Print

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

[Glowcat]

But if you stop engaging him, who will he stick words in the mouth of next?

[Reelya]

I didn't stick any words in any mouth.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Here's palsch's link

www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=124353.msg4302249#msg4302249

Here's my original post in this arc, which was a response to palsch's theory:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=124353.msg4302267#msg4302267

Here's vectors complaint that directly followed, where she claimed all the problems for men were about privilege:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=124353.msg4302741#msg4302741

Then, she wrote a post about how men being falsely accused of rape is serious, but goes on to question whether losing home and kids are relatively serious:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=124353.msg4302820#msg4302820

Then, this is the exact first link where I directly respond to Vector, and the one she claimed was an attack:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=124353.msg4303468#msg4303468

So, if there's anything i mis-attributed to Vector, it's in that post, because that's the one she claims was attacking her, and it's the first one in this arc that I addressed to her. Here's what I wrote:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

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, whilst men can go hang themselves (i mean that almost literally).

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".

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.

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.

Now - i wrote "society's narrative" not "Vector's narrative".
"My point with the example" - this is introducing my opinion.
"challenging the male ego" is related to the idea that male privilege is all about male ego.
"I outlined" is where I am expressing my opinion.
"[male] privilege" is Vector's line, and "having your whole life go down the toilet" is my poetic description of losing everything (regardless of gender).

But, nowhere here did i claim "vector doesn't want support for men". I just objected to her characterization of problems for men. Now, i can't find anything in there which directly makes any claim that Vector said anything she didn't say. All i did was to say "I think those things are actually very serious" in response to Vector saying "those problems aren't as serious as you claim".

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. 

Now, i never said you were sexist, nor did I make a major point that sexism was the cause/problem here.. I just backed up my original argument that lack of support for half the population was becoming detrimental. I never questioned "why" the problem exists - I just said there is a problem. Actually the link you provided from Wikipedia on psychological abuse paints the picture that professional psychologists don't take female->male abuse seriously. When the professionals aren't doing it right, there's no reason to think that society does anything in a non-sexist way. And it's kinda hard to grasp how we go from "everything is sexist" when women are short-changed to "clearly sexism didn't play a role here" when it's men behind the 8 ball.

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

From the assertion that women husband murderers are acting in self defense, no caveat. Plus for men you stated it "couldn't possibly be self-defense".

Also from the assertion that male abusers get the same treatment as female victims. It really sounds like something out of a pamphlet you get in your first year of college. Plus the all-or-nothing "men are in command" line:

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

Men are given a power over women that people should not have over other people -> women suffer (and yes, also men , who may not enjoy dominating people but are demanded to anyway)-> "hey, here are all the ways in which this power system, although diminishing, is still screwing with folks."

Ahh, so men only suffer because they have too much power. Literally every last individual man, by the sound of things. Maybe these are just sound bites, maybe you're not serious, but it sends a mixed message.

[Max White]

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?

No because that is wrong.
Firstly men do not lead the country. The leader of my country, and many others, is Queen Elizabeth II, and she is a woman. The Governor General, basically the one who is meant to represent the queen and protect the crowns best interest, is Quentin Bryce, another woman. I literally live in a matriarchy, and don't have a problem with that. But still, those are both just token positions these days, the top law maker is Julia Gillard, a woman. Come September when we have an election if Tony Abbot, the opposition leader wins, we will have a male leader, although his deputy (So basically second in charge of running the country) will be Julie Bishop, another woman. I'm not saying the entire place is run by women, but our political structure here isn't gender driven... Yet sexual discrimination still happens.

Land ownership is a little tricky, I haven't been able to find any figures because as soon as you try to look for anything to do with land ownership in Australia, apparently you get flooded with articles about the Native Title Act. The only data I could find was a pdf (Link) that shows no significant difference in home ownership. Land ownership itself is even trickier because the Australian census does not include land owners, and much of Australia is farmland that is leased rather than owned, so its owner is unaccounted for. Regardless, as far as home ownership goes, and everything that comes along with it like security, things look even... Yet sexual discrimination still happens.

Inheritance is most likely the hardest to quantify. I couldn't even find a pdf for this, but I will say the most common way inheritance is handled is that major assets like the house and sold, the money from it are used to pay off any remaining debt, and then anything remaining is split evenly. Minor things are normally just either sold because nobody actually has the room for all of the stuff, although some things are kept. Mothers very often give their daughters the family jewelry before they die or in the will, but apart from that there isn't some great inheritance that is passed down to anybody... Yet sexual discrimination still happens.

The Patriarchy Model just does not work here, it is inapplicable. If there are other, more complex causes of sexism here, perhaps these same factors also exist elsewhere. A system where all leadership, land and inheritance goes to men is a problem, yes, but that doesn't mean it is the only problem, so you can't use it to describe all problems that women face. It is just inaccurate.

[DJ]

Land inheritance goes by male lines? Are we discussing things as they were 500 years ago or what? Should I become a sellsword, since I'm not the eldest son in my family?

[Reelya]

Yup, in Australia the top #3 positions are held by women, and we're all crossing our fingers that a man doesn't win the next election. And the richest person in Australia? Gina Reinhart, a woman too.

Land ownership is a little tricky, I haven't been able to find any figures because as soon as you try to look for anything to do with land ownership in Australia, apparently you get flooded with articles about the Native Title Act. The only data I could find was a pdf (Link) that shows no significant difference in home ownership. Land ownership itself is even trickier because the Australian census does not include land owners, and much of Australia is farmland that is leased rather than owned, so its owner is unaccounted for. Regardless, as far as home ownership goes, and everything that comes along with it like security, things look even... Yet sexual discrimination still happens.

Wow, the ownership rates for houses for men and women are strikingly similar.

[Cheeetar]

Yup, in Australia the top #3 positions are held by women, and we're all crossing our fingers that a man doesn't win the next election. And the richest person in Australia? Gina Reinhart, a woman too.

Boy, that sure discredits things people are saying about America!

[DJ]

Yeah, so I guess the only explanation for all this confusion is that USA is horribly lagging in social development compared to all the other 1st world countries.

[Reelya]

Yup, in Australia the top #3 positions are held by women, and we're all crossing our fingers that a man doesn't win the next election. And the richest person in Australia? Gina Reinhart, a woman too.

Boy, that sure discredits things people are saying about America!

Only if you say that "only America counts". And you ignore that there are actually a large number of wealthy women in America, too. They can even inherit. Shock! Horror!

The top 20 women in America, have wealth greater than the entire GDP of New Zealand - a country of several million people. Don't tell me they're "lacking privilege"?

[Max White]

Boy, that sure discredits things people are saying about America!

The point is that clearly sexism isn't just caused by some patriarchy. Nobody is trying to say that such a structure isn't a problem where it shows up such as the US, but it may not be the cause of all your problems.

[Cheeetar]

Boy, that sure discredits things people are saying about America!

The point is that clearly sexism isn't just caused by some patriarchy. Nobody is trying to say that such a structure isn't a problem where it shows up such as the US, but it may not be the cause of all your problems.

Nobody was saying that it was the cause of all problems either?

[Max White]

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

[Cheeetar]

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

I think it's fairly obvious you're misinterpreting it, but I wouldn't be the best person to clarify what Vector meant.

[Max White]

I don't believe I am. I asked why Anita thought to bring up the patriarchy in her videos, and the reply was that the patriarchy is pretty much responsible for sexual inequity, so I explained why that isn't necessarily true.

If I am misrepresenting somebody I am sorry, but I am going to argue the point to the best of my understanding.

[Reelya]

I stubbed my toe! Patriarchy didn't cause that. Everything else though - patriarchy.

Joking aside, it's the catch-all explanation in academic feminism. Something repeated that much almost tends to lose meaning.

What I mean by this, is that the model fails to work for several real-world applications, but nobody is game to fix things. Any failure of the theory is held to be part of the conspiracy itself.

There's an orthodox current in feminism, and interestingly, though you wouldn't know it from the media, there are many "heretical" feminists too. But they don't "toe the line" so you rarely see them paraded in front of the media. Here's a fringe feminist critiquing false data from other feminists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JmfCB_IVkOc#!

Not to say that (and she doesn't say!) that there aren't real problems, but the whole cocktail of feminist academia in the states, well there's a lot of misinformation spread around. Don't take my word for it, hear what the above feminist critic has to say on the matter - for example studies cited in women's studies textbooks where the study doesn't exist and the studies existence is denied by the organization who purportedly carried it out (a non-existent study claiming 30% of birth defects are caused by wife-beaters beating their pregnant girlfriends, which is totally false, but appears in many gender-studies textbooks). Also in the quoted feminist textbook, there are passages citing historical anti-woman actions by a mythological figure as an historical event. And I haven't got to the bits where figures are misquoted by factors of 10 or 100 times larger than reality.

Sure, feminism good! But there seems to be a lot of pseudoscience mixed in with the academic feminist thought in America at least. Crossing my fingers for the rise of scientific feminism.

[Vector]

And over in my family, a pastor convinced an aging relative that my father should be the sole inheritor of the main assets, rather than joint with his sister, because women shouldn't be in charge and dominance is his place.

What-ho!  These things still happen.  I never said "only America counts," but I am speaking from my own experience.  Just as you are speaking from yours.  The fact that in your culture things are different from in my culture doesn't mean I'm disallowed to speak to my experiences.


What I said--and what I meant--was that you start with a power structure that basically says "okay, women are the property of men and, you know, men control property" and then there are various influences on developing laws.  Slowly patriarchy, as in the literal idea outlined above, dissipates but its influences remain in the new power structures, which are not strictly patriarchical in the dictionary sense.  We still call those remaining influences, which developed continuously from original power structures despite their no longer acting directly and explicitly in our lives, "the patriarchy."


For everyone's information, I'll no longer be responding to Reelya's posts.  Don't take my silence as assent or agreement, please.