I think it’s because patriarchal culture has emphasized that young men and boys are and should be constantly aroused and up for sex, and therefore can’t be victimized by women, and that only sissies or homosexuals are weak or unresistant enough to ‘victimized’ by other men, and they probably enjoyed it anyway.
So the prison rape jokes, dismissal of female-teacher statutory rape, and similar phenomena are examples of how patriarchal culture harms men.
Two things to consider:
Obligate monogamy appears to occur when a solitary female cannot rear a litter without aid from conspecifics, but the carrying capacity of the habitat is insufficient to allow more than one female to breed simultaneously within the same home range.
Kin selection is the evolutionary strategy that favours the reproductive success of an organism’s relatives, even at a cost to the organism’s own survival and reproduction. Kin altruism is altruistic behaviour whose evolution is driven by kin selection. Kin selection is an instance of inclusive fitness, which combines the number of offspring produced with the number an individual can produce by supporting others, such as siblings.
Kin selection is not the same thing as group selection, where natural selection acts on the group as a whole.
Well, maybe we need to talk about what “patriarchy” means, then. Does it mean “any aspect of culture that’s harmful”? Or does it mean something else?
Does it assert that feminism has had no cultural influence over the past 65+ years? Or that that the only influence feminism has had has been good, not bad?
Does it assert that women - despite mothering however many billions of girls and boys over the course of history - has had no influence on culture, historically?
Ok. So for the sake of the argument, let’s say wolves are a bad example. Are saying that wolves are a bad example, or that group selection is not a thing?
Women can buy into all of the bad aspects of a patriarchy. See, for example, Ann Coulter’s “women shouldn’t have the vote” bs. Women have often been the enforcers of rigid gender norms against other women and men.
The whole idea of The Patriarchy is bullshit and one of the reasons modern feminism is such a joke. It doesn’t exists as a force any more than The Matriarchy. Or The BORG. In fact if one substitudes “The Patriarchy” with “The Borg” when reading feminists it instantaneously makes much more sense.
One of the things that irritate me when feminists take on men’s rights is that they tend to like to frame everything and everybody as a question of being victims. And I as a man have absolutely zero interest in being protrayed or assuming the identity of a victim.
cough
Go on. Tell me about that.
I’m hopping off my white horse as we speak.
Two quality posts right there. The thing about SDMB is that to read the occasional interesting reply you always have to wade through oceans of uninteresting chatter by insignificant people that insist on using their five minutes of fame to post innate nonsense. They’re like Buffer People.
No, no, let’s stick to the interesting stuff by non-buffer heroes like yourself.
You were saying that as a man, you can’t ever see yourself as a victim, and that’s why the patriarchy is some made up Star Trek garbage?
My most abject apologies. I had no idea that you were attempting a serious argument.:
I shall take my innate nonsense elsewhere.
Go back and read the post again. If you still can’t figure it out, I’ll explain it to you.
You should believe whatever you want.
I’ve been accused of quoting too much from sources, and of quoting too little. Of posting too often, and of not posting enough. I’ve been attacked for responding to personal attacks - which have pervasive - and for ignoring them. Basically, anything and everything to try to make the thread about me, rather than the topic of the thread.
I’ll file this on one more attempt.
No: feminism is bad. It’s a poorly thought-out, hypocritical, and self-serving ideology. Which isn’t to say there aren’t bad feminists; or good ones for that matter. But this thread is about attacking an ideology, not a person.
If a woman is killed by a serial killer, she’s a victim. If a man is killed, he’s a what? Heroic non-survivor? Dead but totally non-victim male person?
What about kids? If it’s a boy is he a proto-man death sufferer?
I’ll quote Wikipedia: “Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children.”
Some aspects of patriarchal culture no longer exist or are no longer prominent, but many aspects still exist. I believe that most negative things in our culture that are tied to gender roles and sexuality are due to patriarchal culture.
No, to the first question. I don’t know about the second, probably because it is so broad. I think in general the influence of feminism has been very good, but I’m open to the possibility that some bad things in wider society were caused by feminists.
No. Through most of history, and most of culture, many and probably most women supported patriarchal culture. Today, many women still do.
If I said feminists never did things like DeCrow, I humbly admit my mistake. It is clear that some feminists do things like DeCrow (like DeCrow herself, for example).
I still maintain that DeCrow is not typical of the feminist movement, as the article itself pointed out.
That’s a good thing. NOW, the single largest feminist organization, is against shared parenting. If more feminists advocated against NOW’s position, I think that would be wonderful. If you want me to say it again, I’ll say it again: some feminists are doing the right thing. The problem is there’s not enough of them.
I deny being “deceptive”. I posted the links to the sources in hope that people would read them. You’re free to go on thinking I’m deceptive, if you like.
Serious question for LinusK: What do you believe should be the most important *goal *in the making of child custody arrangements? I’m not asking what the arrangements should be (e.g. 50/50 physical custody, etc.), but rather what you see as the most important outcome to be achieved.
I have several times pointed out to you that you are mischaracterizing this to such an extent that it isn’t even coherent.
NOW is not “against shared parenting.” NOW opposed statutorily mandated 50/50 custody. They’re not remotely the same thing.
This is more progress than I was expecting, honestly.
The absurdity of legally-mandated 50/50 custody is so blatantly obvious that its proponents would seem to have no familiarity whatsoever with the daily lives, emotions, and needs of actual children, let alone the concept of the best interests of the child.
Wolves are a bad example. As for group selection:
Group selection isn’t widely accepted by evolutionists for several reasons. First, it’s not an efficient way to select for traits, like altruistic behavior, that are supposed to be detrimental to the individual but good for the group. Groups divide to form other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters. Further, we simply have little evidence that selection on groups has promoted the evolution of any trait. Finally, other, more plausible evolutionary forces, like direct selection on individuals for reciprocal support, could have made us prosocial.
While I wouldn’t say it’s “not a thing”, it’s still not a strong enough theory to use as a basis for your claim that “men are disposable”, especially since there is strong evidence that refutes it (e.g., female infanticide, which continues to this day).