It’s a real thing. I’ve commented on it several times in this thread. It is an example of pernicious sexism that can badly hurt men.
According to a Gallup poll:
Americans Prefer Boys to Girls, Just as They Did in 1941
Men tend to want boys; women are divided in their gender preferences
The real-world implications of gender-preference attitudes in some countries around the world are profound. A recent review article in the Philadelphia Inquirer pointed out that the preference for boys over girls is beginning to tilt the gender balance worldwide, a demographic shift that will have major consequences in the decades ahead.
Perhaps it’s because the phrase “20 people were killed” refers to men as the default “people”, and it’s an old convention from a time when it needed to be emphasized that women and children were involved as well.
Well, perhaps one of the reasons it’s still going on is that everyone recognises the existence of ‘outliers’ of various unpalatable sorts, but nobody is prepared (or able) to either back up the claim that ‘most’ feminists are innocuous, or indeed to demonstrate that feminism in any form is innocuous. You may be the first to claim that feminists want gender equality (so do egalitarians, with the bonus that you won’t find a racist egalitarian but feminism allows for all manner of prejudices) - most everyone else has said it’s about ‘equality’ for women (they’re the ones so very concerned about those terrible MRAs, who want equality for men as well, since there’s no other form of equality).
By the by, if you want to draw a parallel with christianity (or any other faith), proclaiming oneself to be a-theist is only a problem for a few nutjobs, whereas proclaiming oneself an a-feminist is…oh, hang on, there’s no difference…
For a lot of youngsters, I suspect it is simply that they take most or all of “equality feminism” totally for granted.
In their minds, “feminist” means “difference feminist” - particularly of the sort that held that women had values or ways of knowing that were, basically, superior to those of men. When they say stuff like “I’m strong and Independent, but not a feminist”, they likely mean ‘I’m not what I think the term ‘feminist’ imeans - namely, a ‘difference feminist’. But of course, I think women ought to be morally and legally equal to men - that just goes without saying’.
I suspect you are dead right.
That makes sense to me. Difference feminism just looks like good, old-fashioned sexism to me.
I guess it falls into line with something like this:
Fox News Up In Arms Over Target’s Plan To Remove Gender Labels From Some Children’s Products
…and I think you’d agree with me that, boys and girl are different. And that there are naturally different interests. When you go in there, the barbies are there, the little boys want the war toys or a gun, or the action figures. Video game interests are different. That is a real thing and it exists…
And also the blurring of the notion that there are gender differences, not just with children, but also between men and women and I like those differences.
Actually, racist egalitarians are certainly possible. Someone who considers themselves an egalitarian might well believe that everyone should be* treated* equally without regards to differences, but that all people are not actually equal. Or, alternatively, they might believe that everyone is equal in themselves but that they should not be treated equally. There’s a lot of wiggle room there.
[Bolding mine.]
Earlier you said (1101):
The Wikipedia definition doesn’t say anything about statutory rape or prison jokes.
Why do you blame them on patriarchy?
The definition (to condense it a bit) says that patriarchy is about men having power and privilege. Assuming for the moment that men have or had power and privilege, why do they use it to send men (but not women) to war? Why was the Federal definition of rape, "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will,” until 2012? Why is rape of a woman one of the harshest punished crimes there is? Why are men more likely to be penalized, and more harshly penalized, at every level of the criminal justice system? Why have women’s health centers been federally funded since 1970, while men’s health centers are not even a thing?
In other words, if patriarchy is all about giving power and privileges to men, why have men used all that power to privilege women?
Is patriarchal culture the same as patriarchy, or something different?
And if women have supported patriarchal culture, is it possible there was something in for them?
To put it bluntly, (although this is certainly not part of the Wikipedia definition) is it possible a central tenet of “patriarchy” was putting women’s safety and well-being ahead of men’s?
Well, I doubt Jane Q Citizen has really studied the feminist theoretician’s playbook, but just adopt the average person’s paradox of live and let live but look out for number one.
We’ve all heard the many iterations of the “that’s different!” argument. Agreed: a 140 lb. woman beating on her 210 boyfriend is different than a 210 man destroying a 140 lb. person. But you tell me: have you ever known a woman who hit her man who also didn’t hit her kids? And she had a rationalization for that, too. “Don’t judge me! I’m responsible for them 24 hours a day!”
What Sam Kinnison and Bill Burr and the rest of the he-man women haters club spout off about isn’t feminist dogma. Most of it is as dry and boring as a DVR installation manual written by Noam Chomsky. What they hate are the abusers in the Patriarchial Bargain camp. They’ll play the feminist card when it suits them, but if they see a better angle by playing the Damsel in Distress then that’ll go that route.
They expect the same pay for the same work, but also expect men to make the first move and pick up the first check. And if any other women queers the sweet deal they have in the dating world by not making men jump through hoops, women will find a way to slut-shame her. The MRA screeds I agree with are the ones who call out MS Sammi Glick on her bullshit and call out feminism for not condemning any fellow sister. Of course, that’s not the academic and social activist feminists. That’s the social media twaddle “you go girl!” of Jezebel feminism.
Conflating two different populations of women. In my experience, the ones who want and expect same pay for same work are also willing to pick up first checks, and are generally not the ones slut-shaming others.
Because it is consistent with these traditional and homophobic views and gender roles.
In general women have not been priveliged. For most of history they had fewer economic and political rights than men. They were usually blamed and punished for adultery, more so than men. They had little or no rights if they were abused by husbands or other male relatives. So, mostly, women have not been priveliged.
A central tenet was the value of female sexual purity, which is the main cause of slut shaming, victim blaming for rape, and other sexual double standards and injustices. Considering that wives usually had no recourse if beaten or raped by their husbabds, I don’t believe that patriarchy particularly valued women’s safety, except to keep them safe for sexual and reproductive use, and it certainly didn’t value their well being, considering the lack of rights and even education afforded to women.
Thanks for misrepresenting what I said.
Here’s what I said:
Here’s your misrepresentation:
Do you understand the difference between a rebuttable presumption, and “legally mandate[ing]” something?
If so, why did you misrepresent what I said?
If not, why are you asserting you know more about child custody than I do?
As long as we’re at it, let’s look at this quote, too:
Really?
I’ve asked twice for evidence from people who claim to know “how custody really works”. Neither provided any. Will you?
While we’re at it, thanks for this as well:
Can you quote me anywhere saying “children are property”? No?
Of course not.
Maybe in your world, strawmannirg someone else’s argument is the equivalent of making an actual argument yourself.
It’s not.
But let’s look at some actual real live evidence. This information is from the US Census, so it’s a bit dated: they only do the census every ten years.
While we’re at it, let’s look at some differences between children who have fathers actively involved in their lives, vs. those that don’t:
From Psychology Today:
Giving children equal time with their fathers is in the best interests of children.
The people who argue otherwise are appealing to ingrained sex discrimination and prejudice: not evidence.
The people who benefit from the every-other-weekend model are women. Not children.
And even whether women benefit is debatable. To quote from an atypical feminist, Karen DeCrow:
Good lord, Linus, you’re a piece of work.
You yourself argued that NOW’s opposition to legally-mandated 50/50 custody was equivalent to wrenching men out of children’s lives. This indicates that you support legally-mandated 50/50 custody, which is quite different from supporting an initial presumption of same.
You don’t seem to understand your own posts, much less anyone else’s.
Well, you’ve lived a charmed life. A lot of women want every Godamn thing they can get, by any means available.
I’ve been here since 2000, and on very rare occasions Radfems or trolls posing as same have started threads. They never lasted long. That’s too bad. I’d love to defend their viewpoint based on my anecdotal experience that, while some women can be evil bitches, some men will always outdo them in sheer brutality. iiandyii was a submariner, IIRC, not an amphib like me, so he may never have seen half a dozen troopships unload thousands of young men into a Third World port. But he and many other men here have seen that it’s not the rare aged Bundys and it’s not the individual patriarchy. People just aren’t a very nice species.
I don’t deny that, I’m just stating that most of the ones I know that are most vocal about getting equal pay are not the ones who are slut shaming and don’t shrink from paying on dates. The ones I know who want every godamn thing don’t seem to care much for equal pay, though. But they’re again not most of the ones I’ve interacted with.
True. That doesn’t mean that every group of women is interchangeable.
Unlike men, 100% of whom live to the utmost altruistic expectations on all occasions.
I was not broad-brushing the entire sex; just, on one hand, the bastards among women who pull that shit. What’s the “ism” to stop them? Destroy the patriarchy so that’s one angle they can’t exploit? If for no other reason, the MRAs should get behind feminism for that effort. What the men’s movement complains about most of all is women’s entitlement and hypocrisy.
It’s hard for a misanthrope like myself not to be mistaken for a misogynist. Let women and gays serve equally in the military, so they can go to poor countries and kill the inhabitants too! Stop rape in the military: not only is it unjust but it destroys unit cohesion *and hey, we can’t kill these inhabitants effectively. *
How about an economy where a white woman has the career option be in as inessential a position as freelance actress/activist and not have to worry about housing and food, while that same economy puts Black guys out on the street with no direction and egos so lame they catcall to assert their pathetic masculinity?
“Patriarchy” is too simple an explanation for the problems of humanity.
That’s a cheap shot and you know I never ever said anything of the sort.