaming men for your woes. If power and money and opportunity is what you want, seize it as everyone else has done.

Denial of the facts and others' experiences is your failure in this discussion LM.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well hello Les - so, there you are

C'mon Spira. We don't need to appeal to shame here

Are you sure about that? This is you first real attempt at a genuine back and forth so far in in this thread - sans rhetoric

:-)

There's no reason to pretend I am dismissing real acts of violence or struggles that people face, simply because I don't subscribe to your particular brand of rhetoric.

There is no reason to pretend - so I'm not pretending. It's all there in black and white

And while we're here, I am very curious to know - what is my brand of rhetoric? I'll bet you that you can't explain back to me - or to anyone reading for that matter - what my personal views on feminism really are

There are hints here and there - but so far you've just walked right past them :-)

In my most recent first post back in this thread after an absence - I posted something I thought would be relevant and meaningful. I was trying to say something with that post

There were two giant elephants in the room I created with that post - you managed to ignore them both so that you could make the point you wanted to make -

And Les - that post was not bitchy :-)

They want more power, more influence, more security and more capital for women, from a society that they claim is built, ran, and that favours, men. Is this not what a feminist is actually talking about when she says "I fight for equality"?

They are asking for those things - are you saying that's wrong? Honestly? You say they have those things now - so, you must believe in a conspiracy type theory wherein women are actually working towards dominion over men...

If you don't listen to what feminists are saying Les, how will you know what they're saying? :-)

The world is full of angry people - and political opportunists. That goes for women and men. That doesn't mean there are no issues and that feminists don't have a point. You want to reincorporate the promise of credibility that just mentioning those issues in passing might bring back to your position - but you won't actually discuss them as if they're real

Egalitarianism isn't based on all things actually being equal. It's about fairness and acceptance - being treated equally

I know many women who have started their own businesses on their own accord with not a single man to help them. The pie is there for the taking if you choose. You have to take it. Literally no man is stopping you.

You see? What does this have to do with anything? Did I ever make this claim? No, in fact you made it for me

Yes I write hyperbolic, contrarian polemics representing my own views.

Your views very often seem to be based on your dislike of other people expressing their views. How are you views not more of the same thing?

:-)

But I'm not selling a certain brand other than my own.

Do you feel bad for men then? Are they being treated unfairly? What is your brand?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

There is no reason to pretend - so I'm not pretending. It's all there in black and white

And while we're here, I am very curious to know - what is my brand of rhetoric? I'll bet you that you can't explain back to me - or to anyone reading for that matter - what my personal views on feminism really are

There are hints here and there - but so far you've just walked right past them :-)

Your brand is your own. I don’t necessarily care what anyone’s views on feminism are, but so far all points have been unconvincing, and I am easily convinced by good reasoning. Unfortunately, appealing to shame is a low tactic. I am convinced by argument, not fallacy.

There were two giant elephants in the room I created with that post - you managed to ignore them both so that you could make the point you wanted to make -

And Les - that post was not bitchy :-)

I’ve read it a couple times already, Spira. I consider myself a decent reader, and try to read between the lines whenever I can. It was more likely that I couldn’t understand your point, and the elephants were never in the room to begin with.

They are asking for those things - are you saying that's wrong? Honestly? You say they have those things now - so, you must believe in a conspiracy type theory wherein women are actually working towards dominion over men...

If you don't listen to what feminists are saying Les, how will you know what they're saying? :-)

What? No, sorry. I try to deal in reality. There is no conspiracy. I do think, however, that any mind that seeks power, wealth, status etc. is entirely suspect. Some people have power, some don’t.

The world is full of angry people - and political opportunists. That goes for women and men. That doesn't mean there are no issues and that feminists don't have a point. You want to reincorporate the promise of credibility that just mentioning those issues in passing might bring back to your position - but you won't actually discuss them as if they're real

I’m prepared to talk about real issues, but I am unable to do so from the standpoint of a woman or a feminist, because I am neither. I can, however, speak from the viewpoint of an individual, and look at these cases on an individual basis. Some people face issues, some people don’t—gender isn’t a prerequisite to facing issues.

Egalitarianism isn't based on all things actually being equal. It's about fairness and acceptance - being treated equally

Treated equally by who?

Your views very often seem to be based on your dislike of other people expressing their views. How are you views not more of the same thing?

If they express their views honestly, I’m all for it. But unfortunately that is quite rare.

Do you feel bad for men then? Are they being treated unfairly? What is your brand?

Why would I? How can I feel bad for an entire gender? It’s impossible.

Do you feel bad for women? If so, you feel bad for the queen? Do you feel bad for Oprah?

My brand is my own.

a reply to: InTheLight

Denial of the facts and others' experiences is your failure in this discussion LM.

Atlantic Weekly and Salon articles are not facts, ITL.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

Denial of the facts and others' experiences is your failure in this discussion LM.

Atlantic Weekly and Salon articles are not facts, ITL.

Of course they are if they offer up real women's experiences dealing with real women's issues.

a reply to: InTheLight

One of many double standards in feminism:

• When promoting victimhood, all women are the same and all men are individuals
  
• When it comes to exposing negative behaviour, all women are individuals and all men are the same

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: InTheLight

One of many double standards in feminism:

• When promoting victimhood, all women are the same and all men are individuals
  
  
• When it comes to exposing negative behaviour, all women are individuals and all men are the same

I have never encountered that, but then I don't have an agenda to push.

a reply to: InTheLight

Look harder, you will find examples of both in this very thread!

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: InTheLight

Look harder, you will find examples of both in this very thread!

I mean in my life's experiences not reading rhetoric or anecdotal nonesense. So, Dark Ghost, what is your take on this real or imagined event?

Men holding the door open for other men study (seemingly inconsequential societal behaviours - Purdue University):

Men who had the door held for them by another man reported lower feelings of self-esteem and self-belief than men who did not have the door held for them.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: InTheLight

The conclusions drawn from that study are deeply flawed, to say the least. Have a read through some of the comments underneath the article and you will see what I mean.

And it's another example of stereotyping men as a collective whole, instead of seeing them as individuals.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: InTheLight

The conclusions drawn from that study are deeply flawed, to say the least. Have a read through some of the comments underneath the article and you will see what I mean.

And it's another example of stereotyping men as a collective whole, instead of seeing them as individuals.

Do you mean like...."It doesn't take much to burst their fragile egos"?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The other day I had the fortunate chance to hold a door open for another human being. But as I did so, the human I opened the door for asserted that such common courtesy wasn’t necessary, that she “didn’t need a man to hold a door open” for her, . . .

There is no excuse for rudeness. This woman was rude.

I consider myself a Femnist. I support equality for women.

For you to judge all women who support equality, by this one woman's behavior is rude.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The other day I had the fortunate chance to hold a door open for another human being. But as I did so, the human I opened the door for asserted that such common courtesy wasn’t necessary, that she “didn’t need a man to hold a door open” for her, . . .

There is no excuse for rudeness. This woman was rude.

I consider myself a Femnist. I support equality for women.

For you to judge all women who support equality, by this one woman's behavior is rude.

I was just thinking the same exact thing. I consider myself a woman pro equal rights for all and not only do I open doors for everyone but I don't bat an eye when a door is held open for me by anyone. LM is taking this one negative interaction with only one woman and is pushing his antifeminism agenda. I am so glad you piped up Annee and brought this truth to light.

originally posted by: Annee
There is no excuse for rudeness. This woman was rude.

I consider myself a Femnist. I support equality for women.

For you to judge all women who support equality, by this one woman's behavior is rude.

Only, he wasn't.

What the author of the thread was demonstrating was that this woman represents a certain mindset that is the product of radical feminist ideology. He did not imply that all all women, nor that all feminists, share the same mindset.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Annee
There is no excuse for rudeness. This woman was rude.

I consider myself a Femnist. I support equality for women.

For you to judge all women who support equality, by this one woman's behavior is rude.

Only, he wasn't.

What the author of the thread was demonstrating was that this woman represents a certain mindset that is the product of radical feminist ideology. He did not imply that all all women, nor that all feminists, share the same mindset.

Yet, there is no proof this one woman was a radical feminist or any type of feminist, because the author of this thread didn't bother to start a dialogue with her but chose to let the door close on her while she was mid-way through.

originally posted by: InTheLight
Yet, there is no proof this one woman was a radical feminist or any type of feminist, because the author of this thread didn't bother to start a dialogue with her but chose to let the door close on her while she was mid-way through.

We cannot know for sure, but her response suggests that she is likely to have been influenced by radical feminist ideology. Associating one man's attempted act of politeness with trying to instill the ideals of Patriarchy is ridiculous. I agree that the author could have handled the situation better, but that does not discount the substance of the OP.