Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 183

Thread: What if men are just better?

  1. Top | #161
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,917
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,361
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Patriarchy (in Feminist terms) = social system involving male dominance over females (usually defined as unbenign or oppressive)
    It depends on the feminist. I think for many Patriarchy = Male dominance over females, as if females are children. That comes with not treating them as agents and not holding them responsible for their actions ("they're only women after all" the patriarch would say). Patriarchy can be quite gynocentric in focus. Think of the children! Think of the women! Protect them (including from themselves) and don't let them get into trouble. They know not what they do. Horde them away, keeping them in the kitchen and don't let them leave the house. Pass them from father to husband (through arranged marriage; without their input or consent in some cases) to make sure they are always cared for. That sort of mindset is very female-centric.

  2. Top | #162
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,564
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Patriarchy (in Feminist terms) = social system involving male dominance over females (usually defined as unbenign or oppressive)
    It depends on the feminist. I think for many Patriarchy = Male dominance over females, as if females are children. That comes with not treating them as agents and not holding them responsible for their actions ("they're only women after all" the patriarch would say). Patriarchy can be quite gynocentric in focus. Think of the children! Think of the women! Protect them (including from themselves) and don't let them get into trouble. They know not what they do. Horde them away, keeping them in the kitchen and don't let them leave the house. Pass them from father to husband (through arranged marriage; without their input or consent in some cases) to make sure they are always cared for. That sort of mindset is very female-centric.
    Well yeah, possibly, up to a point, but, is/was it really in women's own interests? Now, to most Feminists, patriarchy is the enemy, and even if women had advantages under it, they were the sort of advantages allowed by men and were, according to most Feminism, basically benevolent sexism. I don't entirely buy into that myself, but there's some truth in it imo. It's also true that patriarchy just had advantages for women.

    But whatever, it doesn't get us to society is or was gynocentric (I'm fine with and have already agreed that gynocentrism is and was a component, often promoted and enacted by men) but there are too many ways it is and was about men for that to be the case.

    Also, I'm not sure how many Feminists would agree that being treated like children, literally being patronised perhaps, is/was the only issue, by a long stretch of the imagination. For example don't forget about plain mistreatment, perhaps especially in certain matters. There's a reason Feminists talk about what they would call rape culture and it's not because women are or were treated like children.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 08-16-2019 at 09:11 PM.

  3. Top | #163
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,917
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,361
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Well yeah, possibly, up to a point, but, is/was it really in women's own interests?
    Often not at all, but that's not the point. If it is motivated by and believed to be in the interest of women (even if the society is doing harm to women), then is is women-centric.

    Now, to most Feminists, patriarchy is the enemy, and even if women had advantages under it, they were the sort of advantages allowed by men and were, according to most Feminism, basically benevolent sexism.
    Yes. That's the idea. The idea is that women are of weaker minds, like children, but the "fairer" (meaning more delicate and valuable) sex. Its considered by the holders of this mentality to be a romantic noble notion. Patriarchy is patronizing, like a father looking over children. But this also means it includes holding women less responsible for their actions, having more of an outcry when they (and when children) are harmed, protecting them from other men and from themselves (even if the women don't want or need it), etc. So some feminists actually play INTO rather than out of patriarchy and don't seem to realize it.

    I don't entirely buy into that myself, but there's some truth in it imo.
    Its definitely a thing. It just isn't everything, as some Feminists would claim. And its closer to what actually was/is usually going on against women (and men) than the claims by some feminists that these powerful men just despise women (very rarely true; far more often they think they are caring for the women by acting in their sexist and patronizing ways).

    But whatever, it doesn't get us to society is or was gynocentric
    Not entirely no. But as you wrote, it is a factor. I believe it is a powerful force in basic human psychology. Metaphor maybe believes it is the dominant one. Or maybe he just said that as an exagerated remark, as many women claim we live in a patriarchy or misogynist society or "rape culture" (it isn't entirely those either; but these are also common). You didn't seem to want to give Metaphor the benefit of the doubt or listen to what he had to say beyond that one remark, and immediately became flippant and dismissive of him. If you hear him out and don't try to mind read you may discover he's not thinking what you think he's thinking, or alternatively you'll confirm from himself that he is thinking what you think he's thinking. Either way, you've gotten a little further along.

    (I'm fine with and have already agreed that gynocentrism is and was a component, often promoted and enacted by men) but there are too many ways it is and was about men for that to be the case.
    It is often about both at the same time. Those male roles in movies you speak of. How many of them are roles of men very much concerned with women, either as a love interest, somebody in peril to rescue, etc? A lot of them.

    Also, I'm not sure how many Feminists would agree that being treated like children, literally being patronised perhaps, is/was the only issue.
    I don't think anybody would agree it was/is the only issue. But it is patriarchy (literally meaning a father looking after his children). Misogyny and basic sexism also exist.

    Don't forget about plain mistreatment, perhaps especially in certain matters.
    There is plenty of that. And it exists against both women and also against men. That the stuff against men is consistently underplayed, and the stuff against women is highlighted as Metaphor notes, is part of why I think he said gyno-centric society. That doesn't mean it isn't also steeped in patriarchy. It is.

    There's a reason Feminists talk about what they would call rape culture
    There are multiple reasons for that. Misogynist and callous behaviour of men is the one I am guessing you have in mind. Yes. That's a problem. Media and feminist scare mongering is another rather big one you may not have in mind, which is largely influenced by what we were talking about above (women as victims to be protected but not as agents to be held responsible).

    And note that whenever "rape culture" or sexual assault culture is mentioned, its almost always framed as being against women. Note how people reacted to what Lorena Bobbit did (chopping off a guy's penis). It was treated as a laughing matter, as are many assaults, and especially sexual assaults on men, and especially if done by women. Contrast that to how people tend to freak out over mildly sexist remarks made by men, and even mind-reading of ambiguous statements that COULD be sexist or rapey against women. And take something that is clearly disgusting rapey language or behaviour like when Trump said "grab em by the pussy", and imagine if a woman said "grab em by the dick". It would get laughs on mainstream morning shows (rather than in private by a few morons), and very little scorn (which it should get from everyone, regardless of gender of the target).

  4. Top | #164
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,158
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,132
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Thank you for the long post. I have got to go and work now. I may return to it later.

    I will say that it doesn't contain anything that I was not already aware of, or that I consider invalid. But it is only a list of 'the ways in which women are favoured' and as such is selective. It is not a case that shows overall that society is gynocentric.
    I've said the same thing about "rape culture". I think there is no justification to label Western society a "rape culture" based on the list of items feminists talk about, even if I accepted that they were all true. At best you could make a case that there is a rape subculture in Western society.
    That, if it has been said (I don't think all Feminists would say it)
    That's what "the patriarchy" is -- a state where men are advantaged and in power, to the detriment of women.

    would be clearly wrong, or at best only partly correct (and therefore partly incorrect). But Feminism is something specific. Self-identifying Feminists are in fact a minority, possibly a small minority, even among women, let alone all of society. A very small minority indeed, even if vocal, when it comes to strong or radical Feminism.
    Self-identification is indeed low, but there is widespread support for feminist notions, and feminist delusions.

    At a work Christmas event last year, a woman at my table said "nothing's changed for women in 50 years". The ease with which people accepted this stratospherically absurd statement was no surprise. There are two options: either people just believed it and moved on, or they didn't believe it and did not think it was worth the retaliation and backlash risk debating it (I fell into that camp).

  5. Top | #165
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    8,124
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    11,779
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post

    Often not at all, but that's not the point. If it is motivated by and believed to be in the interest of women (even if the society is doing harm to women), then is is women-centric.



    Yes. That's the idea. The idea is that women are of weaker minds, like children, but the "fairer" (meaning more delicate and valuable) sex. Its considered by the holders of this mentality to be a romantic noble notion. Patriarchy is patronizing, like a father looking over children. But this also means it includes holding women less responsible for their actions, having more of an outcry when they (and when children) are harmed, protecting them from other men and from themselves (even if the women don't want or need it), etc. So some feminists actually play INTO rather than out of patriarchy and don't seem to realize it.

    I don't entirely buy into that myself, but there's some truth in it imo.
    Its definitely a thing. It just isn't everything, as some Feminists would claim. And its closer to what actually was/is usually going on against women (and men) than the claims by some feminists that these powerful men just despise women (very rarely true; far more often they think they are caring for the women by acting in their sexist and patronizing ways).

    But whatever, it doesn't get us to society is or was gynocentric
    Not entirely no. But as you wrote, it is a factor. I believe it is a powerful force in basic human psychology. Metaphor maybe believes it is the dominant one. Or maybe he just said that as an exagerated remark, as many women claim we live in a patriarchy or misogynist society or "rape culture" (it isn't entirely those either; but these are also common). You didn't seem to want to give Metaphor the benefit of the doubt or listen to what he had to say beyond that one remark, and immediately became flippant and dismissive of him. If you hear him out and don't try to mind read you may discover he's not thinking what you think he's thinking, or alternatively you'll confirm from himself that he is thinking what you think he's thinking. Either way, you've gotten a little further along.

    (I'm fine with and have already agreed that gynocentrism is and was a component, often promoted and enacted by men) but there are too many ways it is and was about men for that to be the case.
    It is often about both at the same time. Those male roles in movies you speak of. How many of them are roles of men very much concerned with women, either as a love interest, somebody in peril to rescue, etc? A lot of them.

    Also, I'm not sure how many Feminists would agree that being treated like children, literally being patronised perhaps, is/was the only issue.
    I don't think anybody would agree it was/is the only issue. But it is patriarchy (literally meaning a father looking after his children). Misogyny and basic sexism also exist.

    Don't forget about plain mistreatment, perhaps especially in certain matters.
    There is plenty of that. And it exists against both women and also against men. That the stuff against men is consistently underplayed, and the stuff against women is highlighted as Metaphor notes, is part of why I think he said gyno-centric society. That doesn't mean it isn't also steeped in patriarchy. It is.

    There's a reason Feminists talk about what they would call rape culture
    There are multiple reasons for that. Misogynist and callous behaviour of men is the one I am guessing you have in mind. Yes. That's a problem. Media and feminist scare mongering is another rather big one you may not have in mind, which is largely influenced by what we were talking about above (women as victims to be protected but not as agents to be held responsible).

    And note that whenever "rape culture" or sexual assault culture is mentioned, its almost always framed as being against women. Note how people reacted to what Lorena Bobbit did (chopping off a guy's penis). It was treated as a laughing matter, as are many assaults, and especially sexual assaults on men, and especially if done by women. Contrast that to how people tend to freak out over mildly sexist remarks made by men, and even mind-reading of ambiguous statements that COULD be sexist or rapey against women. And take something that is clearly disgusting rapey language or behaviour like when Trump said "grab em by the pussy", and imagine if a woman said "grab em by the dick". It would get laughs on mainstream morning shows (rather than in private by a few morons), and very little scorn (which it should get from everyone, regardless of gender of the target).
    The so-called gynocentric (What a term. What is it with men who just cannot bring themselves to refer to women as women?) system that you described is actually centered around men and men’s need and desire to be in control. Which they could only achieve by infantalizing women and threatening them with all sorts of harm, and their children, too—half of whom were boys, AKA future men. By ensuring that women were frightened of being without the protection of a good man. By protecting women from stressing their poor little brains with an education or franchisement, men ensured women would be protected from the big bad world so they could have babies, AKA the men’s heirs and proof of manhood and take care of the home as was their rightful place. Women who flauted these mores were dubbed unsuitable for marriage, which was their only legitimate option.

    Such a system allowed men to dominate without competition from women.

  6. Top | #166
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,158
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,132
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post

    Often not at all, but that's not the point. If it is motivated by and believed to be in the interest of women (even if the society is doing harm to women), then is is women-centric.



    Yes. That's the idea. The idea is that women are of weaker minds, like children, but the "fairer" (meaning more delicate and valuable) sex. Its considered by the holders of this mentality to be a romantic noble notion. Patriarchy is patronizing, like a father looking over children. But this also means it includes holding women less responsible for their actions, having more of an outcry when they (and when children) are harmed, protecting them from other men and from themselves (even if the women don't want or need it), etc. So some feminists actually play INTO rather than out of patriarchy and don't seem to realize it.



    Its definitely a thing. It just isn't everything, as some Feminists would claim. And its closer to what actually was/is usually going on against women (and men) than the claims by some feminists that these powerful men just despise women (very rarely true; far more often they think they are caring for the women by acting in their sexist and patronizing ways).



    Not entirely no. But as you wrote, it is a factor. I believe it is a powerful force in basic human psychology. Metaphor maybe believes it is the dominant one. Or maybe he just said that as an exagerated remark, as many women claim we live in a patriarchy or misogynist society or "rape culture" (it isn't entirely those either; but these are also common). You didn't seem to want to give Metaphor the benefit of the doubt or listen to what he had to say beyond that one remark, and immediately became flippant and dismissive of him. If you hear him out and don't try to mind read you may discover he's not thinking what you think he's thinking, or alternatively you'll confirm from himself that he is thinking what you think he's thinking. Either way, you've gotten a little further along.

    (I'm fine with and have already agreed that gynocentrism is and was a component, often promoted and enacted by men) but there are too many ways it is and was about men for that to be the case.
    It is often about both at the same time. Those male roles in movies you speak of. How many of them are roles of men very much concerned with women, either as a love interest, somebody in peril to rescue, etc? A lot of them.

    Also, I'm not sure how many Feminists would agree that being treated like children, literally being patronised perhaps, is/was the only issue.
    I don't think anybody would agree it was/is the only issue. But it is patriarchy (literally meaning a father looking after his children). Misogyny and basic sexism also exist.

    Don't forget about plain mistreatment, perhaps especially in certain matters.
    There is plenty of that. And it exists against both women and also against men. That the stuff against men is consistently underplayed, and the stuff against women is highlighted as Metaphor notes, is part of why I think he said gyno-centric society. That doesn't mean it isn't also steeped in patriarchy. It is.

    There's a reason Feminists talk about what they would call rape culture
    There are multiple reasons for that. Misogynist and callous behaviour of men is the one I am guessing you have in mind. Yes. That's a problem. Media and feminist scare mongering is another rather big one you may not have in mind, which is largely influenced by what we were talking about above (women as victims to be protected but not as agents to be held responsible).

    And note that whenever "rape culture" or sexual assault culture is mentioned, its almost always framed as being against women. Note how people reacted to what Lorena Bobbit did (chopping off a guy's penis). It was treated as a laughing matter, as are many assaults, and especially sexual assaults on men, and especially if done by women. Contrast that to how people tend to freak out over mildly sexist remarks made by men, and even mind-reading of ambiguous statements that COULD be sexist or rapey against women. And take something that is clearly disgusting rapey language or behaviour like when Trump said "grab em by the pussy", and imagine if a woman said "grab em by the dick". It would get laughs on mainstream morning shows (rather than in private by a few morons), and very little scorn (which it should get from everyone, regardless of gender of the target).
    The so-called gynocentric (What a term. What is it with men who just cannot bring themselves to refer to women as women?) system that you described is actually centered around men and men’s need and desire to be in control. Which they could only achieve by infantalizing women and threatening them with all sorts of harm, and their children, too—half of whom were boys, AKA future men. By ensuring that women were frightened of being without the protection of a good man. By protecting women from stressing their poor little brains with an education or franchisement, men ensured women would be protected from the big bad world so they could have babies, AKA the men’s heirs and proof of manhood and take care of the home as was their rightful place. Women who flauted these mores were dubbed unsuitable for marriage, which was their only legitimate option.

    Such a system allowed men to dominate without competition from women.
    Your narrative is incoherent. If men were able to dominate, it wasn't because they didn't have "competition". They beat the competition.

  7. Top | #167
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    8,124
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    11,779
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post

    Often not at all, but that's not the point. If it is motivated by and believed to be in the interest of women (even if the society is doing harm to women), then is is women-centric.



    Yes. That's the idea. The idea is that women are of weaker minds, like children, but the "fairer" (meaning more delicate and valuable) sex. Its considered by the holders of this mentality to be a romantic noble notion. Patriarchy is patronizing, like a father looking over children. But this also means it includes holding women less responsible for their actions, having more of an outcry when they (and when children) are harmed, protecting them from other men and from themselves (even if the women don't want or need it), etc. So some feminists actually play INTO rather than out of patriarchy and don't seem to realize it.



    Its definitely a thing. It just isn't everything, as some Feminists would claim. And its closer to what actually was/is usually going on against women (and men) than the claims by some feminists that these powerful men just despise women (very rarely true; far more often they think they are caring for the women by acting in their sexist and patronizing ways).



    Not entirely no. But as you wrote, it is a factor. I believe it is a powerful force in basic human psychology. Metaphor maybe believes it is the dominant one. Or maybe he just said that as an exagerated remark, as many women claim we live in a patriarchy or misogynist society or "rape culture" (it isn't entirely those either; but these are also common). You didn't seem to want to give Metaphor the benefit of the doubt or listen to what he had to say beyond that one remark, and immediately became flippant and dismissive of him. If you hear him out and don't try to mind read you may discover he's not thinking what you think he's thinking, or alternatively you'll confirm from himself that he is thinking what you think he's thinking. Either way, you've gotten a little further along.



    It is often about both at the same time. Those male roles in movies you speak of. How many of them are roles of men very much concerned with women, either as a love interest, somebody in peril to rescue, etc? A lot of them.

    Also, I'm not sure how many Feminists would agree that being treated like children, literally being patronised perhaps, is/was the only issue.
    I don't think anybody would agree it was/is the only issue. But it is patriarchy (literally meaning a father looking after his children). Misogyny and basic sexism also exist.

    Don't forget about plain mistreatment, perhaps especially in certain matters.
    There is plenty of that. And it exists against both women and also against men. That the stuff against men is consistently underplayed, and the stuff against women is highlighted as Metaphor notes, is part of why I think he said gyno-centric society. That doesn't mean it isn't also steeped in patriarchy. It is.

    There's a reason Feminists talk about what they would call rape culture
    There are multiple reasons for that. Misogynist and callous behaviour of men is the one I am guessing you have in mind. Yes. That's a problem. Media and feminist scare mongering is another rather big one you may not have in mind, which is largely influenced by what we were talking about above (women as victims to be protected but not as agents to be held responsible).

    And note that whenever "rape culture" or sexual assault culture is mentioned, its almost always framed as being against women. Note how people reacted to what Lorena Bobbit did (chopping off a guy's penis). It was treated as a laughing matter, as are many assaults, and especially sexual assaults on men, and especially if done by women. Contrast that to how people tend to freak out over mildly sexist remarks made by men, and even mind-reading of ambiguous statements that COULD be sexist or rapey against women. And take something that is clearly disgusting rapey language or behaviour like when Trump said "grab em by the pussy", and imagine if a woman said "grab em by the dick". It would get laughs on mainstream morning shows (rather than in private by a few morons), and very little scorn (which it should get from everyone, regardless of gender of the target).
    The so-called gynocentric (What a term. What is it with men who just cannot bring themselves to refer to women as women?) system that you described is actually centered around men and men’s need and desire to be in control. Which they could only achieve by infantalizing women and threatening them with all sorts of harm, and their children, too—half of whom were boys, AKA future men. By ensuring that women were frightened of being without the protection of a good man. By protecting women from stressing their poor little brains with an education or franchisement, men ensured women would be protected from the big bad world so they could have babies, AKA the men’s heirs and proof of manhood and take care of the home as was their rightful place. Women who flauted these mores were dubbed unsuitable for marriage, which was their only legitimate option.

    Such a system allowed men to dominate without competition from women.
    Your narrative is incoherent. If men were able to dominate, it wasn't because they didn't have "competition". They beat the competition.
    Yes, I believe I alluded to the fact that men beat women, literally.

    How proud of that you seem.

  8. Top | #168
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,158
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,132
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post

    Often not at all, but that's not the point. If it is motivated by and believed to be in the interest of women (even if the society is doing harm to women), then is is women-centric.



    Yes. That's the idea. The idea is that women are of weaker minds, like children, but the "fairer" (meaning more delicate and valuable) sex. Its considered by the holders of this mentality to be a romantic noble notion. Patriarchy is patronizing, like a father looking over children. But this also means it includes holding women less responsible for their actions, having more of an outcry when they (and when children) are harmed, protecting them from other men and from themselves (even if the women don't want or need it), etc. So some feminists actually play INTO rather than out of patriarchy and don't seem to realize it.



    Its definitely a thing. It just isn't everything, as some Feminists would claim. And its closer to what actually was/is usually going on against women (and men) than the claims by some feminists that these powerful men just despise women (very rarely true; far more often they think they are caring for the women by acting in their sexist and patronizing ways).



    Not entirely no. But as you wrote, it is a factor. I believe it is a powerful force in basic human psychology. Metaphor maybe believes it is the dominant one. Or maybe he just said that as an exagerated remark, as many women claim we live in a patriarchy or misogynist society or "rape culture" (it isn't entirely those either; but these are also common). You didn't seem to want to give Metaphor the benefit of the doubt or listen to what he had to say beyond that one remark, and immediately became flippant and dismissive of him. If you hear him out and don't try to mind read you may discover he's not thinking what you think he's thinking, or alternatively you'll confirm from himself that he is thinking what you think he's thinking. Either way, you've gotten a little further along.



    It is often about both at the same time. Those male roles in movies you speak of. How many of them are roles of men very much concerned with women, either as a love interest, somebody in peril to rescue, etc? A lot of them.



    I don't think anybody would agree it was/is the only issue. But it is patriarchy (literally meaning a father looking after his children). Misogyny and basic sexism also exist.

    Don't forget about plain mistreatment, perhaps especially in certain matters.
    There is plenty of that. And it exists against both women and also against men. That the stuff against men is consistently underplayed, and the stuff against women is highlighted as Metaphor notes, is part of why I think he said gyno-centric society. That doesn't mean it isn't also steeped in patriarchy. It is.

    There's a reason Feminists talk about what they would call rape culture
    There are multiple reasons for that. Misogynist and callous behaviour of men is the one I am guessing you have in mind. Yes. That's a problem. Media and feminist scare mongering is another rather big one you may not have in mind, which is largely influenced by what we were talking about above (women as victims to be protected but not as agents to be held responsible).

    And note that whenever "rape culture" or sexual assault culture is mentioned, its almost always framed as being against women. Note how people reacted to what Lorena Bobbit did (chopping off a guy's penis). It was treated as a laughing matter, as are many assaults, and especially sexual assaults on men, and especially if done by women. Contrast that to how people tend to freak out over mildly sexist remarks made by men, and even mind-reading of ambiguous statements that COULD be sexist or rapey against women. And take something that is clearly disgusting rapey language or behaviour like when Trump said "grab em by the pussy", and imagine if a woman said "grab em by the dick". It would get laughs on mainstream morning shows (rather than in private by a few morons), and very little scorn (which it should get from everyone, regardless of gender of the target).
    The so-called gynocentric (What a term. What is it with men who just cannot bring themselves to refer to women as women?) system that you described is actually centered around men and men’s need and desire to be in control. Which they could only achieve by infantalizing women and threatening them with all sorts of harm, and their children, too—half of whom were boys, AKA future men. By ensuring that women were frightened of being without the protection of a good man. By protecting women from stressing their poor little brains with an education or franchisement, men ensured women would be protected from the big bad world so they could have babies, AKA the men’s heirs and proof of manhood and take care of the home as was their rightful place. Women who flauted these mores were dubbed unsuitable for marriage, which was their only legitimate option.

    Such a system allowed men to dominate without competition from women.
    Your narrative is incoherent. If men were able to dominate, it wasn't because they didn't have "competition". They beat the competition.
    Yes, I believe I alluded to the fact that men beat women, literally.

    How proud of that you seem.
    I feel no pride or guilt for the actions of people who not only are not me, but who lived and died before I was born.

  9. Top | #169
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    8,124
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    11,779
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post

    Often not at all, but that's not the point. If it is motivated by and believed to be in the interest of women (even if the society is doing harm to women), then is is women-centric.



    Yes. That's the idea. The idea is that women are of weaker minds, like children, but the "fairer" (meaning more delicate and valuable) sex. Its considered by the holders of this mentality to be a romantic noble notion. Patriarchy is patronizing, like a father looking over children. But this also means it includes holding women less responsible for their actions, having more of an outcry when they (and when children) are harmed, protecting them from other men and from themselves (even if the women don't want or need it), etc. So some feminists actually play INTO rather than out of patriarchy and don't seem to realize it.



    Its definitely a thing. It just isn't everything, as some Feminists would claim. And its closer to what actually was/is usually going on against women (and men) than the claims by some feminists that these powerful men just despise women (very rarely true; far more often they think they are caring for the women by acting in their sexist and patronizing ways).



    Not entirely no. But as you wrote, it is a factor. I believe it is a powerful force in basic human psychology. Metaphor maybe believes it is the dominant one. Or maybe he just said that as an exagerated remark, as many women claim we live in a patriarchy or misogynist society or "rape culture" (it isn't entirely those either; but these are also common). You didn't seem to want to give Metaphor the benefit of the doubt or listen to what he had to say beyond that one remark, and immediately became flippant and dismissive of him. If you hear him out and don't try to mind read you may discover he's not thinking what you think he's thinking, or alternatively you'll confirm from himself that he is thinking what you think he's thinking. Either way, you've gotten a little further along.



    It is often about both at the same time. Those male roles in movies you speak of. How many of them are roles of men very much concerned with women, either as a love interest, somebody in peril to rescue, etc? A lot of them.



    I don't think anybody would agree it was/is the only issue. But it is patriarchy (literally meaning a father looking after his children). Misogyny and basic sexism also exist.

    Don't forget about plain mistreatment, perhaps especially in certain matters.
    There is plenty of that. And it exists against both women and also against men. That the stuff against men is consistently underplayed, and the stuff against women is highlighted as Metaphor notes, is part of why I think he said gyno-centric society. That doesn't mean it isn't also steeped in patriarchy. It is.

    There's a reason Feminists talk about what they would call rape culture
    There are multiple reasons for that. Misogynist and callous behaviour of men is the one I am guessing you have in mind. Yes. That's a problem. Media and feminist scare mongering is another rather big one you may not have in mind, which is largely influenced by what we were talking about above (women as victims to be protected but not as agents to be held responsible).

    And note that whenever "rape culture" or sexual assault culture is mentioned, its almost always framed as being against women. Note how people reacted to what Lorena Bobbit did (chopping off a guy's penis). It was treated as a laughing matter, as are many assaults, and especially sexual assaults on men, and especially if done by women. Contrast that to how people tend to freak out over mildly sexist remarks made by men, and even mind-reading of ambiguous statements that COULD be sexist or rapey against women. And take something that is clearly disgusting rapey language or behaviour like when Trump said "grab em by the pussy", and imagine if a woman said "grab em by the dick". It would get laughs on mainstream morning shows (rather than in private by a few morons), and very little scorn (which it should get from everyone, regardless of gender of the target).
    The so-called gynocentric (What a term. What is it with men who just cannot bring themselves to refer to women as women?) system that you described is actually centered around men and men’s need and desire to be in control. Which they could only achieve by infantalizing women and threatening them with all sorts of harm, and their children, too—half of whom were boys, AKA future men. By ensuring that women were frightened of being without the protection of a good man. By protecting women from stressing their poor little brains with an education or franchisement, men ensured women would be protected from the big bad world so they could have babies, AKA the men’s heirs and proof of manhood and take care of the home as was their rightful place. Women who flauted these mores were dubbed unsuitable for marriage, which was their only legitimate option.

    Such a system allowed men to dominate without competition from women.
    Your narrative is incoherent. If men were able to dominate, it wasn't because they didn't have "competition". They beat the competition.
    Yes, I believe I alluded to the fact that men beat women, literally.

    How proud of that you seem.
    I feel no pride or guilt for the actions of people who not only are not me, but who lived and died before I was born.
    Why burden yourself with guilt when you can just enjoy the fruits of other people’s labors and the life of relative ease provided?

  10. Top | #170
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,158
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,132
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post

    Often not at all, but that's not the point. If it is motivated by and believed to be in the interest of women (even if the society is doing harm to women), then is is women-centric.



    Yes. That's the idea. The idea is that women are of weaker minds, like children, but the "fairer" (meaning more delicate and valuable) sex. Its considered by the holders of this mentality to be a romantic noble notion. Patriarchy is patronizing, like a father looking over children. But this also means it includes holding women less responsible for their actions, having more of an outcry when they (and when children) are harmed, protecting them from other men and from themselves (even if the women don't want or need it), etc. So some feminists actually play INTO rather than out of patriarchy and don't seem to realize it.



    Its definitely a thing. It just isn't everything, as some Feminists would claim. And its closer to what actually was/is usually going on against women (and men) than the claims by some feminists that these powerful men just despise women (very rarely true; far more often they think they are caring for the women by acting in their sexist and patronizing ways).



    Not entirely no. But as you wrote, it is a factor. I believe it is a powerful force in basic human psychology. Metaphor maybe believes it is the dominant one. Or maybe he just said that as an exagerated remark, as many women claim we live in a patriarchy or misogynist society or "rape culture" (it isn't entirely those either; but these are also common). You didn't seem to want to give Metaphor the benefit of the doubt or listen to what he had to say beyond that one remark, and immediately became flippant and dismissive of him. If you hear him out and don't try to mind read you may discover he's not thinking what you think he's thinking, or alternatively you'll confirm from himself that he is thinking what you think he's thinking. Either way, you've gotten a little further along.



    It is often about both at the same time. Those male roles in movies you speak of. How many of them are roles of men very much concerned with women, either as a love interest, somebody in peril to rescue, etc? A lot of them.



    I don't think anybody would agree it was/is the only issue. But it is patriarchy (literally meaning a father looking after his children). Misogyny and basic sexism also exist.

    Don't forget about plain mistreatment, perhaps especially in certain matters.
    There is plenty of that. And it exists against both women and also against men. That the stuff against men is consistently underplayed, and the stuff against women is highlighted as Metaphor notes, is part of why I think he said gyno-centric society. That doesn't mean it isn't also steeped in patriarchy. It is.

    There's a reason Feminists talk about what they would call rape culture
    There are multiple reasons for that. Misogynist and callous behaviour of men is the one I am guessing you have in mind. Yes. That's a problem. Media and feminist scare mongering is another rather big one you may not have in mind, which is largely influenced by what we were talking about above (women as victims to be protected but not as agents to be held responsible).

    And note that whenever "rape culture" or sexual assault culture is mentioned, its almost always framed as being against women. Note how people reacted to what Lorena Bobbit did (chopping off a guy's penis). It was treated as a laughing matter, as are many assaults, and especially sexual assaults on men, and especially if done by women. Contrast that to how people tend to freak out over mildly sexist remarks made by men, and even mind-reading of ambiguous statements that COULD be sexist or rapey against women. And take something that is clearly disgusting rapey language or behaviour like when Trump said "grab em by the pussy", and imagine if a woman said "grab em by the dick". It would get laughs on mainstream morning shows (rather than in private by a few morons), and very little scorn (which it should get from everyone, regardless of gender of the target).
    The so-called gynocentric (What a term. What is it with men who just cannot bring themselves to refer to women as women?) system that you described is actually centered around men and men’s need and desire to be in control. Which they could only achieve by infantalizing women and threatening them with all sorts of harm, and their children, too—half of whom were boys, AKA future men. By ensuring that women were frightened of being without the protection of a good man. By protecting women from stressing their poor little brains with an education or franchisement, men ensured women would be protected from the big bad world so they could have babies, AKA the men’s heirs and proof of manhood and take care of the home as was their rightful place. Women who flauted these mores were dubbed unsuitable for marriage, which was their only legitimate option.

    Such a system allowed men to dominate without competition from women.
    Your narrative is incoherent. If men were able to dominate, it wasn't because they didn't have "competition". They beat the competition.
    Yes, I believe I alluded to the fact that men beat women, literally.

    How proud of that you seem.
    I feel no pride or guilt for the actions of people who not only are not me, but who lived and died before I was born.
    Why burden yourself with guilt when you can just enjoy the fruits of other people’s labors and the life of relative ease provided?
    Like you and everybody else alive does?

    Honey, I was raised Catholic. I've had my share of being told I am guilty just for being born. If I can shake myself of that indoctrination, I don't think your honeyed persuasion will get me back in the mindset.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •