Does the patriarchy exist? (1 Viewer)

[PoliticalDJ101]

Does the patriarchy exist?

Should there be a men's rights movement?

Should feminists lobby for men's rights?

Does being a feminist require one to believe in the patriarchy?

Is believing in a patriarchy helping society?

Have you watched the red pill? If so, what are your thoughts?

See below for some interesting videos... What are your thoughts about them?

 

[spud_meister]

Yes, obviously. Men hold positions of power, from CEO to Sherrif. Liberalism comes with the belief in inherent hierarchy, and therefore the obvious logic to liberals is those in power deserve to hold power.

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

Yes, obviously. Men hold positions of power, from CEO to Sherrif.

What's your definition of a patriarchy?

Here is a common definition:

A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. It's usually assumed that this is somewhat systemic and intentional. It's also often assumed that it's an unfair system toward women.

Does this sound right?

If so, I would say merely because men have some higher paying jobs and or sometimes have the more powerful jobs, doesn't necessarily mean a patriarchy exists, because they likely earned this positions.

 

[spud_meister]

What's your definition of a patriarchy?

Here is a common definition:

A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. It's usually assumed that this is somewhat systemic and intentional. It's also often assumed that it's an unfair system toward women.

Does this sound right?

If so, I would say merely because men have some higher paying jobs and or sometimes have the more powerful jobs, doesn't necessarily mean a patriarchy exists, because they likely earned this positions.

That's a simplistic definition. Patriarchy is the system of societal relationships between sex and power, in the favour of men. As it exists in the liberal West, it's inseparable from capitalism, and the modern version of it arose with capitalism. At the most fundamental level, it separates the labour of men and women into economic reproduction and social reproduction, and it commodifies the labour of men, and decommodifies the labour of women. Simply put, patriarchy exists as long as social reproduction (birthing and raising children, domestic labour, mental labour etc.) is treated as separate from economic reproduction (making things, supplying services), and, fundamentally, if capitalists had to pay for the existence of labourers, despite it being fundamental to the system, it would collapse.

Your definition is that of liberal feminism, and implies simply allowing women equal part in economic reproduction, without systemic change, is enough. That's silly.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

What's your definition of a patriarchy?

Here is a common definition:

A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. It's usually assumed that this is somewhat systemic and intentional. It's also often assumed that it's an unfair system toward women.

Does this sound right?

If so, I would say merely because men have some higher paying jobs and or sometimes have the more powerful jobs, doesn't necessarily mean a patriarchy exists, because they likely earned this positions.

So in a historical context, men also earned positions which women were completely excluded from? This idea of "earning" is a statement about competition between equals, and does not exclude that successful people very likely had advantages from birth, of race, or of gender.

I'm not dismissing the idea that only 30% of women have what it takes to compete with men. But the historical trend suggests that there WAS undeniable patriarchy, and that makes it unlikely that men and women are competing on a level playing field now. Men aren't that much better than women, imo. Women feel more duty to children (and pretty much every woman has children at some stage) and this damages their careers. I don't believe they're responding to 'biology' or 'instinct' but rather that women being the primary carers is a remnant of patriarchy.

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

That's a simplistic definition. Patriarchy is the system of societal relationships between sex and power, in the favour of men. As it exists in the liberal West, it's inseparable from capitalism, and the modern version of it arose with capitalism.

Are you saying there wasn't a likely division of types of labor among our caveman ancestors?

At the most fundamental level, it separates the labour of men and women into economic reproduction and social reproduction, and it commodifies the labour of men, and decommodifies the labour of women. Simply put, patriarchy exists as long as social reproduction (birthing and raising children, domestic labour, mental labour etc.) is treated as separate from economic reproduction (making things, supplying services), and, fundamentally, if capitalists had to pay for the existence of labourers, despite it being fundamental to the system, it would collapse.

They've actually found that there are psychological differences in men and women that are innate. Men and women also have innately different interests. Differences are going to result no matter what you do.

Your definition is that of liberal feminism, and implies simply allowing women equal part in economic reproduction, without systemic change, is enough. That's silly.

I'm actually of the belief that men and women need to work together to build a life, support each other, use each other's strengths, just as we have for thousands of years. We shouldn't be worried about big bad patriarchies, since legally there are actually more benefits for females now than men. We should just move on

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

So in a historical context, men also earned positions which women were completely excluded from? This idea of "earning" is a statement about competition between equals, and does not exclude that successful people very likely had advantages from birth, of race, or of gender.

I'm not dismissing the idea that only 30% of women have what it takes to compete with men. But the historical trend suggests that there WAS undeniable patriarchy, and that makes it unlikely that men and women are competing on a level playing field now. Men aren't that much better than women, imo. Women feel more duty to children (and pretty much every woman has children at some stage) and this damages their careers. I don't believe they're responding to 'biology' or 'instinct' but rather that women being the primary carers is a remnant of patriarchy.

I agree with most of this. I think there were laws that favored men in the past, but not any longer. Also, there are clearly innate differences between men and women in terms of temperament, interest and so on that typically make women better at caring for babies and young children. Men do better with parenting as the child gets older.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I agree with most of this. I think there were laws that favored men in the past, but not any longer. Also, there are clearly innate differences between men and women in terms of temperament, interest and so on that typically make women better at caring for babies and young children. Men do better with parenting as the child gets older.

Women have one undeniable advantage in caring for babies: they can breast feed. To extrapolate that past weaning is questionable.
"Temperament, interest and so on" are not necessarily genetic qualities of a woman. They're partly (or completely) a social construct.

But you likely don't believe that gender is a social construct. Very few right wingers do.

Another thing is that women were excluded from most work-places by private enterprise policy, whether that was backed by law or not. Simply repealing the law is no assurance that they're no longer suffering discrimination. Even women who have no intention of having kids, suffer in promotion because employers know they MIGHT change their minds.

 

[spud_meister]

Are you saying there wasn't a likely division of types of labor among our caveman ancestors?

No

They've actually found that there are psychological differences in men and women that are innate. Men and women also have innately different interests. Differences are going to result no matter what you do.

That has nothing to do with what I said. The origins of patriarchy are material, based in the need for capitalists to have a perpetuating workforce that they don't pay for. Your psychobabble bullshit has nothing to do with it.

I'm actually of the belief that men and women need to work together to build a life, support each other, use each other's strengths, just as we have for thousands of years. We shouldn't be worried about big bad patriarchies, since legally there are actually more benefits for females now than men. We should just move on

A thousand years ago, men and women worked together to raise a family, grow crops and animals and build and maintain a home. Now, women perform most of the labour at home for no pay, and men sell their labour to someone else. The whole point is men and women don't work together any more.

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

Women have one undeniable advantage in caring for babies: they can breast feed. To extrapolate that past weaning is questionable.
"Temperament, interest and so on" are not necessarily genetic qualities of a woman. They're partly (or completely) a social construct.

But you likely don't believe that gender is a social construct. Very few right wingers do.

There have actually been studies that show that men and women differ regardless of social pressures. However, it's interesting (with regard to social pressures) to note that most women want strong men who are successful in their careers and then complain when men are successful. In any event, yes many aspects of maleness and femininity are actually quite innate and or highly desire by the opposite sex (these desires have a innate connection as well).

Another thing is that women were excluded from most work-places by private enterprise policy, whether that was backed by law or not. Simply repealing the law is no assurance that they're no longer suffering discrimination.

This is true. Men also experience this from women in power though. It's hard to stop this.

Even women who have no intention of having kids, suffer in promotion because employers know they MIGHT change their minds.

This is true too. However, women have plenty of their own advantages. For example the average women will have had more sexual partners than the average man, men go to prison more, men are unfairly treated in divorces, men are more likely to successfully commit suicide, men are more likely to be the victim of violent crime, women and children are given priority over men when a ship is sinking, much more men die in war than women do, men die or are injured more on the job and so on. We've also lowered military physical standards to allow more women in the military, which I think is wrong.

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

No


That has nothing to do with what I said. The origins of patriarchy are material, based in the need for capitalists to have a perpetuating workforce that they don't pay for. Your psychobabble bullshit has nothing to do with it.

A thousand years ago, men and women worked together to raise a family, grow crops and animals and build and maintain a home. Now, women perform most of the labour at home for no pay, and men sell their labour to someone else. The whole point is men and women don't work together any more.

And they should be working together is my point.

Also, just because men and women have different roles, advantages or strengths, doesn't mean there's a patriarchy.

 

[spud_meister]

And they should be working together is my point.

Welcome to being a radical feminist then. Once social reproduction is treated the same as economic reproduction, then we shall have true equality comrade!

 

[BirdinHand]

Denying the patriarchy and roots of patriarchy in American society is a fool’s errand.

It’s no different than denying racism and systemic racism in American society.

 

[BirdinHand]

And they should be working together is my point.

Also, just because men and women have different roles, advantages or strengths, doesn't mean there's a patriarchy.

The fact that you believe men and women have different roles in and of itself is proof of a patriarchy mindset.


Random question: when was the last time you went into the wild and killed something to bring it home for your wife and children to eat? Ever?

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

Denying the patriarchy and roots of patriarchy in American society is a fool’s errand.

It’s no different than denying racism and systemic racism in American society.

No one is denying that men had more rights than women at one time in the US, just like they did all around the world. The US men fought alongside women and then voted for women's rights. Now women have more legal advantages than men do. This is the same with systemic Racism.

 

[VanceMack]

If you believe men hold privilege and women are oppressed...than you are engaging in clearly disproved divisional rhetoric.
If you believe 'white people' hold privilege and 'black people' are oppressed...than you are engaging in clearly disproved divisional rhetoric.
If you believe 'the system' oppresses you....it does.

If you believe you are oppressed...you are.

 

[PoliticalDJ101]

The fact that you believe men and women have different roles in and of itself is proof of a patriarchy mindset.

Random question: when was the last time you went into the wild and killed something to bring it home for your wife and children to eat? Ever?

Do biological women have a penis and sperm? That's a specific role.

Science has shown a man is more likely to have the psychological characteristics needed for leadership than a woman. That's a role.

Science also shows that men have unique parenting traits (usually later in a child's life).

Are most handymen men or women?

Who are generally more masculine? Men or women?

Who is generally more physically superior? Men or women?

Is men and women first on a sinking ship a thing or not?

Who is more likely to die in combat? A man or a woman?

Do you live in a house? Do you drive a car? Have you ever had a car repair? Do you have children? Do you use roads and bridges? Buildings? If the answered yes to any of these, then you're seeing the unique roles of men all around you.

On the other hand, who is more likely to be a nurse or a teacher? Who is more likely to give birth and breast feed? Who is more likely to have a vagina and uterus? Who is more likely to have feminine traits? Who is more likely to be interested in people and to be nurturing?

 

[BirdinHand]

Do biological women have a penis and sperm? That's a specific role.

Science has shown a man is more likely to have the psychological characteristics needed for leadership than a woman. That's a role.

Science also shows that men have unique parenting traits (usually later in a child's life).

Are most handymen men or women?

Who are generally more masculine? Men or women?

Who is generally more physically superior? Men or women?

Is men and women first on a sinking ship a thing or not?

Who is more likely to die in combat? A man or a woman?

Do you live in a house? Do you drive a car? Have you ever had a car repair? Do you have children? Do you use roads and bridges? Buildings? If the answered yes to any of these, then you're seeing the unique roles of men all around you.

On the other hand, who is more likely to be a nurse or a teacher? Who is more likely to give birth and breast feed? Who is more likely to have a vagina and uterus? Who is more likely to have feminine traits? Who is more likely to be interested in people and to be nurturing?

One thing I’ve noticed:

Men that push narratives such as the videos you’ve shared in your OP tend to fall into several camps:

1. Incel
2. Divorced and bitter
3. Old

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Does the patriarchy exist?

No.

Should there be a men's rights movement?

No.

Should feminists lobby for men's rights?

No.

Does being a feminist require one to believe in the patriarchy?

No.

Is believing in a patriarchy helping society?

No.

 

[BirdinHand]

Who is more likely to die in combat? A man or a woman?

Just an FYI

More women have died in childbirth than soldiers who died in war.

Combat Deaths Versus Maternal Deaths, USA, 1900-2019

So when those like yourself walk around touting “men go to war” my response is “that’s their choice”. (And women die in and from war also…whether or not they opt to be in the military)

You are in support of multiplying the number of women that die in childbirth by FORCING women to carry unwanted pregnancies.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

The fact that you believe men and women have different roles in and of itself is proof of a patriarchy mindset.

Well, men and women do, biologically, have different roles. Men inseminate and women get inseminated, and women bear the children. Those are, in fact, different roles. Is nature patriarchal?

Random question: when was the last time you went into the wild and killed something to bring it home for your wife and children to eat? Ever?

Who builds the homes you live in? Overwhelmingly it's men.

I mean, this is not a competition to see who is better or worse. However, from what I hear these days, it's women who say men are worthless and useless, etc. You don't hear that from men, who generally acknowledge the inherent worth of women and their contributions to society.



Do we need men? Most answered "no".

Men are "useless" they say - and cheer.

Except gay men - she says they need gay men because "nobody can gossip like gay men, nobody can accessorize, like gay men...." etc.

A highly popular, nationally televised broadcast.

Men answering the same question all acknowledged the need and worth of women. Women, though, repeatedly and overwhelmingly denigrated men as useless and unneeded.

If that's how y'all feel.... well, good on ya. That's how you feel. However, then you might want to think about who cleans out the septic tanks, who mines for the coal, who mans the oil rigs, who climbs the cell towers, etc. That is not, of course, to say that men are of greater value. All my examples serve to suggest is that men have some value. Aren't "useless." and might well be "needed."

What say you?

 

[brianpatrick]

We live in a patriarchal society. We can argue about why and if whether or not would should or could do anything about that, but arguing there IS no patriarchal society is like saying we don’t live in a solar system where a bunch of planets orbit a sun. There are matriarchal societies in the world (very few left), and have historically been matriarchal civilizations, and I wouldn’t presume to say they are or were better. I don’t think we can or could compare different times against our own time. It’s likely that there were pluses and minuses.

To me most reasonable, intelligent people would push for an egalitarian society where as someone said earlier, all costs and externalities are taken into account equally, or as equally as possible. This idea runs opposed to capitalism generally, because capitalism commodifies the labor of men, while decommodifying the labor of women, historically.

Capitalism is great for building a civilization very quickly, but ultimately bad at maintaining stability for long. That’s its inherent flaw. Many European countries have already learned these lessons in the rise and decline of their “empires.” The US hasn’t gotten there yet because we are still building ours. Some of us are trying to help Americans learn this lesson through the examples of history, but that hasn’t proven very successful yet. Humans seem to need to hit themselves in the head with a hammer enough times before they understand. And sure, it’s mostly the men with the hammers doing the hitting, but that doesn’t make them more likely to be good leaders, it just makes them the guys with the hammers.

 

[Real blank]

It doesn’t

 

[brianpatrick]

Well, men and women do, biologically, have different roles. Men inseminate and women get inseminated, and women bear the children. Those are, in fact, different roles. Is nature patriarchal?

Who builds the homes you live in? Overwhelmingly it's men.

I mean, this is not a competition to see who is better or worse. However, from what I hear these days, it's women who say men are worthless and useless, etc. You don't hear that from men, who generally acknowledge the inherent worth of women and their contributions to society.



Do we need men? Most answered "no".

Men are "useless" they say - and cheer.

Except gay men - she says they need gay men because "nobody can gossip like gay men, nobody can accessorize, like gay men...." etc.

A highly popular, nationally televised broadcast.

Men answering the same question all acknowledged the need and worth of women. Women, though, repeatedly and overwhelmingly denigrated men as useless and unneeded.

If that's how y'all feel.... well, good on ya. That's how you feel. However, then you might want to think about who cleans out the septic tanks, who mines for the coal, who mans the oil rigs, who climbs the cell towers, etc. That is not, of course, to say that men are of greater value. All my examples serve to suggest is that men have some value. Aren't "useless." and might well be "needed."

What say you?

I’d say it has nothing to do with men and women having different roles, and everything to do with how we as a society compensate those roles. Carpenters are paid more than mothers because we place a higher value on building houses than raising children. Obviously you see the flaw in that way of thinking as a society/civilization?

 

[Real blank]

I’d say it has nothing to do with men and women having different roles, and everything to do with how we as a society compensate those roles. Carpenters are paid more than mothers because we place a higher value on building houses than raising children. Obviously you see the flaw in that way of thinking as a society/civilization?

You can’t really get fired for being a bad mother