Vertex is could very likely be a man.
Just given Vertex's writing style.
In fact somehow I was right. Virtex is a man.
Though it was very very obvious (though I wonder if people know why)
I don't like it one bit either, but yes, I am a man.
Are you saying that the idea that we should treat women wit dignity and respect is intrinsic knowledge?
Then how could that ever be overwritten?
In the same way that the concept of self-preservation is overwritten for suicide bombers, or in the same way that the Patriarchy overwrites the natural knowledge that homosexuality is good?
That would be the case in an egalitarian society, but in our society, women are getting the short end no matter what they do and men befall the opposite fate
Yes... so there are no socially repressed men who are depressed because they did not wish to uphold the unjust standards of society and are suffering for it in the same way that there are NO successful happy women who managed to break away from the standards set around them and become people onto themselves.
There may be socially repressed men, but they are only repressed because they chose to be. Society hands them every opportunity possible on a silver platter and if they fail to take them, then that's their fault.
Are you suggesting that a company would be run differently if a woman had "done it her way?" If you do, I have some seriously bad news for you. Women and men both look at numbers the same
No Vertex is saying that in order to even run a company a woman has to essentially become a man.
That's still an asinine statement. Companies may have been "forged by man" in that all the rules and groundwork was mostly male conceived, but it doesn't matter who gets to the top. They'll still run the company to compete with other companies... they all play by the same rules. Men and Women. I'm not even sure how someone would think that a company would be somehow different if women made them. They'd still have to confront the competition of other companies trying to sell products to the same customers. They'd still try to market their products. They'd still raise capital the same. It just boggles my mind how someone can think that a woman that made it to the top was somehow modifying the fabric of her being to get there. If anything, it smacks of saying that women are ill prepared to take on the workplace (not my words!) and have to relearn the ropes.
That describes company as singular entities. A company is however just an amalgamation of people and all that have power within the company must somehow be seen as powerful by those who run or ran the company. Since a patriarchy doesn't allow non-patriarchal elements to be regarded as powerful, a company can't do anything but remain patriarchal.
Virex, I don't want to think you're doing this intentionally but you manage to get everyone arguing against you about the same topic again and again with startling consistency.
That may be because my viewpoint is so alien compared to the comfortable, male-dominant world we live in that it tends to scare people senseless.
I may grow to regret doing this, but how exactly do you see a company being different in a Matriarchal society?
there would not be such a thing as a company in a matriarchy.
That... still doesn't make any sense. They're men, why should they be bound by what others tell them?
You haven't like, actually lived out there, in the world, have you?
The patriarchy you hate so much? It would never be as powerful as it were if not for the enormous number of women who actively support it and prop it it up, because its not "proper" for women to get involved in those things. Women can be victims of women in a patriarchal society, just as much as they can be a victim of men, without the gender of the patriarchal perpetrator being relevant.
If women are the victims of a patriarchy, then how can they be oppressed by women? Just because there are women that are brainwashed into supporting the patriarchy doesn't make it a mixed-gender construct, it is still masculine in nature. The women that support it hold no power after all, they're just proxies for male oppression.
In the same way, there exist plenty of obvious examples of how patriarchy can actively oppress its male members just as effectively. Because while females are slaves, males are competitors - if anything, you need to be stricter on them to keep them in line.
This assumes that the patriarchy behaves logical. But the mere fact that it excludes women should show you that it isn't. The very structure of the patriarchy is based on the idea that a male can get anywhere just by talking to the right person and a bit of iron will. Who you know defines where you get, but you can get to know anyone you want. For women this doesn't work, for obvious reasons.
Lets look at a particularly strong patriarchal society - the orthodox mormons. Can you honestly, with a straight face, argue that (many) men are not oppressed under their system? That all those in power are men does not lead to a some guarantee that all men have power.
While a Mormon doesn't have much power within the Church of Mormon, he, as we're talking about men, can always opt out and society would accept and revel him for it. For women, not so much.
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 871999 times)