Thread: DO you think there is a patriarchy in the U.S?

^^ Loosely indeed.

For me, Wikipedia plus feminism does not equal an accurate definition, particularly in this case. I'll stick to the OED, I think!

Good point, regardless...

Originally Posted by cmind

Patriarchy is an idea thought of by second wave feminists as an ex-post-facto justification to subjugate men. So I voted no.

I'm voting no but that's because everyone already thinks they know they answer, lol. It's an argument with skewed "empirical facts" backing it up, pretty much like any other controversial matter. I'm not saying the facts it uses are therefore useless, but unless I can see many transparent studies backing you guys up I'm going to stick with saying it isn't as much a thing as everyone making it out to be. OP, I think it would have helped if you had not only laid out an accurate, succinct description of patriarchy and then posit whether it is or isn't a good thing. bad things, or at least capable of both. Issues, especially like this aren't cut and dry so I refuse to try it as such except in regards to anything scientifically related to it.

Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue

lol

So what's "matriarchy" then? When a woman is TOO bossy at home? : D

Funny as the post is, it is sad that you can make it, and that it be funny at all. Nothing against you, just society Ophelia.

Originally Posted by snoop

I'm voting no but that's because everyone already thinks they know they answer, lol. It's an argument with skewed "empirical facts" backing it up, pretty much like any other controversial matter. I'm not saying the facts it uses are therefore useless, but unless I can see many transparent studies backing you guys up I'm going to stick with saying it isn't as much a thing as everyone making it out to be. OP, I think it would have helped if you had not only laid out an accurate, succinct description of patriarchy and then posit whether it is or isn't a good thing. bad things, or at least capable of both. Issues, especially like this aren't cut and dry so I refuse to try it as such except in regards to anything scientifically related to it.

What I said are facts though, 80% of all leadership positions in US government is held by men. Those are totally objective and verifiable numbers. There isn't any doubt in that at all, since we can simply count them.

Originally Posted by Alric

What I said are facts though, 80% of all leadership positions in US government is held by men. Those are totally objective and verifiable numbers. There isn't any doubt in that at all, since we can simply count them.

I'm not seeing how that proves anything. You would also need to demonstrate that women, on average, want to get into politics (and spend the time, money, and effort) at least as much as men. Because if they just don't have political ambitions, then that explains the statistic. Sure, you got your Hillary Clinton, but where are all the women running for governor, mayor, councilor, alderman, etc? Except for the very high-profile positions of power, women are generally not that interested.

Originally Posted by Alric

What I said are facts though, 80% of all leadership positions in US government is held by men. Those are totally objective and verifiable numbers. There isn't any doubt in that at all, since we can simply count them.

You didn't even investigate or explore what patriarchy is. Is it simply leadership positions held by men to you? Do figureheads count? What about indirect government manipulation (either us by them, or them by corporations--especially that last one, not an official office but still holds power--what about women with the pants in the relationship)? What about what cmind is saying? Don't try to make such a ghastly multi-shades-of-grey- controversy into something black and white please. I already mentioned this in my last post.

Originally Posted by Alric

The rich often have advantages over the poor, men over women, whites over minorities, Christians over non-Christians, straight over gay. There are many other factors as well. Since everyone is a unique individual, chances are you are going to have advantages in some areas and some disadvantageous in others. It makes it a complex subject. Things are better today than it was in the past, though we have a long way to go before everyone is treated equally.

Let me ask you this though. Your profile says you are male, so you can probably relate to this. If another man makes a comment saying you are girly, or feminine, or compares you to a woman in some way, do you find that insulting? Would you think it is meant to be an insult? In most situations, it would probably be taken in a negative way. Though you should ask yourself, why is being feminine seen as a negative thing?

If it is a mans honest opinion that I have feminine characteristics then so be it. I believe that if a man takes issue with being called feminine then he may be insecure about himself. I think the reason why being seen as feminine is negative to men is because of the stigma of being gay. When a guy is told he has feminine traits I think in his mind he is accused as being gay and now he must "prove" himself that he is not.

Originally Posted by Alric

Let me ask you this though. Your profile says you are male, so you can probably relate to this. If another man makes a comment saying you are girly, or feminine, or compares you to a woman in some way, do you find that insulting? Would you think it is meant to be an insult? In most situations, it would probably be taken in a negative way. Though you should ask yourself, why is being feminine seen as a negative thing?

I know it's not a question addressed for me but I don't think I could find myself caring about the fact that he called me girly or feminine. Maybe I get upset at what calling me that is meaning to do, such as try and lower my social status or something. I still probably wouldn't, but now you've brought up an interesting question.

Why is it a negative thing to be feminine? Although that makes me wonder if you simply mean a male acting feminine or if you are including females, and if you are also trying to pick apart the large amount of answer to that question. To leave it as simple as asking why it's negative to be feminine was like just about making that full step into wording things correctly to spark a really conversation, but not going that just one extra step. I'm not trying to be a dick by the way, I just had some girl the other day think I was acting rude toward her or the subject matter and so without even bothering to entertain the idea that she was wrong, proceeded to more of an ass out of herself trying to make an ass out of me. We all know what assuming does!

Originally Posted by cmind

I'm not seeing how that proves anything. You would also need to demonstrate that women, on average, want to get into politics (and spend the time, money, and effort) at least as much as men. Because if they just don't have political ambitions, then that explains the statistic. Sure, you got your Hillary Clinton, but where are all the women running for governor, mayor, councilor, alderman, etc? Except for the very high-profile positions of power, women are generally not that interested.

That's the issue though, for the most part women aren't interested in politics because it's traditionally a male-dominated field. It wasn't until very recently that we as a society started encouraging women to participate. We've created a culture where women don't typically talk about politics because it isn't really a part of their imagination (in the same way that guys don't typically talk about make-up because it has no place in our imagination). It's not that we intentionally keep women down, our culture has just developed in such a way that women are (in a sense) sent down one conveyor belt while men are sent on another. Our's leads to the top, while there's simply doesn't.

So wait if we are arguing the fact that there simply aren't women in politics because they don't want to be there, what's the issue? If they feel they are not being properly represented, then that's another story. I have a question now, since, Gavin, you have mostly pointed out that women aren't interested in political domain. Let me paraphrase Alric now here: "why is the government being a patriarchy a negative thing?"

cmind answered that pretty well, unless someone wants to talk about how they are being ignored and not accurately represented, the only thing wrong with patriarchy is that it seems to be run by men and not women so radical feminists have a problem with that.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

That's the issue though, for the most part women aren't interested in politics because it's traditionally a male-dominated field. It wasn't until very recently that we as a society started encouraging women to participate. We've created a culture where women don't typically talk about politics because it isn't really a part of their imagination (in the same way that guys don't typically talk about make-up because it has no place in our imagination). It's not that we intentionally keep women down, our culture has just developed in such a way that women are (in a sense) sent down one conveyor belt while men are sent on another. Our's leads to the top, while there's simply doesn't.

Maybe things are different wherever you live, but I went to school up here in Canada. Girls were never discouraged in any way, implicitly or explicitly, from political life. If anything, it was the boys who were discouraged. If you have any evidence of girls being turned away from leadership positions, I'd love to hear it. Because right now it sounds like you're just making stuff up. And once you say "it's cultural!", it becomes unfalsifiable.

Originally Posted by cmind

Maybe things are different wherever you live, but I went to school up here in Canada. Girls were never discouraged in any way, implicitly or explicitly, from political life. If anything, it was the boys who were discouraged. If you have any evidence of girls being turned away from leadership positions, I'd love to hear it. Because right now it sounds like you're just making stuff up. And once you say "it's cultural!", it becomes unfalsifiable.

You misunderstood my post, or rather, I probably could have worded that better.

I didn't mean to say that women are discouraged from participating, just that politics isn't presented as something that's inherently "for women." Discouraging them would be intentional, and we don't live in a society that intentionally undermines women.

Originally Posted by snoop

So wait if we are arguing the fact that there simply aren't women in politics because they don't want to be there, what's the issue?

It's not that women don't want to be involved with politics at all, just that there's a smaller number of women that are interested (or able to, for one reason or another) in participating than there are men. The reasons why the rest don't feel politically inclined are part of the issue.

Originally Posted by snoop

If they feel they are not being properly represented, then that's another story.

That's a given, no? If there are hardly any women in the system, then how is the system going to effectively represent the rest of the female population? It's similar to how city council members who have lived affluently can't advocate for the poorer communities within their city, simply because they have no real understanding of those environments based on real-world experience, just an abstract idea based on what they've read or what they've heard.

Originally Posted by snoop

I have a question now, since, Gavin, you have mostly pointed out that women aren't interested in political domain.

To reiterate, there are less women who have an interest in a political career than there are men, but women in general are impacted by the political decisions made by the executive just as much as the men are. So whether or not they're interested in a political career or even a political debate, they know that decisions that effect them personally are being made by someone who can't fully represent them.

Think of this way: For a time, the Black community in America wasn't politically inclined or politically mature in any conceivable way and, as a result, very few engaged in political affairs. That left the White majority free to pass legislature that was in their best interests, without understanding how it would affect the minority. Politics just wasn't something that the Black community concerned itself with until the Marcus Garvey Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Black Power Movement, etc. It wasn't until then, when African-Americans first witnessed leaders from their own communities raise a big hoopla over politics, that they realized the prime importance of their participation. It wasn't until then that the Black community demanded proper representation in positions of power. And it wasn't until then that any meaningful changes were made in society.

It seems kind of silly to think that women don't want to be in politics and don't want a say in how the country is ran. Women were banned from even voting. There are still women alive today who weren't allowed to vote due to their gender, and who grew up in a time where the idea of women in politics was ridiculed. Thinking that all the institutions that promoted politics as being for men only would disappear instantly in the moment they were allowed to vote is silly.

Seeing as how the US has a very long history of being a patriarchy and it was only a short time ago that women were even given a chance, I think it is pretty important to look at the old systems of patriarchy that still remain that might be causing the problem. Saying, they probably are just not interested is kind of a lazy answer.

Originally Posted by Alric

It seems kind of silly to think that women don't want to be in politics and don't want a say in how the country is ran. Women were banned from even voting. There are still women alive today who weren't allowed to vote due to their gender, and who grew up in a time where the idea of women in politics was ridiculed. Thinking that all the institutions that promoted politics as being for men only would disappear instantly in the moment they were allowed to vote is silly.

Seeing as how the US has a very long history of being a patriarchy and it was only a short time ago that women were even given a chance, I think it is pretty important to look at the old systems of patriarchy that still remain that might be causing the problem. Saying, they probably are just not interested is kind of a lazy answer.

Yeah, 100 years is such a short time. To be fair, we should wait until the next Mayan Baktun cycle for women to start to feel comfortable enough to want to participate more.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

I didn't mean to say that women are discouraged from participating, just that politics isn't presented as something that's inherently "for women."

I should stop here, because I'm actually having trouble understanding the meaning of this sentence. Are you saying that politics must now be explicitly for women only? What about men?

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Discouraging them would be intentional, and we don't live in a society that intentionally undermines women.

So our society unintentionally undermines women? If it's unintentional, why are we even talking about it? Clearly it's not the result of human agency and is just nature then, like women not having penises.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

It's not that women don't want to be involved with politics at all, just that there's a smaller number of women that are interested (or able to, for one reason or another) in participating than there are men.

I don't know what you mean by "able to", but yes there appears to be a smaller number of women who are interested. Are you saying that their choices are wrong?

Originally Posted by GavinGill

That's a given, no? If there are hardly any women in the system, then how is the system going to effectively represent the rest of the female population?

Women have the right to vote for whomever best represents them. Am I to be held responsible for (unintentionally??) making women vote for men who don't represent them (in your opinion, based solely on the gender of the politician, which is in itself very sexist)?

If women are under represented and need to be represented then they should choose to represent themselves. Blacks were a good example to bring up. They decided to start taking political office too and saw a difference, didn't they? Well, I guess that settles it, if women go out and represent themselves instead of wanting it handed to them then they will get what they want and deserve. Before the time that they take their futures into their own hands, they are going to have to deal with what they have got.

I'm not really a man of faith but I've got to say, God helps those who help themselves.

Originally Posted by snoop

If women are under represented and need to be represented then they should choose to represent themselves. Blacks were a good example to bring up. They decided to start taking political office too and saw a difference, didn't they? Well, I guess that settles it, if women go out and represent themselves instead of wanting it handed to them then they will get what they want and deserve. Before the time that they take their futures into their own hands, they are going to have to deal with what they have got.

I'm not really a man of faith but I've got to say, God helps those who help themselves.

Well, that's exactly what they are doing - with feminists (wherever they fall on political spectrum, be they moderate or radical) acting as the spearhead of the social movement.

Identifying the country as a patriarchy is part of the strategy- from there they can hammer out the details and clearly point out the qualities that make it a patriarchy, explain how it came about, come up with solutions, etc. Just like how the Black community first had to identify the government (or the "The White Man") as the oppressor during the Civil Rights Era, and then redefined themselves as "Black colonial subjects" of American Imperialism during the Black Power Era. That's how ideologies work - the agent/people identify the target/obstacle that stands in the way of the goal.

In this case: the agent = women, obstacle = patriarchy, goal = equal representation and treatment across the board (political power, economic power, etc.)
-------
@ cmind: I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to slip and slide around my posts or if you genuinely misunderstood, broseph. You've been nothing but cordial thus far so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter. Anyway, I'll respond to your post tomorrow when I have the time, I'm about to have dinner.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Well, that's exactly what they are doing - with feminists (wherever they fall on political spectrum, be they moderate or radical) acting as the spearhead of the social movement.

Wrong. What they are doing is trying to oppress men in the name of "gender equality". Unless of course you are referring to real feminists, but so few of them actually exist, let alone run for office themselves or encourage women to do it that what you're saying is only quasi-true (and barely at that). You don't need to start a radical movement to take part in political office. Make some connections, start off from the bottom (everyone has to), and then work your way up the ladder. There's no need to call anyone out about being oppressive or bigoted or any kind of bullshit like that. You run for office and make a political career for yourself, as simple as that.

Originally Posted by snoop

Wrong. What they are doing is trying to oppress men in the name of "gender equality". Unless of course you are referring to real feminists, but so few of them actually exist, let alone run for office themselves or encourage women to do it that what you're saying is only quasi-true (and barely at that). You don't need to start a radical movement to take part in political office. Make some connections, start off from the bottom (everyone has to), and then work your way up the ladder. There's no need to call anyone out about being oppressive or bigoted or any kind of bullshit like that. You run for office and make a political career for yourself, as simple as that.

I think we might be thinking of two different things when we say "feminists." You seem to be thinking of the ultra-militant types, while I'm referring to anyone who advocates for real gender equality with a focus on the problems faced by women (as opposed to people who strive for gender equality and focus on the problems faced by men).

Originally Posted by GavinGill

I think we might be thinking of two different things when we say "feminists." You seem to be thinking of the ultra-militant types, while I'm referring to anyone who advocates for real gender equality with a focus on the problems faced by women (as opposed to people who strive for gender equality and focus on the problems faced by men).

Yeah I believe we are. Unfortunately even in real life I have yet to meet a "real" feminist. In fact, on the internet is the only place I've met any, and still a large majority haven't been. It's overwhelmingly been women for the oppression of men, which is just as disgusting to me as men oppressing women, but even more so because they're hypocrites at the same time. Really it's probably the same as pro life vs pro choice people, and theists vs atheists. Real believers on both sides exist but are completely overshadowed by the masses and hordes of dumbasses waving around bigotry and hypocrisy like their banner.

Originally Posted by snoop

Really it's probably the same as pro life vs pro choice people, and theists vs atheists. Real believers on both sides exist but are completely overshadowed by the masses and hordes of dumbasses waving around bigotry and hypocrisy like their banner.

lmao, I think we can all toast to that. xD

Do you regularly ask people if they are feminist? I bet if you went around asking people you would find all sort of people who are nice and feminist and an even larger group who might not actively go out and do a lot of stuff but still fully support the ideals of feminism.

I think it is kind of like people who say they don't know any gay people. They just don't think they know any but statistically they probably know a bunch and might just not know it. You know feminist online because they are probably actively saying they are because they are discussing some issue. If you meet a feminist in real life they are not going to walk up to you and say, "Hey I am a feminist!" Just like people probably will not walk up to you and say they are an atheist or pro choice or anti abortion or gay or straight, or like rock an roll or enjoy line dancing or go bowling. It takes a little more effort to uncover how others think and feel.

You're right Alric, I don't typically go around asking people. How many times to atheists ask people if they believe in God and try and understand their point of view though? Most of the time you can expect to get poor results, they might even get rude or flat annoy you. So, I don't go out and ask, but the ones who claim they believe in it most are the ones that unfortunately get all my attention. Again, read my post to Gavin, I'm sure the real ones are grossly misrepresented but they don't do a very good job of keeping the militant misandrists out of their causes good name. They do not denounce them publicly and say they are wrong. More often than not, I even hear them agree with them because they at least share somewhat common interests and I'm guessing the real feminists are too afraid of losing their following or their base because they tell off the people who just want to oppress men.

How about the feminists that make bomb threats against Mens' Rights rallies? Why aren't the "real" feminists calling these people out? Surely they hurt the cause (assuming the cause isn't just misandry masquerading as "gender equality")?

They do it all the time. If someone threatens to blow people up, most feminist will pretty much agree and say those people are extreme and don't represent them at all. Which they don't, since that is an extremely rare thing that only a few individuals might do. At least I never heard of any radical feminist groups that are like Al Qaeda, have you?

Originally Posted by Alric

They do it all the time. If someone threatens to blow people up, most feminist will pretty much agree and say those people are extreme and don't represent them at all. Which they don't, since that is an extremely rare thing that only a few individuals might do. At least I never heard of any radical feminist groups that are like Al Qaeda, have you?

Why don't I ever see this on the news then? Or on the internet, on a well known website or something? I'm sure they do speak out against them some, but I have never heard any of these public denouncings. You might ask again if I've ever looked for them, and I can say no, but I've never looked to watch videos of other militant feminist garbage either and I've seen countless of those. If they really don't support those bombings, they sure aren't doing a very good job of letting people know.