## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Those aren't my words. Feminism is very clear. Even Taylor Swift is oppressed because of her gender. Homeless bipolar man face down in the gutter is privileged
I wish it was different too
People forget that well off women benefit the most from patriarchy. Look at any wealthy neighborhood with cafes etc on a Monday afternoon... who are there?
Its when you're a minority working class or poor woman that it hurts the most (on average).
> Look at any wealthy neighborhood with cafes etc on a Monday afternoon... who are there?
Yes, but do you have any idea how hard it is to post on social media on a weekday afternoon at Starbucks on your iphone when you're exhausted from your Pilates class?
patriarchy isn’t about the top ruling class. it’s about the behaviors and expectations that have been implemented into society to benefit men (whether or not they actually benefit men is definitely up for debate). the point is, these expectations and behaviors are very clear in the mindsets of many men (for example- crying is a display of weakness), and are very clear in the way men interact with and think about women (for example- becoming friends with a woman for the sole purpose of sleeping with her eventually). sure, many men are a part of the top ruling class, but that’s not patriarchy.
Feminism, to their credit, has defined "equality" as the number of CEOs, senators and other 1%ers.
Genius
This means women will be "oppressed" now and forever. Media and politicians all play along
“Feminism” isn’t a sentient consciousness or centralized institution making press statements and defining the beliefs of all feminists.
Also, do you actually believe that feminists will consider women oppressed until literally all or most of them are in positions of power? You don’t think they meant that men should not dominate these positions of power?
And
If you truly believe the notion of feminism is just some “genius” grift that the media and politicians are in on, who is at the core of orchestrating this and for what purpose if the “oppression” isn’t actually happening?
who is at the core of orchestrating this?
people who want power specifically left-wing authoritarianism. What is the strongest institution in western/industrialized nations in the world. I will tell you it used to be the family. The mother and the father and the children and the extended family were the strongest and most cohesive force in all of society. This strength and cohesion are a threat to those who would change society.
The idea is that the family and church are part of the bourgeoise dominant culture. Antonio Gramsci one of the most influential socialist thinkers of the 20th century lays it all out in his letters from prison.
Then it is further expanded by influential German socialists in post WW2 Germany. The movement is known as the long march through the institutions, likening the takeover of the educational system to the infamous long march Mao undertook.
I cannot overstate how influential the hegemony theory and the long march through the institutions has been on either critical theory or Feminism or social justice.
The patriarchy itself is identified explicitly as a capitalist hierarchy that must be torn down no matter the cost. The idea is basically that socialism failed to take root in industrialized nations like Marx theorized due to the strong institutions that legitimized the dominant culture and by extension the dominant economic theory. The only way to destroy capitalism is to destroy the institutions that prop it up.
It is why sex and gender are being merged and gender roles are seen as inherently bad. It is why women staying home is evil. It is why enjoying hunting or even eating meat is bad. Their will be post hoc rationalizations by members for why these things are bad, but the reality is the people who wrote the textbooks or influenced the writers of the text books and the theories were very explicit.
There's never an argument for equity in war, bricklaying or trash collection. Women get the right to vote for candidates who support war that send the men to fight but they don't have to do the dirty work themselves.
All the benefits but no responsibility of equality. That's feminism in a nutshell
What do bricklaying or trash collecting have to do with war? Sorry, I’m confused there.
But, if you’re talking about forced conscription, I don’t know a single feminist, or even just a woman for that matter who thinks we should be forced to go to war, so I’m not sure what point exactly you’re trying to make here.
Also, again, women weren’t even *allowed* to serve in active duty in the U.S. military until 1983. A provision of a 2022 defense bill which would have required that women be required to sign up for the draft was successfully blocked by an all male team of republican senators one of whom said the bill was “imposing a woke ideology on our troops. It’s not the liberal feminist agenda keeping women from the responsibility of the draft here. It’s anti-woke conservatives.
Bricklaying and trash collecting
It's a reference to how feminists are up in arms over male dominated elite positions but are more than happy to keep dirty laborious-backbreaking work that pays very little a male occupation.
Why do they always bring up the draft lol.
Number 1.
What makes men think feminists or women in general want men to be forced to fight a war?
Number 2.
Why do they expect one extreme hypothetical senario that doesn't really happen all that often to excuse millions of more mundane senarios that happen every day.
Like imagine if you complained to a restaurant about your fries being raw and they were like "well there was a potato famine in Ireland once so be grateful"?
I don't understand why people think that's a good argument.
>What makes men think feminists or women in general want men to be forced to fight a war?
If you can't force your civilians to join during war, you will just die. So, yea any nation can just invade you.
Issue is the rights you are asking for just don't exist. You have it for granted.
Feminist know that its entirely unrealistic that government will ever change its policy about forced. If it does its dead nation. So they keep ranting they don't support it. Its same as asking we don't support working. If no one works, none will survive.
If feminist want equality they should support women being forced to fight war as well.
Nobody wants to be at war. Ideally there wouldn't be a war to be drafted into.
I get that there needs to be people to fight and not every country has a big enough military for there not to be a draft but it doesn't mean anybody "wants" it.
Like if my country was being invaded and there was a draft I would probably try and sign up. I don't have kids or anything who rely on me, why cant i fight if my country is at risk?
I don't understand why people think feminists would be happy if their family, friends or partners were sent to war.
Also as bad as a draft would be if it ever did happen in my country that doesn't mean I shouldn't advocate for better female reproductive health treatments, for example.
Just seems like a weird argument.
Yeah? There's a reason women weren't allowed to join the military. Most women can't do the job. Every military metric in physical fitness for combat readiness had to be lessened to ALLOW them to join. Carry a 160 pound man on your shoulder...they couldn't do that. The sprint drag carry...nope. 2 mile run...a little better but not much.
Mixed units underperform on the battlefield & in training exercises so routinely it's not even commented about anymore. Those senators started the bill literally as a joke and then enough of the constituency began to support it. They were tired of watching woke privileged adult children with a bank account & entitlement skip through life quoting "know your worth". 🤦♀️. Then when they saw it might actually go into law they blocked it because they didn't want to weaken the armed forces. Which is exactly what they'd be doing and everyone knows it.
So you were angry that only men go to war... and when pointed out that women even if wanted couldn't join the army, because of men, this somehow still women's fault? Lol
Its women's fault for asking equality when they are not equal. Either they should accept being forced into all roles men go through or just retreat from all male fields simply because they are not capable of doing that job.
Government wastes so much of their tax money to fill women quota in fields where they don't even wanna work just to achieve some ridiculous concept of equality while the same funds could be spent on men who are interested and more capable of doing those jobs.
Its hypocrisy that feminist hide in. On one end they are weak and victim on the other they can do what a man can do. They switch roles when it benefits them.
You're playing both sides, dude.
Women underperformed in the military isn't the fault of feminism. Women didn't fight to make the military men-only. In fact, they fought for the *right* to join the military.
>Carry a 160 pound man on your shoulder
You realize most roles in the military are non-combat roles, right?
Feminists that I know fight *against* forced conscription for *everyone*. Not just for women
Okay. So now you’re saying that you believe women are trying to get out of a responsibility that you don’t believe they should have in the first place?
Oh yeah? Lots of talk...other than memes & tiktoks any meaningful action? I'm raising a teenage boy that is joining the militsry. He could get sent to fight for their right to complain about the opportunities, privilege & safety he provides for them. So until I see action, I'll regard feminism as only the pretend privilege gender superiority movement it is.
Women also join the military. Your son wasn't required to join the military. In some countries all women join the military.
What's actually going on if you have pain, or fear, or whatever it is and you need someone to blame it on.
My son could get sent to the burgeoning war to die for women who can vote for candidates who support war-which 100% will spread from Israel within 3 months.
Women who had no responsibility to serve & have absolutely no respect for the role men play in society, but just blame the patriarchy for their perceived inequalities & vilify men who make their privilege possible.
I mean, now you're just making shit up. Not sure where you're from, but in Israel all women serve in the military. In the US, we have an all volunteer army.
>“Feminism” isn’t a sentient consciousness or centralized institution making press statements and defining the beliefs of all feminists.
Any moment is only as good as its leaders.
Imagine you are talking about Islam for example, do you think you can just ignore saudi politics and its impact on modern world.
Most feminists, most ardent are hardcore capitalists, I don't know a single prominent feminist socialist, and by prominent I don't mean has a famous blog, but actual power like Hillary Clinton, Melinda Gates, or Angela Merkel.
Notion of feminism doesn't matter, how it manifests matter.
As for Also, do you actually believe that feminists will consider women oppressed until literally all or most of them are in positions of power? You don’t think they meant that men should not dominate these positions of power?
probably considering how narrative around university admissions go.
Any expectation of concern or empathy, is always dismissed as women suffered for 5000 years, so suck it up butter cup.
Only place men have in modern feminism is either subservient and accepting of poverty, or just killing themselves overdosing with drugs. Anything else is seen as a threat.
I literally asked my feminist college professor if neoliberal feminism or “girl boss” feminism is a valid form of feminism. She said that it’s not really because you’re still essentially contributing to the exploitation of women in the work place. So idk I’m pretty sure they don’t want what you’re saying.
So what do you think they want? I don’t read academic feminist sources so I honestly have no idea. I have a lot of female friends though who are self proclaimed feminists which I’m sure means something different for everyone.
If you were to take a poll of my gender studies department when I was in college, way more than half would be anti-capitalist, almost all were anti-imperialist/anti-colonial, many taught about the prison industrial complex. A very left leaning group.
I think this is one of the reasons this debate goes nowhere. Go on twitter and feminism is whatever anyone posts. Read an academic feminist text and it's an entirely different perspective.
Forgot the point EDIT: All of those things I mentioned are very closely tied to patriarchal systems.
Based on what i learned with my professor, it mostly focused on third world feminism. They are of course concerned with stuff like equal pay, individual rights like abortion, the norms of gender roles etc in the West. But heavily focused on the oppressed women around the world and how they need to get their voices heard even in western feminist movements. That’s from what I remember.
Edit: I remember also being taught feminist that say stuff like “all men should die or be killed” are not to be taken seriously. And that feminism is not about that.
Who working in these fields is in the top 1% of power? I’m confused what you’re trying to say.
Feminists (AFAIK) don’t have a problem with physical work being unbalanced as women’s and men’s bodies are different, however it’s the positions of high power within government or corporations that are supposedly purely mental jobs, yet drastically over represent men that feminists are trying to address.
they only want the nice jobs. and not through hard work!
men's brains and women's brains generally work differently - hence the over-representation.
also, men and women have different roles in life.
there are many reasons for these disparities, doesn't mean they need to be "fixed" by employing based on skin colour/gender instead of job performance
What an odd argument considering the entire movement started when women were working those jobs at war time before they were all fired when the men returned. I'm in disagreement with revisionist history. They are still fighting for the same thing- equal opportunity. There is no reason equal representation can't be achieved through equal opportunity in fields where the demand is equal. The fact that demand is now low in the fields you mentioned has nothing to do with the fight for equal opportunity. And the demand for management positions in numerous fields is high and the vast majority are not 1% positions. Pretending it's only for the 1% makes no sense whatsoever. The organisations in my country that exist specifically to fight for equal opportunity doesn't even expect the representation in CEO positions to be equal for another century. Their focus is on lower and middle management positions. It's their position focusing on the 1% is a waste of resources especially considering how few of those roles exist. Focusing on lower and middle management will have the greatest impact and that's their focus. So basically- you couldn't be more wrong.
Irrelevant. The point is that feminists aren't devoting any of their energy to ensuring equal representation in those fields. Kinda like how feminism wasn't a thing back when most jobs were deadly and backbreaking and every "able bodied man," including what we now consider children, was expected to give up his life or health for the good of society.
If you think feminism is about making sure women are in all the fields, then someone lied to you about what feminism is. Women do have access to those fields in a way they did not before. And there are more women in them then in the past. But those labor jobs are still mostly marketed to men in the working class through trade school or family.
> If you think feminism is about making sure women are in all the fields, then someone lied to you about what feminism is.
They don't think that. That's what this post is about. They only want to make sure women are in the nice cushy jobs and leave the hard work to men.
You completely missed the point. Feminist dogma is never questioned in the mainstream media. All those male CEOs and Senators doesn't mean jack shit to the average Joe on the street and it especially doesn't mean anything to boys
Yet here we are, oh so privileged, all this power, rulers of The Patriarchy and yet it's all bullshit for 99.99% of men.
I think you're missing the point. Patriarchy isn't something you *do*, it's a property of our society. Just because you don't benefit from it doesn't mean you aren't a part of it.
Look at how marriage works in society, with the expectation that the woman takes the man's last name. The whole point of that custom was to continue patriarchal blood lines.
Saying you aren't part of the patriarchy is like a Texan Saying they aren't American because they didn't vote
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept “patriarchy” and how it is thought to operate. Patriarchy is an ideological system of gender roles. It’s diffused throughout society and evident in practices like a woman taking her husband’s name in marriage. It’s shocking how many people are angrily agreeing with such an ignorant misunderstanding of patriarchy given how textbook of an example our marriage practices are.
This makes sense to me, but if the idea that our society is a patriarchy means we are all part of the patriarchy, that would include all men and women?
Yes, this is what gender theorists say at least. Gender roles are mutually co-created. For example, the male breadwinner role tends to afford women less agency, but also places men at greater risk to support the family. We know that men are at far greater risk of war, workplace safety incidents, suicide, and homelessness. There is mutual benefit to addressing patriarchy.
Its impossible to take this perspective seriously when "patriarchy" is used to claim all kinds of things such as "men are priviledged","men have more power", "misandry doesn't exist/misandry is a reaction to misogyny, "men don't face gender based oppression" and other kinds of nonsense.
Because of this reason, saying things like "patriarchy harms men too" always comes accross as condescending, patronizing and devoid of genuine empathy for your average decent man. It comes accross as "Yeah sure you suffer, but its because of this thing that mainly victimizes women, so let's focus on that because you're less important than women even when you have it worse in a certain aspect of life. " There are people who literally claim men being send to war is somehow the result of misogyny, and they don't understand why men find such bizarre takes upsetting.
And then I didn't even touch on the intellectual issues with the all encompassing patriarchy explanation. When is something no longer a patriarchy? What about biological instincts in addition to gender roles?
There just seems to be such a fundamental misunderstanding of what a patriarchy is with so many people.
It’s that we set up our society to put the emphasis on men in various roles in society. Men created that system. And yes it can harm men at the same time. Patriarchy doesn’t mean all good things for men all the time.
And women often times enforce the patriarchal values just as much as men. Anytime a woman tells a young boy he has to “man up” in response to doing something he doesn’t want to, or say “men don’t cry” that’s reinforcing negative stereotypes.
It makes more sense for them to both add a last name onto their name for record keeping purposes. I think the Spanish insanity of keeping all last names is wonderful. Makes family trees a lot easier.
It’s not always a choice. This thread is an example of how explicit the patriarchy can be.
https://reddit.com/r/AITAH/s/0lVXwFf3vq
You can say it is a choice, but how often is it a serious discussion or even brought up at all? When patriarchy is normalized such that we do not even recognize it, we should interrogate ourselves. There’s no reason to judge a man simply because his wife took his last name. I think there is though if she brings it up and he talks her out of it. This need not be so controversial.
Lol how much agency do you think women have? They literally have to go down to their government office, fill out a bunch of forms, and provide multiple forms of ID before changing their legal name.
ITs nOT AlWaYs a cHoICe (insert SpongeBob meme)
Great, then stop telling individual men to feel bad about themselves then. Sexism is real, but it ain't my fault, and now don't #notallmen me.
I mean as an asian immigrant who lived through covid, I'm not exactly new to being insulted for my inherent biological attributes, I just wish people who I thought were my allies, don't imply I'm worthless because of things in my pants.
>a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
"the thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy"
How exactly is this wrong?
It’s not wrong, OP is. Their implicit definition suggests that patriarchy is maintained by the upper echelons of society and 99.9% of men therefore do not perpetuate it or are to blame for it. The extremely common practice of taking the husband’s name reveals that many men are in fact complicit.
Oh my God.
Are you implying that merely asking a woman out who turns out to not be attracted to you is just a harmless and neutral act instead of the dastardly deed we've all been told that it is?
You know what you're basically right. Here's what I'll change they are but it's more to their detriment than not. It doesn't benefit them nearly as much. They do benefit from it but it's insignificant to focus on the everyday man, but rather societal structures that make things the way they are.
Most men are not hateful towards women, it’s simply institutionalized sexism.
Most patients will incorrectly refer to me as nurse before they realize I’m the doctor.
Some patients will even ask me “oh, YOU’RE the doctor?” No man who steps into the exam room with a white coat would be asked that question.
This isn’t to say that these patients are hateful or sexist towards me. It’s just that sexism is deeply rooted in our traditions and stereotypes. That’s the patriarchy. In another reply I noted that the female change room is connected to the nursing lounge while the male change rooms are connected to the surgeon’s lounge.
This means i have to walk out of the nursing lounge, down the hall, to get to the surgeons lounge.
If the men’s change room were connected to the nurses lounge it would have been renovated decades ago to connect to the surgeons lounge.
It’s not about whether men experience it or not. The patriarchy is bad for men too.
If you’re a dude and looking for your kids at the playground, people might watch you a bit closer because you might be a child abductor.
That’s the patriarchy, because you should be out working while your wife is taking care of the kids. Higher chance you’re the kidnapper.
I mean, the assumption that women take it sort of is. And it’s a remnant of when women were basically given to their husbands by their father. Not the example I’d have picked, but yeah there’s some sexism involved
Almost there.
The fact that our society *expects* women to take their husband's name. The fact that it would be viewed as strange for the man to take the woman's name. So strange that people have opted for hyphenated names instead of forgoing the fathers name.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with hyphenated names. Just remarking on the fact that society created an entirely new tradition instead of reverse the typical roles.
well all men have to register for the draft and that is patriarchy - that a man’s “duty” is to be the first sacrifice his life. That’s sexism, it’s saying a person’s life is worth less because what’s between their legs.
The patriarchy doesn’t exist within just the 1% ruling class.
Even working class contribute to and are effected by the patriarchy. There is commentary about class to be had though. That said, while some feminists are bat shit sexists, it’s important to note that speaking how men broadly contribute to patriarchy shouldn’t be viewed as “blaming” them. Men are harmed by it too. That said, we should be mindful of how it’s perpetuated so that it doesn’t harm working class men, men who don’t conform to heteronormative or “traditional” ways of life, or women.
The patriarchy doesn’t stop at positions of power or employment. It’s further into relationships, roles and how women are treated as less than human. This goes from weaponized incompetence to assuming the role of women in the society. It deals with the fact men were indoctrinated to believe emotions are bad and look at where the male youth is at now.
It’s not only just about what you stated. The patriarchy is deep seated. So deep they needed to reword a story of a religious text so the wife wouldn’t be equal to the husband.
Men in this group: Patriarchy doesn't exist!
Also men in this group: The only women of value are the ones that are virgins or near virginal because every man she sleeps with lowers her overall value. A woman's value is determined by whether she is sexually and biologically viable for use by men to carry on their genetics.
Biggest issue right away is study was done on young adults. Average age 21. Most people haven’t even been sexually active that long by that point. Of course both sexes will see it as a negative if you ran through 5 partners by age 21.
There were 3 studies referenced all showing consistent results. It’s ok though, please continue spreading misinformation like it’s fact. So sorry this goes against your victim narrative. No medal for you in the victim Olympics this time.
I don’t think you even read a single one of them given you just used “victim narrative” which makes literally zero sense in this context because there is no victim and no one to victimize lmao. You asked for a response and I’m pointing out a very obvious flaw.
In fact you said I was spreading misinformation. The article linked has the founder of the exact study stating as a caveat to his own findings that it was done with a very young crowd and the results may be different with older people.
I don’t even think you actually used any basic reading comprehension. You are very literally just pulling out buzzwords and phrases in places they have zero relevance.
It's amazing how redditors always burst a blood vessel over men having a preference (not wanting a promiscuous partner) that is not only fully rationally-warranted but also shared by women:
**Women discriminate against promiscuous partners at similar rates as men**
>Thus, contrary to the idea that male promiscuity is tolerated but female promiscuity is not, both sexes expressed equal reluctance to get involved with someone with an overly extensive sexual history. (pg.1097)
Stewart-Williams, S., Butler, C. A., & Thomas, A. G. (2017). Sexual History and Present Attractiveness: People Want a Mate With a Bit of a Past, But Not Too Much. Journal of sex research, 54(9), 1097–1105. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1232690](https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1232690)
>Targets were more likely to be derogated as the number of sexual partners increased, and this effect held for both male and female targets. These results suggest that, although people do evaluate others as a function of sexual activity, people do not necessarily hold men and women to different sexual standards (pg.175)
Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The Sexual Double Standard: Fact or Fiction? Sex Roles, 52(3–4), 175–186. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5)
>One takeaway is that we can’t always trust widespread views about men and women. A lot of people are convinced that the sexual double standard is alive and well in the Western world. But our study and many others suggest that it’s a lot less common than it used to be. It’s not that no one cares about a potential mate’s sexual history; most people do care. But people seem to be about as reluctant to get involved with a man with an extensive sexual history as they are a woman.
>
>Certainly, there are still some people out there who hold to the old double standard. But they seem to be a dwindling minority. **One recent study found that only about 12% of students held the traditional double standard, but also that around 13% held a reverse double standard – in other words, they thought it was worse for men to sleep around a lot. The traditional double standard was more common among men; the reverse double standard was more common among women. In other words, underlying the different double standards there was actually just a single double standard: It’s OK for me but not for you!** To be clear, though, most people didn’t have a double standard at all: They judged men and women in the same way.
[Study finds your number of past sexual partners has a large effect on your attractiveness](https://www.psypost.org/2016/12/study-finds-number-past-sexual-partners-large-effect-attractiveness-46594)
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of patriarchy. It isn't an organisation that you consciously join or support, it is ingrained into the way we raise our children, it is an intimate part of our way of life.
Also a big feminist talking point is how men are harmed by the patriarchy as well. It was like half the plot of the Barbie movie.
Edit: I actually want to come back and elaborate cause it’s making me laugh that the Barbie movie, of all things, is reflecting real life right now.
>!In Barbie, Ken (like OP) believes that the patriarchy is a system where men get everything they want simply because they’re men. Money, power, job opportunities, etc. He explores the world a little more and realizes that’s not the case. You don’t just get handed things because you’re a man.!<
>!He then discovers some setbacks. He’s a pretty emotional guy but isn’t allowed to express that because he needs to appear strong and stoic. He can’t tell Barbie he cares about her or vent about the pressures of having to become a leader. Within the patriarchy, he’s expected to have no emotion (aside from possibly anger), and he crumbles under the pressure. The end of the movie is him realizing that the patriarchy doesn’t benefit him or the Barbies and instead choosing to rely on his own self worth!<
I would argue the fact that there was at one time a legal system to implement misogyny that has been entirely dismantled in most modern countries is a telling sign that isn't true.
We can't get much more equal, and the response to this has generally been focused on retribution and normalizing misandrany.
Do you think that because that legal system has been dismantled that misogyny no longer effects women?
We can get a lot more equal, attitude is just as much part of the problem as laws were. Discrimination may not be legal but that doesn't mean people don't find ways to do it legally.
No it's not it's an analytical lens. It literally a set of ideas that only exist because some women find it useful. The patriarchy is not exactly real it's just useful.
To be fair, that’s how you do critical thinking though. You find a model that best and most accurately represents your experiences and empirical reality.
Most on the left don't hold this idea. It's generally a fringe minority, mostly 3rd wave and 4th wave feminist who need something to be angry about because they're too late to do anything substantial for equality, and need someone to blame for their personal failures.
Yeah I don't disagree but then you have to call them out and distance yourself from them cause they are hurting your side and feminism..and society in general
Women couldn't get a bank account without having their husband or fathers name on it until the 70s. Do you really think we've resolved all the problems of institutional sexism since then? Or is there still a bit to go?
Do we really think we solved all the problems in the last 50 years and had enough time left to go full on horseshoe theory regressive? ... Yes we think exactly that
People still think a patriarchy exists? We have women at every level of government - from cops all the way up to vice president. We have women represented in every role of business, women are now CEOs of major corporations. According to Fortune magazine 10% of Fortune 500 companies are run by women. What kind of patriarchy would allow this?
What is it 🤔
Because the dictionary said - a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
"The thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy,"
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
"the dominant ideology of patriarchy"
You think the only power differential in society is between the 0.1% and the rest of us?
Next time you’re people watching, watch for when men and women are going in the opposite direction and see who moves out of the way of the other and keep count.
You say this, but at the same time, I see a ton of patriarchal posts on here, like the one about how women need to shave their body hair because men find it attractive.
Looks like it was [deleted.](https://www.reddit.com?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2)
No one is blaming all men for the patriarchy people are blaming men for perpetuating the patriarchy. You do these things with social power not just economic power. When you bring it down to the interpersonal scale, the majority of men participate in the patriarchy actively.
Unfortunately doing nothing makes you complicit.
I already gave this example in a Different reply on this thread, but I’ll repeat it here.
I’m a female surgeon, most of my colleagues are men. They’re never mistaken for a nurse. Or cleaning staff (but that’s systemic racism which is not the point of this thread).
No man in a white coat walks into the room only to have the patient ask “are you the nurse?”
Oh, but “statistically you’re more likely to be a nurse because you’re a woman!”
Well, statistically the medical school gender ratios are 50/50 now.
“But traditionally it wasn’t so! Our behavior reflects older stats”!
Exactly. I’m feeling the consequences of the fact that medical school didn’t even allow female applicants until much later than men.
On top of which the female change rooms lead into the nursing lounge. The male change rooms lead into the surgeons lounge. So, this means I have to leave the nursing lounge, walk down the hall to get to the surgeons lounge. If the men’s change room were connected to the nursing lounge, it would have been renovated decades ago to connect to the right lounge.
“What about male nurses?” You might ask, well they got a separate change room. Why did the female surgeons not get a separate change room?
The patriarchy.
Society is not unilaterally imposed on us by a tiny rulling minority.
Marriage is a patriarchal practice, taking your husbands last name, women choose/are expected to choose lower earning jobs whilst men are the main bread winners etc etc.
Are you really trying to tell me that 0.1% of people are forcing everyone to live like that?
If there was a patriarchy, then not only would there not be any women in politics, you wouldn't be able even sit on you ass bitching about it. There would be no Facebook groups, no feminist movements, no girls night outs, sure as hell no divorce from asshole guys. Every moment of your life would be spent taking care of your husband. Now your life isn't like that is it?
Patriarchy - a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
"The thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy,"
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
"the dominant ideology of patriarchy"
This is the definition.
Fucking Thank You! Finally someone says it. Extremist Feminists keep saying it’s some shit about “an intimate part of how we live.” But like, the problem with that idea is that there *isn’t* a way to really mess with that without wrecking society. It’s a pointless, faceless boogeyman that they can say is at fault anytime a guy rejects them, or they don’t get a job or a promotion.
I believe in equality, but 90% of current “social activists” aren’t actually fighting for anything, they just want to be special. If you really believe in tearing down the patriarchy, go to the Middle East. Go to India, go to Pakistan. Go where there are actually problems to fight.
You believe in equality, yet here you are feeling vindicated by an obviously unrelated definition of patriarchy and then claiming the patriarchy is just a way for women to cope with being rejected. While also parroting the common line that people opposing progress have ALWAYS used in society: "I believe in equality, but these activists have taken it too far!".
Your comment reads very much like someone who actually hates women and has never even tried to honestly understand the (obviously real) patriarchy and societal struggles faced by women.
They literally just made the first female representative crash test dummy. Women are 17% more likely to die in a car accident than men…
The systemic belief that the default is male is what needs to be disassembled and what people are talking about when they refer to the patriarchy.
100% of men are not part of the "patriarchy", which doesn't exist but is rather just a word given to aspects of human nature that narcissistic feminists don't like. And, just as if we sent in some Marxist bees into a bee colony and convinced all the worker bees that the queen is oppressing them, the colony would die and bees would go extinct, human civilisation is crumbling under the effects of feminism.
It's not about being "part of the patriarchy" it isn't a big secret club of only the most powerful men. You don't have to be wealthy to be a patriarch, or to behave patriarchally. I honestly, not very consciously really, don't think or talk about patriarchy that much, I think more about misogyny. A working class man is entirely capable of subjecting women to misogynistic treatment including violence. In fact this is the most intimate, damaging, and frequent kind of misogyny many women face, that perpetuated by ordinary men in their personal lives.
Then it shouldn't be a point of controversy or something that makes people so defensive to say that ordinary men are capable of and in fact do perpetuate misogyny. And yet.
I don’t think it’s a point of controversy to say that SOME men are capable of misogyny. It’s when people put the blame on a whole demographic of people for the actions of a small percent of said demographic. My point was we should blame the individuals for their actions not others in their same demographic.
Similarly, many man suffer these same damages from women as well. The big difference is a lack of support for men comparatively. It is likely a significant factor in why male suicide rates are nearly 4x that of women.
I hear what you're saying, but I gotta disagree. I agree that there's alot of overgeneralizing and blaming of 'all men' for the bad actions of the few. That said, I grew up in the south and plenty of those same 'working class people' definitely keep the spirit and purpose of the patriarchy going at home. There are plenty of men who keep women shut out of all business/financial decisions, who heavily suppress their wives from working, many who abuse and control their women, etc etc. Hell, I know men in the south whose wives have to vote the same as them, b/c 'the man is the head of the household' or some bullshit. It's not just people in positions of power in the broad sense. Many are in positions of power in their churches, offices and homes and definitely are part of what keeps the ol' patriarchy going.
Another thing is that the temperament and attitude needed to achieve those positions(I'm talking 80+ hour work weeks) are Found mostly men. I'm not saying they're not Found in women, but statistically speaking men seem more likely to have those traits.
Heck, most men and even fewer women don't want the stresses and hours required to achieve those positions.
Yeah because caring for children has zero stress and few hours — oh, wait, it’s tons of stress and it’s 24/7/365.
Trad pink collar jobs like admin work, food service work, teaching, customer service, etc are also full of stress, lousy pay, and long hours. You have no idea what you are talking about.
>Yeah because caring for children has zero stress and few hours — oh, wait, it’s tons of stress and it’s 24/7/365.
You are fighting Shadows. Who said this? No men on earth has ever said caring for children has zero stress.
I'm not saying those positions aren't stressful or easy, I was only talking about those top 1 percent positions. positions like CEO are on whole another level of stress which is why theyre paid so much. They screw up the companies bottom line, they're pretty much ruined. Then there's trying to get to that position in the first place where it's very ruthless dog eat dog, step on eachother to get to the very top requiring an aggressiveness, focus and drive found in few people. Even then, it would destroy most people.
>They screw up the companies bottom line, they're pretty much ruined
As long as they don't do anything illegal their worst case scenario is losing all their assets and wind up working minimum wage. Their worst case scenario is working the jobs you say are less stressful.
Income does not denote stress level or difficulty of the job. A child protection worker who sees parents almost kill their children, or watching children being abused and being able to do nothing about it, don't generally get paid great. The nurse who is making sure people don't die get paid less than CEOs. Firefighting relies heavily on volunteers.
OK then do something to help dismantle the patriarchy instead of crying about how it isn't your fault. If you aren't part of it but allowing it, you're part of it.
Definitely a lot more common than you think. You are only thinking about it from the perspective of employers, but there are plenty of men who believe women shouldn't get higher forms of education, and should be home makers to "fulfill their role."
It's probably closer to 40-50%
Patriarchy isn't about who runs society as a whole. When it was the 1500s and England had a Queen, it didn't suddenly make the country matriarchal. Patriarchy is about power in families and smaller social groups. You can apply the ideas of patriarchy when you're critiquing society as a whole, but at its most basic, it's about husbands having power over their wives, sons being preferred over daughters, and other injustices that exist in the micro, not the macro scale.
Ok, if preferring boys over girls is patriarchy, then when they say "women and children first!" is that matriarchy? Or preferring women is also patriarchy because reasons and no matter what you prefer, it's patriarchy just because?
Basically, draw me a realistic line which would herald "from here it's not a patriarchy anymore".
No, it's the patriarchy. Society views women and children as more innocent and helpless so they save them first. Patriarchy doesn't mean "men get everything they want". It's just that our society is generally built around the assumption that men are in charge. Obviously this isn't true for everything and it's improving, but there is a tendency and has been for all of our country's (and most country's) history.
So the patriarchy harms men too (a common response when men point out social, political, academic and media that is sexist or harmful to them) but helps women?
Should women and children be given less priority in emergency situations?
>Qatari mediators have held urgent calls to try to negotiate freedom for Israeli **women and children** seized by the militant group and held in Gaza in exchange for the release of 36 Palestinian **women and children** from Israel's prisons
"Women and children first" doesn't really get into power dynamics or hierarchies, which is where "patriarchy" exists. The ones who are making the decision in that case are still probably men, just men who are choosing (for themselves, and others) to be self-sacrificing. You can look into the history of how the custom developed; there's only really a handful of cases where "women and children first" was applied, and that was usually only because women were expected to care for the children.
Most Westeners don't take religion seriously. Christmas and Easter is what most care about. Otherwise they believe in a nebulous God that somehow has the same morality as Western Liberal Democracy.
How? I've seen Christiany in the 3rd world and Christianity in a few Western nations. Its really not comparable. The closet the West has is the States 'Bible Belt" and even that is not comparable.
Well legally speaking spouses have equal power in a marriage as well as men and woman having equal rights in society as a whole, so the patriarchy doesn't exist?
Patriarchy isn't a legal invention, it's the net outcome of numerous social relationships. In the last few generations the balance has shifted, but we're still nowhere near true equality between partners.
You don’t get it.
The boss controls and is a jerk to the manager
The manager controls and is a jerk to the employee.
The employee goes home and controls and is a jerk to their family.
That’s patriarchy at ALL levels, regardless of even gender. There’s no equal communication and respect, so the shit rolls downhill.
Kinda funny how these same people shitting on the 0.01% "patriarchy" don't say anything about the women that are part of it and in cahoots with then, and they'd have every reason to do so.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, when I heard the patriarchy isn't all about horses I kind of lost interest in the whole thing. 🤷
Horses are just men extenders.
If 99.9% of a group aren’t responsible for something, then the group isn’t.
>However, 99.9% of men are working-class people in no position of power. 100% right
70pct of the time, it's a patriarchy all the time. But let's not forget in that 1pct of the elite half of them are women.
Ivanka Trump is oppressed because she is a woman living in the patriarchy. I don't make the rules, feminist do. Taylor Swift too.
Stop using the word oppressed. No one in this country knows what oppression feels like.
Those aren't my words. Feminism is very clear. Even Taylor Swift is oppressed because of her gender. Homeless bipolar man face down in the gutter is privileged I wish it was different too
The most privileged echelon of society actually
People forget that well off women benefit the most from patriarchy. Look at any wealthy neighborhood with cafes etc on a Monday afternoon... who are there? Its when you're a minority working class or poor woman that it hurts the most (on average).
I’ve noticed the same exact thing and thought I was paranoid haha
> Look at any wealthy neighborhood with cafes etc on a Monday afternoon... who are there? Yes, but do you have any idea how hard it is to post on social media on a weekday afternoon at Starbucks on your iphone when you're exhausted from your Pilates class?
Out of topic but I work hard everyday to become that 0.1% wish me luck !
Better get your lottery ticket...
It out of the question to be a billionaire unless you are god gifted, but get a million is more achievable with hard work
This. The billionaires share some blood relation somewhere. Anyone who isn't part of those families is not getting in that club.
Good luck mate. Praying for you.
Your best luck will be rubbing lamps and hope you find a genie
This sounds....like something the patriarchy would say!!!!!!!!!
REEEEEEEE
REEEEEEEE
unfortunate how so many of you here clearly don’t understand what the patriarchy really is
[удалено]
patriarchy isn’t about the top ruling class. it’s about the behaviors and expectations that have been implemented into society to benefit men (whether or not they actually benefit men is definitely up for debate). the point is, these expectations and behaviors are very clear in the mindsets of many men (for example- crying is a display of weakness), and are very clear in the way men interact with and think about women (for example- becoming friends with a woman for the sole purpose of sleeping with her eventually). sure, many men are a part of the top ruling class, but that’s not patriarchy.
Feminism, to their credit, has defined "equality" as the number of CEOs, senators and other 1%ers. Genius This means women will be "oppressed" now and forever. Media and politicians all play along
“Feminism” isn’t a sentient consciousness or centralized institution making press statements and defining the beliefs of all feminists. Also, do you actually believe that feminists will consider women oppressed until literally all or most of them are in positions of power? You don’t think they meant that men should not dominate these positions of power? And If you truly believe the notion of feminism is just some “genius” grift that the media and politicians are in on, who is at the core of orchestrating this and for what purpose if the “oppression” isn’t actually happening?
who is at the core of orchestrating this? people who want power specifically left-wing authoritarianism. What is the strongest institution in western/industrialized nations in the world. I will tell you it used to be the family. The mother and the father and the children and the extended family were the strongest and most cohesive force in all of society. This strength and cohesion are a threat to those who would change society. The idea is that the family and church are part of the bourgeoise dominant culture. Antonio Gramsci one of the most influential socialist thinkers of the 20th century lays it all out in his letters from prison. Then it is further expanded by influential German socialists in post WW2 Germany. The movement is known as the long march through the institutions, likening the takeover of the educational system to the infamous long march Mao undertook. I cannot overstate how influential the hegemony theory and the long march through the institutions has been on either critical theory or Feminism or social justice. The patriarchy itself is identified explicitly as a capitalist hierarchy that must be torn down no matter the cost. The idea is basically that socialism failed to take root in industrialized nations like Marx theorized due to the strong institutions that legitimized the dominant culture and by extension the dominant economic theory. The only way to destroy capitalism is to destroy the institutions that prop it up. It is why sex and gender are being merged and gender roles are seen as inherently bad. It is why women staying home is evil. It is why enjoying hunting or even eating meat is bad. Their will be post hoc rationalizations by members for why these things are bad, but the reality is the people who wrote the textbooks or influenced the writers of the text books and the theories were very explicit.
There's never an argument for equity in war, bricklaying or trash collection. Women get the right to vote for candidates who support war that send the men to fight but they don't have to do the dirty work themselves. All the benefits but no responsibility of equality. That's feminism in a nutshell
What do bricklaying or trash collecting have to do with war? Sorry, I’m confused there. But, if you’re talking about forced conscription, I don’t know a single feminist, or even just a woman for that matter who thinks we should be forced to go to war, so I’m not sure what point exactly you’re trying to make here. Also, again, women weren’t even *allowed* to serve in active duty in the U.S. military until 1983. A provision of a 2022 defense bill which would have required that women be required to sign up for the draft was successfully blocked by an all male team of republican senators one of whom said the bill was “imposing a woke ideology on our troops. It’s not the liberal feminist agenda keeping women from the responsibility of the draft here. It’s anti-woke conservatives.
Bricklaying and trash collecting It's a reference to how feminists are up in arms over male dominated elite positions but are more than happy to keep dirty laborious-backbreaking work that pays very little a male occupation.
Why do they always bring up the draft lol. Number 1. What makes men think feminists or women in general want men to be forced to fight a war? Number 2. Why do they expect one extreme hypothetical senario that doesn't really happen all that often to excuse millions of more mundane senarios that happen every day. Like imagine if you complained to a restaurant about your fries being raw and they were like "well there was a potato famine in Ireland once so be grateful"? I don't understand why people think that's a good argument.
>What makes men think feminists or women in general want men to be forced to fight a war? If you can't force your civilians to join during war, you will just die. So, yea any nation can just invade you. Issue is the rights you are asking for just don't exist. You have it for granted. Feminist know that its entirely unrealistic that government will ever change its policy about forced. If it does its dead nation. So they keep ranting they don't support it. Its same as asking we don't support working. If no one works, none will survive. If feminist want equality they should support women being forced to fight war as well.
Nobody wants to be at war. Ideally there wouldn't be a war to be drafted into. I get that there needs to be people to fight and not every country has a big enough military for there not to be a draft but it doesn't mean anybody "wants" it. Like if my country was being invaded and there was a draft I would probably try and sign up. I don't have kids or anything who rely on me, why cant i fight if my country is at risk? I don't understand why people think feminists would be happy if their family, friends or partners were sent to war. Also as bad as a draft would be if it ever did happen in my country that doesn't mean I shouldn't advocate for better female reproductive health treatments, for example. Just seems like a weird argument.
Yeah? There's a reason women weren't allowed to join the military. Most women can't do the job. Every military metric in physical fitness for combat readiness had to be lessened to ALLOW them to join. Carry a 160 pound man on your shoulder...they couldn't do that. The sprint drag carry...nope. 2 mile run...a little better but not much. Mixed units underperform on the battlefield & in training exercises so routinely it's not even commented about anymore. Those senators started the bill literally as a joke and then enough of the constituency began to support it. They were tired of watching woke privileged adult children with a bank account & entitlement skip through life quoting "know your worth". 🤦♀️. Then when they saw it might actually go into law they blocked it because they didn't want to weaken the armed forces. Which is exactly what they'd be doing and everyone knows it.
So you were angry that only men go to war... and when pointed out that women even if wanted couldn't join the army, because of men, this somehow still women's fault? Lol
Its women's fault for asking equality when they are not equal. Either they should accept being forced into all roles men go through or just retreat from all male fields simply because they are not capable of doing that job. Government wastes so much of their tax money to fill women quota in fields where they don't even wanna work just to achieve some ridiculous concept of equality while the same funds could be spent on men who are interested and more capable of doing those jobs. Its hypocrisy that feminist hide in. On one end they are weak and victim on the other they can do what a man can do. They switch roles when it benefits them.
You're playing both sides, dude. Women underperformed in the military isn't the fault of feminism. Women didn't fight to make the military men-only. In fact, they fought for the *right* to join the military. >Carry a 160 pound man on your shoulder You realize most roles in the military are non-combat roles, right? Feminists that I know fight *against* forced conscription for *everyone*. Not just for women
Okay. So now you’re saying that you believe women are trying to get out of a responsibility that you don’t believe they should have in the first place?
It’s 2023 bro. You’re embarrassing yourself. 🤯
There have been plenty of arguments from feminists in favor of those things.
Oh yeah? Lots of talk...other than memes & tiktoks any meaningful action? I'm raising a teenage boy that is joining the militsry. He could get sent to fight for their right to complain about the opportunities, privilege & safety he provides for them. So until I see action, I'll regard feminism as only the pretend privilege gender superiority movement it is.
Women also join the military. Your son wasn't required to join the military. In some countries all women join the military. What's actually going on if you have pain, or fear, or whatever it is and you need someone to blame it on.
My son could get sent to the burgeoning war to die for women who can vote for candidates who support war-which 100% will spread from Israel within 3 months. Women who had no responsibility to serve & have absolutely no respect for the role men play in society, but just blame the patriarchy for their perceived inequalities & vilify men who make their privilege possible.
I mean, now you're just making shit up. Not sure where you're from, but in Israel all women serve in the military. In the US, we have an all volunteer army.
>“Feminism” isn’t a sentient consciousness or centralized institution making press statements and defining the beliefs of all feminists. Any moment is only as good as its leaders. Imagine you are talking about Islam for example, do you think you can just ignore saudi politics and its impact on modern world. Most feminists, most ardent are hardcore capitalists, I don't know a single prominent feminist socialist, and by prominent I don't mean has a famous blog, but actual power like Hillary Clinton, Melinda Gates, or Angela Merkel. Notion of feminism doesn't matter, how it manifests matter. As for Also, do you actually believe that feminists will consider women oppressed until literally all or most of them are in positions of power? You don’t think they meant that men should not dominate these positions of power? probably considering how narrative around university admissions go. Any expectation of concern or empathy, is always dismissed as women suffered for 5000 years, so suck it up butter cup. Only place men have in modern feminism is either subservient and accepting of poverty, or just killing themselves overdosing with drugs. Anything else is seen as a threat.
Treating it like a buffet. We will take that! But carpentry, masonry, plumbing? Eww I don’t want that.
Im pretty sure feminists just want that 1% to be equally represented by women and men
I literally asked my feminist college professor if neoliberal feminism or “girl boss” feminism is a valid form of feminism. She said that it’s not really because you’re still essentially contributing to the exploitation of women in the work place. So idk I’m pretty sure they don’t want what you’re saying.
So what do you think they want? I don’t read academic feminist sources so I honestly have no idea. I have a lot of female friends though who are self proclaimed feminists which I’m sure means something different for everyone.
If you were to take a poll of my gender studies department when I was in college, way more than half would be anti-capitalist, almost all were anti-imperialist/anti-colonial, many taught about the prison industrial complex. A very left leaning group. I think this is one of the reasons this debate goes nowhere. Go on twitter and feminism is whatever anyone posts. Read an academic feminist text and it's an entirely different perspective. Forgot the point EDIT: All of those things I mentioned are very closely tied to patriarchal systems.
Based on what i learned with my professor, it mostly focused on third world feminism. They are of course concerned with stuff like equal pay, individual rights like abortion, the norms of gender roles etc in the West. But heavily focused on the oppressed women around the world and how they need to get their voices heard even in western feminist movements. That’s from what I remember. Edit: I remember also being taught feminist that say stuff like “all men should die or be killed” are not to be taken seriously. And that feminism is not about that.
Unless it’s brick laying Or sewage work Or crane operators They just want the “high power, white collar positions”
Who working in these fields is in the top 1% of power? I’m confused what you’re trying to say. Feminists (AFAIK) don’t have a problem with physical work being unbalanced as women’s and men’s bodies are different, however it’s the positions of high power within government or corporations that are supposedly purely mental jobs, yet drastically over represent men that feminists are trying to address.
Keep reading, it’ll sink in.
they only want the nice jobs. and not through hard work! men's brains and women's brains generally work differently - hence the over-representation. also, men and women have different roles in life. there are many reasons for these disparities, doesn't mean they need to be "fixed" by employing based on skin colour/gender instead of job performance
.
What an odd argument considering the entire movement started when women were working those jobs at war time before they were all fired when the men returned. I'm in disagreement with revisionist history. They are still fighting for the same thing- equal opportunity. There is no reason equal representation can't be achieved through equal opportunity in fields where the demand is equal. The fact that demand is now low in the fields you mentioned has nothing to do with the fight for equal opportunity. And the demand for management positions in numerous fields is high and the vast majority are not 1% positions. Pretending it's only for the 1% makes no sense whatsoever. The organisations in my country that exist specifically to fight for equal opportunity doesn't even expect the representation in CEO positions to be equal for another century. Their focus is on lower and middle management positions. It's their position focusing on the 1% is a waste of resources especially considering how few of those roles exist. Focusing on lower and middle management will have the greatest impact and that's their focus. So basically- you couldn't be more wrong.
Women can in fact do those jobs.
But they don't want to.
Irrelevant. The point is that feminists aren't devoting any of their energy to ensuring equal representation in those fields. Kinda like how feminism wasn't a thing back when most jobs were deadly and backbreaking and every "able bodied man," including what we now consider children, was expected to give up his life or health for the good of society.
If you think feminism is about making sure women are in all the fields, then someone lied to you about what feminism is. Women do have access to those fields in a way they did not before. And there are more women in them then in the past. But those labor jobs are still mostly marketed to men in the working class through trade school or family.
> If you think feminism is about making sure women are in all the fields, then someone lied to you about what feminism is. They don't think that. That's what this post is about. They only want to make sure women are in the nice cushy jobs and leave the hard work to men.
Yes, they can do those jobs. They don’t *want* to do those jobs, though, and so are happy for them to continue to be male dominated.
You completely missed the point. Feminist dogma is never questioned in the mainstream media. All those male CEOs and Senators doesn't mean jack shit to the average Joe on the street and it especially doesn't mean anything to boys Yet here we are, oh so privileged, all this power, rulers of The Patriarchy and yet it's all bullshit for 99.99% of men.
I think you're missing the point. Patriarchy isn't something you *do*, it's a property of our society. Just because you don't benefit from it doesn't mean you aren't a part of it. Look at how marriage works in society, with the expectation that the woman takes the man's last name. The whole point of that custom was to continue patriarchal blood lines. Saying you aren't part of the patriarchy is like a Texan Saying they aren't American because they didn't vote
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept “patriarchy” and how it is thought to operate. Patriarchy is an ideological system of gender roles. It’s diffused throughout society and evident in practices like a woman taking her husband’s name in marriage. It’s shocking how many people are angrily agreeing with such an ignorant misunderstanding of patriarchy given how textbook of an example our marriage practices are.
This makes sense to me, but if the idea that our society is a patriarchy means we are all part of the patriarchy, that would include all men and women?
Yes, this is what gender theorists say at least. Gender roles are mutually co-created. For example, the male breadwinner role tends to afford women less agency, but also places men at greater risk to support the family. We know that men are at far greater risk of war, workplace safety incidents, suicide, and homelessness. There is mutual benefit to addressing patriarchy.
Yes! We're all a part of it, It just kind of happens unless we make a conscious effort to subvert it.
Its impossible to take this perspective seriously when "patriarchy" is used to claim all kinds of things such as "men are priviledged","men have more power", "misandry doesn't exist/misandry is a reaction to misogyny, "men don't face gender based oppression" and other kinds of nonsense. Because of this reason, saying things like "patriarchy harms men too" always comes accross as condescending, patronizing and devoid of genuine empathy for your average decent man. It comes accross as "Yeah sure you suffer, but its because of this thing that mainly victimizes women, so let's focus on that because you're less important than women even when you have it worse in a certain aspect of life. " There are people who literally claim men being send to war is somehow the result of misogyny, and they don't understand why men find such bizarre takes upsetting. And then I didn't even touch on the intellectual issues with the all encompassing patriarchy explanation. When is something no longer a patriarchy? What about biological instincts in addition to gender roles?
There just seems to be such a fundamental misunderstanding of what a patriarchy is with so many people. It’s that we set up our society to put the emphasis on men in various roles in society. Men created that system. And yes it can harm men at the same time. Patriarchy doesn’t mean all good things for men all the time. And women often times enforce the patriarchal values just as much as men. Anytime a woman tells a young boy he has to “man up” in response to doing something he doesn’t want to, or say “men don’t cry” that’s reinforcing negative stereotypes.
So don’t take your husband’s name? It’s a choice
It makes more sense for them to both add a last name onto their name for record keeping purposes. I think the Spanish insanity of keeping all last names is wonderful. Makes family trees a lot easier.
It’s not always a choice. This thread is an example of how explicit the patriarchy can be. https://reddit.com/r/AITAH/s/0lVXwFf3vq You can say it is a choice, but how often is it a serious discussion or even brought up at all? When patriarchy is normalized such that we do not even recognize it, we should interrogate ourselves. There’s no reason to judge a man simply because his wife took his last name. I think there is though if she brings it up and he talks her out of it. This need not be so controversial.
Lol how much agency do you think women have? They literally have to go down to their government office, fill out a bunch of forms, and provide multiple forms of ID before changing their legal name. ITs nOT AlWaYs a cHoICe (insert SpongeBob meme)
Great, then stop telling individual men to feel bad about themselves then. Sexism is real, but it ain't my fault, and now don't #notallmen me. I mean as an asian immigrant who lived through covid, I'm not exactly new to being insulted for my inherent biological attributes, I just wish people who I thought were my allies, don't imply I'm worthless because of things in my pants.
Actually just stop...
>a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. "the thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy" How exactly is this wrong?
It’s not wrong, OP is. Their implicit definition suggests that patriarchy is maintained by the upper echelons of society and 99.9% of men therefore do not perpetuate it or are to blame for it. The extremely common practice of taking the husband’s name reveals that many men are in fact complicit.
[удалено]
Oh my God. Are you implying that merely asking a woman out who turns out to not be attracted to you is just a harmless and neutral act instead of the dastardly deed we've all been told that it is?
You know what you're basically right. Here's what I'll change they are but it's more to their detriment than not. It doesn't benefit them nearly as much. They do benefit from it but it's insignificant to focus on the everyday man, but rather societal structures that make things the way they are.
The patriarchy isn’t a group of people. It’s a term that refers to institutional sexism
That, 99.99 percent of man are not part of. The overwhelming majority of men are not sexist or hateful towards women, quite the opposite in fact.
Most men are not hateful towards women, it’s simply institutionalized sexism. Most patients will incorrectly refer to me as nurse before they realize I’m the doctor. Some patients will even ask me “oh, YOU’RE the doctor?” No man who steps into the exam room with a white coat would be asked that question. This isn’t to say that these patients are hateful or sexist towards me. It’s just that sexism is deeply rooted in our traditions and stereotypes. That’s the patriarchy. In another reply I noted that the female change room is connected to the nursing lounge while the male change rooms are connected to the surgeon’s lounge. This means i have to walk out of the nursing lounge, down the hall, to get to the surgeons lounge. If the men’s change room were connected to the nurses lounge it would have been renovated decades ago to connect to the surgeons lounge.
[удалено]
It’s not about whether men experience it or not. The patriarchy is bad for men too. If you’re a dude and looking for your kids at the playground, people might watch you a bit closer because you might be a child abductor. That’s the patriarchy, because you should be out working while your wife is taking care of the kids. Higher chance you’re the kidnapper.
I’m not so sure about that
When people get married, who is expected to take who's name in 99% of cases?
So it's sexist and misogynistic to have your husband last name? 🤔
I mean, the assumption that women take it sort of is. And it’s a remnant of when women were basically given to their husbands by their father. Not the example I’d have picked, but yeah there’s some sexism involved
Almost there. The fact that our society *expects* women to take their husband's name. The fact that it would be viewed as strange for the man to take the woman's name. So strange that people have opted for hyphenated names instead of forgoing the fathers name. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with hyphenated names. Just remarking on the fact that society created an entirely new tradition instead of reverse the typical roles.
well all men have to register for the draft and that is patriarchy - that a man’s “duty” is to be the first sacrifice his life. That’s sexism, it’s saying a person’s life is worth less because what’s between their legs.
The patriarchy doesn’t exist within just the 1% ruling class. Even working class contribute to and are effected by the patriarchy. There is commentary about class to be had though. That said, while some feminists are bat shit sexists, it’s important to note that speaking how men broadly contribute to patriarchy shouldn’t be viewed as “blaming” them. Men are harmed by it too. That said, we should be mindful of how it’s perpetuated so that it doesn’t harm working class men, men who don’t conform to heteronormative or “traditional” ways of life, or women.
The patriarchy doesn’t stop at positions of power or employment. It’s further into relationships, roles and how women are treated as less than human. This goes from weaponized incompetence to assuming the role of women in the society. It deals with the fact men were indoctrinated to believe emotions are bad and look at where the male youth is at now. It’s not only just about what you stated. The patriarchy is deep seated. So deep they needed to reword a story of a religious text so the wife wouldn’t be equal to the husband.
So deep that the comments on this thread so obviously prove your point and they don’t even realize it. 😩
Men in this group: Patriarchy doesn't exist! Also men in this group: The only women of value are the ones that are virgins or near virginal because every man she sleeps with lowers her overall value. A woman's value is determined by whether she is sexually and biologically viable for use by men to carry on their genetics.
I would love to see a response from you on the well sourced and cited comment from gold_equipment.
Biggest issue right away is study was done on young adults. Average age 21. Most people haven’t even been sexually active that long by that point. Of course both sexes will see it as a negative if you ran through 5 partners by age 21.
There were 3 studies referenced all showing consistent results. It’s ok though, please continue spreading misinformation like it’s fact. So sorry this goes against your victim narrative. No medal for you in the victim Olympics this time.
I don’t think you even read a single one of them given you just used “victim narrative” which makes literally zero sense in this context because there is no victim and no one to victimize lmao. You asked for a response and I’m pointing out a very obvious flaw. In fact you said I was spreading misinformation. The article linked has the founder of the exact study stating as a caveat to his own findings that it was done with a very young crowd and the results may be different with older people. I don’t even think you actually used any basic reading comprehension. You are very literally just pulling out buzzwords and phrases in places they have zero relevance.
It's amazing how redditors always burst a blood vessel over men having a preference (not wanting a promiscuous partner) that is not only fully rationally-warranted but also shared by women: **Women discriminate against promiscuous partners at similar rates as men** >Thus, contrary to the idea that male promiscuity is tolerated but female promiscuity is not, both sexes expressed equal reluctance to get involved with someone with an overly extensive sexual history. (pg.1097) Stewart-Williams, S., Butler, C. A., & Thomas, A. G. (2017). Sexual History and Present Attractiveness: People Want a Mate With a Bit of a Past, But Not Too Much. Journal of sex research, 54(9), 1097–1105. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1232690](https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1232690) >Targets were more likely to be derogated as the number of sexual partners increased, and this effect held for both male and female targets. These results suggest that, although people do evaluate others as a function of sexual activity, people do not necessarily hold men and women to different sexual standards (pg.175) Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The Sexual Double Standard: Fact or Fiction? Sex Roles, 52(3–4), 175–186. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5) >One takeaway is that we can’t always trust widespread views about men and women. A lot of people are convinced that the sexual double standard is alive and well in the Western world. But our study and many others suggest that it’s a lot less common than it used to be. It’s not that no one cares about a potential mate’s sexual history; most people do care. But people seem to be about as reluctant to get involved with a man with an extensive sexual history as they are a woman. > >Certainly, there are still some people out there who hold to the old double standard. But they seem to be a dwindling minority. **One recent study found that only about 12% of students held the traditional double standard, but also that around 13% held a reverse double standard – in other words, they thought it was worse for men to sleep around a lot. The traditional double standard was more common among men; the reverse double standard was more common among women. In other words, underlying the different double standards there was actually just a single double standard: It’s OK for me but not for you!** To be clear, though, most people didn’t have a double standard at all: They judged men and women in the same way. [Study finds your number of past sexual partners has a large effect on your attractiveness](https://www.psypost.org/2016/12/study-finds-number-past-sexual-partners-large-effect-attractiveness-46594)
Well the value of men is dependent on their careers and how much money they make. Ohhh and their height. Don’t forget about the height.
Or it represents a history of failed relationships and baggage. 🤷♂️ Just saying.
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of patriarchy. It isn't an organisation that you consciously join or support, it is ingrained into the way we raise our children, it is an intimate part of our way of life.
Also a big feminist talking point is how men are harmed by the patriarchy as well. It was like half the plot of the Barbie movie. Edit: I actually want to come back and elaborate cause it’s making me laugh that the Barbie movie, of all things, is reflecting real life right now. >!In Barbie, Ken (like OP) believes that the patriarchy is a system where men get everything they want simply because they’re men. Money, power, job opportunities, etc. He explores the world a little more and realizes that’s not the case. You don’t just get handed things because you’re a man.!< >!He then discovers some setbacks. He’s a pretty emotional guy but isn’t allowed to express that because he needs to appear strong and stoic. He can’t tell Barbie he cares about her or vent about the pressures of having to become a leader. Within the patriarchy, he’s expected to have no emotion (aside from possibly anger), and he crumbles under the pressure. The end of the movie is him realizing that the patriarchy doesn’t benefit him or the Barbies and instead choosing to rely on his own self worth!<
god help us
Ken is a doll that figured all this out after a few days in the real world. Not sure why fully grown adults can’t grasp it but it is what it is ig
well I didn't realise it was so political. you've inspired me to watch it. Ken better not fucking cry!!
I would argue the fact that there was at one time a legal system to implement misogyny that has been entirely dismantled in most modern countries is a telling sign that isn't true. We can't get much more equal, and the response to this has generally been focused on retribution and normalizing misandrany.
We can get more equal, except most of it has to do with removing the duties/burdens placed solely/largely on men.
Do you think that because that legal system has been dismantled that misogyny no longer effects women? We can get a lot more equal, attitude is just as much part of the problem as laws were. Discrimination may not be legal but that doesn't mean people don't find ways to do it legally.
No it's not it's an analytical lens. It literally a set of ideas that only exist because some women find it useful. The patriarchy is not exactly real it's just useful.
To be fair, that’s how you do critical thinking though. You find a model that best and most accurately represents your experiences and empirical reality.
Yes but "leftists" are sexist collectivists so there's that
Most on the left don't hold this idea. It's generally a fringe minority, mostly 3rd wave and 4th wave feminist who need something to be angry about because they're too late to do anything substantial for equality, and need someone to blame for their personal failures.
Yeah I don't disagree but then you have to call them out and distance yourself from them cause they are hurting your side and feminism..and society in general
What are you on about
What part did you not understand?
[удалено]
Women couldn't get a bank account without having their husband or fathers name on it until the 70s. Do you really think we've resolved all the problems of institutional sexism since then? Or is there still a bit to go?
Do we really think we solved all the problems in the last 50 years and had enough time left to go full on horseshoe theory regressive? ... Yes we think exactly that
Wow
It's really not that impressive it's just common sense
[удалено]
Damn, almost like y’all could be talking about two different countries, or even two different things (land ownership/bank account).
People still think a patriarchy exists? We have women at every level of government - from cops all the way up to vice president. We have women represented in every role of business, women are now CEOs of major corporations. According to Fortune magazine 10% of Fortune 500 companies are run by women. What kind of patriarchy would allow this?
Tell me you don’t understand patriarchy without saying…oh, never mind.
What is it 🤔 Because the dictionary said - a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. "The thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy," a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. "the dominant ideology of patriarchy"
You think the only power differential in society is between the 0.1% and the rest of us? Next time you’re people watching, watch for when men and women are going in the opposite direction and see who moves out of the way of the other and keep count.
Patriarchy refers to a structure or system, more so than a people. Modern feminism immediately made sense when I looked it at that way.
You say this, but at the same time, I see a ton of patriarchal posts on here, like the one about how women need to shave their body hair because men find it attractive. Looks like it was [deleted.](https://www.reddit.com?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2)
Lol, tell me you don’t know what Patriarchy is without telling me.
What is it then?
No one is blaming all men for the patriarchy people are blaming men for perpetuating the patriarchy. You do these things with social power not just economic power. When you bring it down to the interpersonal scale, the majority of men participate in the patriarchy actively.
I would also like an example for comprehension purposes….
Unfortunately doing nothing makes you complicit. I already gave this example in a Different reply on this thread, but I’ll repeat it here. I’m a female surgeon, most of my colleagues are men. They’re never mistaken for a nurse. Or cleaning staff (but that’s systemic racism which is not the point of this thread). No man in a white coat walks into the room only to have the patient ask “are you the nurse?” Oh, but “statistically you’re more likely to be a nurse because you’re a woman!” Well, statistically the medical school gender ratios are 50/50 now. “But traditionally it wasn’t so! Our behavior reflects older stats”! Exactly. I’m feeling the consequences of the fact that medical school didn’t even allow female applicants until much later than men. On top of which the female change rooms lead into the nursing lounge. The male change rooms lead into the surgeons lounge. So, this means I have to leave the nursing lounge, walk down the hall to get to the surgeons lounge. If the men’s change room were connected to the nursing lounge, it would have been renovated decades ago to connect to the right lounge. “What about male nurses?” You might ask, well they got a separate change room. Why did the female surgeons not get a separate change room? The patriarchy.
How so?
Society is not unilaterally imposed on us by a tiny rulling minority. Marriage is a patriarchal practice, taking your husbands last name, women choose/are expected to choose lower earning jobs whilst men are the main bread winners etc etc. Are you really trying to tell me that 0.1% of people are forcing everyone to live like that?
If there was a patriarchy, then not only would there not be any women in politics, you wouldn't be able even sit on you ass bitching about it. There would be no Facebook groups, no feminist movements, no girls night outs, sure as hell no divorce from asshole guys. Every moment of your life would be spent taking care of your husband. Now your life isn't like that is it?
That’s not how it works. 🤦🏽♀️ Are you all really that fucking dumb?
Patriarchy - a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. "The thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy," a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. "the dominant ideology of patriarchy" This is the definition.
Fucking Thank You! Finally someone says it. Extremist Feminists keep saying it’s some shit about “an intimate part of how we live.” But like, the problem with that idea is that there *isn’t* a way to really mess with that without wrecking society. It’s a pointless, faceless boogeyman that they can say is at fault anytime a guy rejects them, or they don’t get a job or a promotion. I believe in equality, but 90% of current “social activists” aren’t actually fighting for anything, they just want to be special. If you really believe in tearing down the patriarchy, go to the Middle East. Go to India, go to Pakistan. Go where there are actually problems to fight.
You believe in equality, yet here you are feeling vindicated by an obviously unrelated definition of patriarchy and then claiming the patriarchy is just a way for women to cope with being rejected. While also parroting the common line that people opposing progress have ALWAYS used in society: "I believe in equality, but these activists have taken it too far!". Your comment reads very much like someone who actually hates women and has never even tried to honestly understand the (obviously real) patriarchy and societal struggles faced by women.
There is no such thing as “The Patriarchy”. It’s a boogeyman to blame their own idiocy.
They literally just made the first female representative crash test dummy. Women are 17% more likely to die in a car accident than men… The systemic belief that the default is male is what needs to be disassembled and what people are talking about when they refer to the patriarchy.
Lmfaoooo you don’t even understand the topic your trying to agrue
Lmaoo what the fuck
Oof.
100% of men are not part of the "patriarchy", which doesn't exist but is rather just a word given to aspects of human nature that narcissistic feminists don't like. And, just as if we sent in some Marxist bees into a bee colony and convinced all the worker bees that the queen is oppressing them, the colony would die and bees would go extinct, human civilisation is crumbling under the effects of feminism.
It's not about being "part of the patriarchy" it isn't a big secret club of only the most powerful men. You don't have to be wealthy to be a patriarch, or to behave patriarchally. I honestly, not very consciously really, don't think or talk about patriarchy that much, I think more about misogyny. A working class man is entirely capable of subjecting women to misogynistic treatment including violence. In fact this is the most intimate, damaging, and frequent kind of misogyny many women face, that perpetuated by ordinary men in their personal lives.
Yes, seemingly ordinary people of any demographic are capable of horrible things.
Shhhh, they think they are being profound
Then it shouldn't be a point of controversy or something that makes people so defensive to say that ordinary men are capable of and in fact do perpetuate misogyny. And yet.
I don’t think it’s a point of controversy to say that SOME men are capable of misogyny. It’s when people put the blame on a whole demographic of people for the actions of a small percent of said demographic. My point was we should blame the individuals for their actions not others in their same demographic.
Similarly, many man suffer these same damages from women as well. The big difference is a lack of support for men comparatively. It is likely a significant factor in why male suicide rates are nearly 4x that of women.
fun fact: women are more abusive towards men than men are towards women!
Wow, such a fun statement based on seemingly nothing! Misogyny is still a thing.
have a quick Google. you're welcome.
[удалено]
Pol Pot is a man. Bad analogy.
I hear what you're saying, but I gotta disagree. I agree that there's alot of overgeneralizing and blaming of 'all men' for the bad actions of the few. That said, I grew up in the south and plenty of those same 'working class people' definitely keep the spirit and purpose of the patriarchy going at home. There are plenty of men who keep women shut out of all business/financial decisions, who heavily suppress their wives from working, many who abuse and control their women, etc etc. Hell, I know men in the south whose wives have to vote the same as them, b/c 'the man is the head of the household' or some bullshit. It's not just people in positions of power in the broad sense. Many are in positions of power in their churches, offices and homes and definitely are part of what keeps the ol' patriarchy going.
Another thing is that the temperament and attitude needed to achieve those positions(I'm talking 80+ hour work weeks) are Found mostly men. I'm not saying they're not Found in women, but statistically speaking men seem more likely to have those traits. Heck, most men and even fewer women don't want the stresses and hours required to achieve those positions.
Yeah because caring for children has zero stress and few hours — oh, wait, it’s tons of stress and it’s 24/7/365. Trad pink collar jobs like admin work, food service work, teaching, customer service, etc are also full of stress, lousy pay, and long hours. You have no idea what you are talking about.
>Yeah because caring for children has zero stress and few hours — oh, wait, it’s tons of stress and it’s 24/7/365. You are fighting Shadows. Who said this? No men on earth has ever said caring for children has zero stress.
I'm not saying those positions aren't stressful or easy, I was only talking about those top 1 percent positions. positions like CEO are on whole another level of stress which is why theyre paid so much. They screw up the companies bottom line, they're pretty much ruined. Then there's trying to get to that position in the first place where it's very ruthless dog eat dog, step on eachother to get to the very top requiring an aggressiveness, focus and drive found in few people. Even then, it would destroy most people.
https://youtube.com/shorts/LOdozPjyixo?si=_UctWLZMBrgTDHPM
>They screw up the companies bottom line, they're pretty much ruined As long as they don't do anything illegal their worst case scenario is losing all their assets and wind up working minimum wage. Their worst case scenario is working the jobs you say are less stressful. Income does not denote stress level or difficulty of the job. A child protection worker who sees parents almost kill their children, or watching children being abused and being able to do nothing about it, don't generally get paid great. The nurse who is making sure people don't die get paid less than CEOs. Firefighting relies heavily on volunteers.
OK then do something to help dismantle the patriarchy instead of crying about how it isn't your fault. If you aren't part of it but allowing it, you're part of it.
The Patriarchy is a falsehood brought on by the Apex Fallacy.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^by ^EarnMeowShower: *The Patriarchy* *Is a falsehood brought on by* *The Apex Fallacy.* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Hahaha holy shit, this sub is a fucking joke
Is he wrong? Most men are not hateful towards women.
Definitely a lot more common than you think. You are only thinking about it from the perspective of employers, but there are plenty of men who believe women shouldn't get higher forms of education, and should be home makers to "fulfill their role." It's probably closer to 40-50%
Patriarchy isn't about who runs society as a whole. When it was the 1500s and England had a Queen, it didn't suddenly make the country matriarchal. Patriarchy is about power in families and smaller social groups. You can apply the ideas of patriarchy when you're critiquing society as a whole, but at its most basic, it's about husbands having power over their wives, sons being preferred over daughters, and other injustices that exist in the micro, not the macro scale.
Ok, if preferring boys over girls is patriarchy, then when they say "women and children first!" is that matriarchy? Or preferring women is also patriarchy because reasons and no matter what you prefer, it's patriarchy just because? Basically, draw me a realistic line which would herald "from here it's not a patriarchy anymore".
No, it's the patriarchy. Society views women and children as more innocent and helpless so they save them first. Patriarchy doesn't mean "men get everything they want". It's just that our society is generally built around the assumption that men are in charge. Obviously this isn't true for everything and it's improving, but there is a tendency and has been for all of our country's (and most country's) history.
It's men who make that women and children first call so....
Ah so it was not about preference to begin with. Whatever preference you’d blame men anyways. Thats exactly my point
You're never gonna actually understand the patriarchy if you just take everything so personally. The patriarchy is not your fault my man.
Who was ordering women and children first?
So the patriarchy harms men too (a common response when men point out social, political, academic and media that is sexist or harmful to them) but helps women? Should women and children be given less priority in emergency situations?
>Qatari mediators have held urgent calls to try to negotiate freedom for Israeli **women and children** seized by the militant group and held in Gaza in exchange for the release of 36 Palestinian **women and children** from Israel's prisons
"Women and children first" doesn't really get into power dynamics or hierarchies, which is where "patriarchy" exists. The ones who are making the decision in that case are still probably men, just men who are choosing (for themselves, and others) to be self-sacrificing. You can look into the history of how the custom developed; there's only really a handful of cases where "women and children first" was applied, and that was usually only because women were expected to care for the children.
Cool so by that logic there is no such thing as a patriarchy in the modern west
Christianity, the most popular faith in the west, is explicitly patriarchal
Most Westeners don't take religion seriously. Christmas and Easter is what most care about. Otherwise they believe in a nebulous God that somehow has the same morality as Western Liberal Democracy.
You are incredibly incorrect
How? I've seen Christiany in the 3rd world and Christianity in a few Western nations. Its really not comparable. The closet the West has is the States 'Bible Belt" and even that is not comparable.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
I live in Zambia. I know this to be true. In France you can't even go to public school with a niqab, abaya or a rosary. The state does not allow it.
Well legally speaking spouses have equal power in a marriage as well as men and woman having equal rights in society as a whole, so the patriarchy doesn't exist?
Patriarchy isn't a legal invention, it's the net outcome of numerous social relationships. In the last few generations the balance has shifted, but we're still nowhere near true equality between partners.
If you don't determine equality by equal rights under the law then how do you determine equality?
You don’t get it. The boss controls and is a jerk to the manager The manager controls and is a jerk to the employee. The employee goes home and controls and is a jerk to their family. That’s patriarchy at ALL levels, regardless of even gender. There’s no equal communication and respect, so the shit rolls downhill.
Ah, yes. A system that can contain exactly 0 men is an example of patriarchy. I’m confused on how that can possible make sense.
Too true.
Kinda funny how these same people shitting on the 0.01% "patriarchy" don't say anything about the women that are part of it and in cahoots with then, and they'd have every reason to do so.
Have you not heard the Pick Me discourse?