Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

In the post i wrote, that you claimed was an attack, point out where i misrepresented you. Let me break down my post:

There are also patriarchal stereotypes that ... women are the weaker sex and need to be protected, whereas men do not. Surely, these stereotypes play into society's narrative that women require external intervention / special support,

That's a question, not an attack.

My point with the example, is that the observation that murder rates by females has declined may well be because they don't feel "trapped" could easily apply to men as well. Those i listed - house, kids, reputation, things were just examples of threats a woman could use to control someone. In real, individual cases, there are many other things people use to control each other, those are just the "cliched" ones for women->men, which I used to illustrate things. All of them are based on instilling fear as a prime motivator - not "challenging the male ego".

That's an observation, not an attack.

Fear of homelessness, fear of losing emotional attachment, fear of having your reputation destroyed / losing all your friends / being socially ostracized / going to jail. These are all likely outcomes of those specific threats I outlined.

Again, not an attack.

Previously you had written:

I'm not saying one of these is a problem, but I am saying that I legitimately don't understand why the first one of these would drive you to kill someone.  Or how it could possibly be called self-defense.  The things you mentioned do harm by taking away privileges, which is important, but it isn't the same thing as the tactics that have traditionally been used to keep women stationary and powerless.

Now, the next bit I wrote could be construed as an attack, but it was entirely written in response to what you wrote about loss for males being about privilege.

I guess you're entitled to analyse "having your whole life go down the toilet" as "losing one's male privilege". But that doesn't make sense because the "unprivileged" class in this analysis - the average woman, does not as a whole suffer from those problems - they are not homeless, they are not cut off from loved-ones, they do not have their reputation destroyed, cut off from social support, and are not threatened with jail.

... and that was the entirety of the post you said was attacking you.

[Vector]

What I said was that what you brought up mostly removed things separate from men.  Like houses and children, typically considered the property of a man in the patriarchal inheritance model.  That's different from attacking his bodily integrity.

Ooga-fucking-booga.

Why do some women like the same things men do? The answer I got from a feminist is that it is because men told them that is what looks good and they, lacking all autonomy because of the patriarchy, basically try to appease men by also liking those things.

Uh-huh.  And did she explain why some men like the same things women do?

[Neonivek]

Reelya I think the issue is that Vector takes everything you say as a direct counter argument to everything she says.

So when you say something as a statement against something, but not as something against what Vector said... you just intend to add information to the conversation, but vector takes it as an argument against something she never said.

Hence why it appears as an attack by Vector and why Vector is being completely irrational to you.

And did she explain why some men like the same things women do?

That would be the wrong order. Men and women don't like the same things because only men define what is liked and disliked

[Reelya]

A home is as much about personal security and safety as it is about ownership. Family is as much about emotional welfare as it is about control. And freedom (the thing with the allegation threats), is about social support, freedom and self-respect. All these things affect both genders, and they're no less real fears because a man is suffering them than they would be for a woman.

Cutting off a woman from her friends or family is abuse, it's not about privilege. Nor is it about privilege when a man is suffering it.

And I didn't bring up physical threats because we're socially conditioned to believe that threats from females to males aren't "real". But they are indeed real, they do indeed happen, and I probably should have brought it up to strengthen the case. After all, males are only stronger on average, plenty of couples out there where the female can knock the guy out. Looking up the famous Lorena Bobbit case, her first words on being arrested for cutting her husbands dick off were "He always have orgasm, and he doesn't wait for me to have orgasm. He's selfish". Later, she claimed rape, but those were her first words to the police. So, I'm positing that she cut his dick off due to sexual frustration.

Why do some women like the same things men do? The answer I got from a feminist is that it is because men told them that is what looks good and they, lacking all autonomy because of the patriarchy, basically try to appease men by also liking those things.

To be honest, this is really making my brain hurt. Patriarchy simultaneously:

1. Tells women not to like men's stuff
2. Tells women to like men's stuff

For some odd reason I'm having difficulty fitting both of these ideas into a consistent framework.

[Vector]

The reason why I take things as response to me, Neonivek, is because I write something and then Reelya blathers on and on for ages about "your argument is probably [INSERT X SEXIST THING HERE], now isn't it, huh, huh?" beneath the quote.

That is why I asked who he was arguing with.  Because it surely isn't me, and yet for some reason my quotes keep showing up and he keeps saying "you" a lot in connection with some pretty vile things.

You're missing the point.  As I have said some three times now, I was explaining one of the non-sexist reasons why there are more battered women's shelters.  Because the things whose removal you said would be threats to men's wellbeing are things that were not offered to women.  Because the terms of loss that a man would get from abuse would be the terms of loss a woman would get from leaving, at the very least.  There is a point here.  I would like it if you got it.

I then went on to explain how there were other things going on, like viewpoints about Real Men not being the sorts who could suffer abuse.

[Max White]

Patriarchy means that traditionally men inherit property, lead the people, and head the families.

Because the patriarchal system is pretty much shorthand for "what fucks women over?

[Vector]

I'm sorry, are you trying to pass off the systematic disenfranchisement of women as not what's fucked them over?

[Neonivek]

I'm sorry, are you trying to pass off the systematic disenfranchisement of women as not what's fucked them over?

Honestly, If I didn't know any better I'd think you were intentionally demonstrating how people turn the term Patriarchy into basically the word for EVIL!!!

[Max White]

I'm sorry, are you trying to pass off the systematic disenfranchisement of women as not what's fucked them over?

No I'm trying to understand what the word 'patriarchy' means in your opinion. Is it "men inherit property, lead the people, and head the families" or is it "shorthand for what fucks women over"?

I'm not trying to pass off anything, I am confused and would like you to clarify.

[Reelya]

The reason why I take things as response to me, Neonivek, is because I write something and then Reelya blathers on and on for ages about "your argument is probably [INSERT X SEXIST THING HERE], now isn't it, huh, huh?" beneath the quote.

That is why I asked who he was arguing with.  Because it surely isn't me, and yet for some reason my quotes keep showing up and he keeps saying "you" a lot in connection with some pretty vile things.

You're missing the point.  As I have said some three times now, I was explaining one of the non-sexist reasons why there are more battered women's shelters.  Because the things whose removal you said would be threats to men's wellbeing are things that were not offered to women.  Because the terms of loss that a man would get from abuse would be the terms of loss a woman would get from leaving, at the very least.  There is a point here.  I would like it if you got it.

I then went on to explain how there were other things going on, like viewpoints about Real Men not being the sorts who could suffer abuse.

Woah, there. i didn't do anything of the sort. The only time i used the pronoun "you" in that post you took offense to was in relation to the analysis of "privilege" as the issue for men all the time. And that is actually a point you made in response / objection to my previous comments. To me, it felt like a blanket rejection, no matter what happens to the man it's "just losing his privilege". Therefore it wasn't a real problem worth discussion in the first place. The other time I wrote "you" a few times, was in the post where I was objecting to you claiming I'd attacked you in the post where I tried to back up points that you had disputed. Yeah, I'm not really seeing that as fair, since you're entitled to dispute my points, but I'm not entitled to try and back up my assertions.

Now, that bit you "snipped" was the actual full contents of the post you took offense at. I am really curious, as to exactly which part of it misrepresented you?

[Neonivek]

I'm sorry, are you trying to pass off the systematic disenfranchisement of women as not what's fucked them over?

No I'm trying to understand what the word 'patriarchy' means in your opinion. Is it "men inherit property, lead the people, and head the families" or is it "shorthand for what fucks women over"?

I'm not trying to pass off anything, I am confused and would like you to clarify.

No no no, you don't understand.

They are the same thing!

[Glowcat]

I'm sorry, are you trying to pass off the systematic disenfranchisement of women as not what's fucked them over?

No I'm trying to understand what the word 'patriarchy' means in your opinion. Is it "men inherit property, lead the people, and head the families" or is it "shorthand for what fucks women over"?

I'm not trying to pass off anything, I am confused and would like you to clarify.

Why would the sole societal dominance of a single gender not fuck women over, as compared to a more egalitarian method or composition?

[Max White]

I'm not saying it wouldn't, but if they were the same thing that would imply that "What fucks women over" amounts to only property, leadership and promoting men as bread winners, when the subject is a lot deeper than that. There is so much more that fucks over both men and women than the dictionary definition of patriarchy.

[Neonivek]

I'm not saying it wouldn't, but if they were the same thing that would imply that "What fucks women over" amounts to only property, leadership and promoting men as bread winners, when the subject is a lot deeper than that. There is so much more that fucks over both men and women than the dictionary definition of patriarchy.

Because you see Patriarchy fights for Patriarchy, so it actively puts women down.

[Vector]

I'm sorry, are you trying to pass off the systematic disenfranchisement of women as not what's fucked them over?

Honestly, If I didn't know any better I'd think you were intentionally demonstrating how people turn the term Patriarchy into basically the word for EVIL!!!

. . . Okay, player.  If you've got an explanation for why gender-based inheritance and power structures that chiefly benefit half of the population are good (TM), have at it.

I'm sorry, are you trying to pass off the systematic disenfranchisement of women as not what's fucked them over?

No I'm trying to understand what the word 'patriarchy' means in your opinion. Is it "men inherit property, lead the people, and head the families" or is it "shorthand for what fucks women over"?

I'm not trying to pass off anything, I am confused and would like you to clarify.

What is fucking women over right now happens to be a power structure that disenfranchises them.  In that structure, men inherit property, lead the people, and head the families.  It's called patriarchy.

We say the word "patriarchy," which refers not only to the aforementioned "heads of household" structures, but discusses things like presence in media, proliferation of narratives, and existence as communal property/servants.  These are unexpected side effects of patriarchy in modern society, which are products of our particular culture.  In different cultures, patriarchy may have different influences, and so what I'm trying to say is that the word patriarchy in and of itself has a strict, aforementioned dictionary definition, but can also be used to refer to the halo of influences given by its dissemination.  Does it have to be the case that women's stories aren't told just because men inherit property and have power?  No.  But that's how things have played out.

Does that make any more sense?

If you're not saying "the male is always the abuser" you have a strange way of wording things. That definitely seems to be the impression your projecting.

I have.  Absolutely no.  Idea.  Where you would get that notion from.

Please reread the past couple pages and look at how I've consistently said abuse of men is a real problem.  Because, as I said, I'm tired of writing out all of these clarifications and getting attacked on the same frickin' idea, right under a post where I've explicitly said the opposite of what you're accusing.