Sydney Sweeney says Hollywood is not actually filled with 'women empowering other women,' but rather people tearing women down. 'None of it's happening,' she said in the 'Vanity Fair' 2025 Hollywood Issue.
Oh of course not. It’s just the system created by, controlled by, and made for men as a way to oppress women by equating their value to sex appeal. Who would ever think of implying patriarchy = men. Why would anybody get that idea?
It’s a way to oppress everyone, by reducing women to mothers and sex objects and reducing men to laborers and cannon fodder. Women are too emotional and men aren’t allowed to show emotion without being pussies. It’s a double edged sword.
Nobody really benefits as a demographic as a whole. It leads to mens higher suicide rates, prevents women from fully realizing their potential, and precludes the existence of NB people. Individuals benefit in various ways, for example: men receive higher pay and women receive more emotional support. I (AFAB) “benefit” from women’s parking spots that exist because of rape culture, but is that really a win?
There’s really no section of the population that benefits from infighting between the sexes? No section that benefits by distracting large parts of the population by having them focus on their perceived differences? No group that can afford to influence the narrative, conditions, and perceptions to their benefit? No group comes to mind?
If they are, I disagree. Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk are all very clearly affected by the patriarchy. For older money, Barbara Bush, Jackie Onassis, and FDR were clearly harmed by the patriarchy.
Except the patriarchy isn’t made/controlled/for men exclusively. It’s upheld by both men and women. Some women are benefactors of the patriarchy, just as some men are victims.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(729x387:731x389)/Sydney-Sweeney-Eden-premiere-TIFF-Toronto-111224-tout-6a27177bf2ea455bb18a9edcf623752d.jpg)
Oh of course not. It’s just the system created by, controlled by, and made for men as a way to oppress women by equating their value to sex appeal. Who would ever think of implying patriarchy = men. Why would anybody get that idea?
It’s a way to oppress everyone, by reducing women to mothers and sex objects and reducing men to laborers and cannon fodder. Women are too emotional and men aren’t allowed to show emotion without being pussies. It’s a double edged sword.
Ask yourself who benefits from this and you might find out it’s not a “patriarchy”.
Nobody really benefits as a demographic as a whole. It leads to mens higher suicide rates, prevents women from fully realizing their potential, and precludes the existence of NB people. Individuals benefit in various ways, for example: men receive higher pay and women receive more emotional support. I (AFAB) “benefit” from women’s parking spots that exist because of rape culture, but is that really a win?
There’s really no section of the population that benefits from infighting between the sexes? No section that benefits by distracting large parts of the population by having them focus on their perceived differences? No group that can afford to influence the narrative, conditions, and perceptions to their benefit? No group comes to mind?
Why don’t you just tell me what you think instead of making me guess.
I believe they pointing at the rich again. As everyone does once you drill down into most inequalities enough.
If they are, I disagree. Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk are all very clearly affected by the patriarchy. For older money, Barbara Bush, Jackie Onassis, and FDR were clearly harmed by the patriarchy.
Except the patriarchy isn’t made/controlled/for men exclusively. It’s upheld by both men and women. Some women are benefactors of the patriarchy, just as some men are victims.