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

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.