That’s cool, except if only certain people with certain body configurations have the uncontrolled freedom to be themselves, that’s still a problem.
Or, as long as people who do not identify with the body they were given are ostricized, there are problems. As long as there are people who are groped because their body is different, lynched because their skin is different, or kept out of certain rooms just because of growths on their bodies they have no control over, there are problems.
Just because you remove a label doesn’t mean there isnt a problem any more.
In that case, is “patriarchy” the right label? Most men (racial minorities, non-cis, etc) face systematic oppression, so it doesn’t seem like gender is the problem. Seems like oppression follows class lines, not gender, race, orientation, etc.
Maybe Kyriarchy works better for you? It describes a multi layered and interactive web of stacked series of oppressive factors that encompasses race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ablism issues etc.
Though under the definitions of patriarchy men are still oppressed. Young men and the poor are held in sway and looked at as disposable pawns and labor by the patriarchs - powerful men in the lead positions, like male heads of the family, but in this instance the ‘family’ is government, military, businesses and corperations, guilds, unions and bosses. The the buy in for those men at the bottom is that even a lowly man gets to feel like they are better at least than women. The act of being a woman is an automatic sort of failure state. Hence why men behaving in a feminine fashion are a threat. It subverts the hierarchy when someone willing chooses to behave as “lesser” of their own volition and seem happier for it.
The the buy in for those men at the bottom is that even a lowly man gets to feel like they are better at least than women.
This hasn’t been my experience, most authorities in my life have been women (teachers, bosses, etc). Even upper leadership in the company I currently work for has slightly more women than men. Obviously not everyone has the same experience, but I don’t think the picture you tried to paint is a universal truth.
I don’t think it is a universal truth and never stated as such, particularly since we have a solid century of advocacy and protest dismantling these ideas. It’s more that the original idea of “patriarchy”(which is a single concept within the body of feminism as socio-political theory and feminism is not a monolith ) isn’t usually what people think. It doesn’t mean men overall are the oneswho benefit but rather hierarchical established powers which are still legacy holdings of male dominated structures.
If you are in a space that is female dominated that still is not the overall norm. If you look at the most powerful business empires in the world only 1 in 10 is lead by a female CEO. E
It doesn’t even have to be at the top.
For example : In my industry of film for instance the majority of departments are male dominated and even some of the ones that aren’t hostile to women can have invisible greased poles which keep women at the bottom. It can be simple as bosses hiring on their friends onto crews. If their all male beer and pretzels buddies are their first four staff picks and a crew is only seven people then that can leave less than half the open spaces that are filled by merit. Even if the boss’s motives aren’t overtly sexist their lack of comfort being around women socially and favoring people they feel they relate to with personalities they enjoy because of similarity of life experience can mean that a smaller share of options are available to the unfavored group. The less of a group is represented the less they self advocate as well because they cannot build easy consensus. This means the merit hires are also more vulnerable to being replaced if they speak up or the work pool narrows where the nepotistic ones have security so any dip in the industry can hit those merit groups that much harder.
Fighting patriarchy often requires being conscious of how your personal choices, which are often by no means evil, are potentially narrowing the open spaces actually available to people who do not closely resemble yourself as a man.
It’s not to say that women placed in positions of authority won’t also potentially recreate these structures if they are uncomfortable with the company of men… But examples of Matriarchies are more fragile. Historically they have a habit of collapsing because one feature of patriarchy that matriarchy does not often have is historically patriarchy seeks to physically or socially isolate women from the public sphere and if they cannot do that in their own society they go off an subjugate and enslave women outside of their culture by force. Most Matriarch societies value men for their physical labor over their reproductive qualities (because lineages are always secure) which means that social isolation is simply not on the table whereas patriarchy of antiquity values secluding women to ensure a reproductive lineage. If a group cannot gather in numbers they cannot organize or resist hence why a lot of societies that our modern society is based off of basically kept their women as pets confined to the domestic sphere and told that they as a group were simply expressing a different form of excellence.
Women’s equality is precarious. History is rife with examples of them rising in autonomy before men slamed them back down the into forced servitude once again and re solidifying their dominance over the social sphere.
Oppression follows ALL those lines. Oppression and privilege are intersections. That’s why a woman can be black but also be rich and live a better life than a dude who’s poor.
I don’t care if you call it The Wibbly Fuck Problem. Stop worrying about what it’s called and just do something about it. Damn. Everyone always worry about the unimportant shit.
“Patriarchy.” You use the word but you dont know what it means. We’re not talking about heads of households, we’re talking about the halls of power; which are controlled by cis men. Gender Equality advocates are not making claims that “men don’t exist,” just that gender its a highly varied spectrum.
My guess is you already know this, and willfully ignore nuance so you can push a counter ideological stance. That makes you a lame-o. Sorry.
No, there still is. Trans men suffer from all of the same patriarchal oppression that cis men suffer from. The loneliness, the isolation, the expectation that they have no emotion. If you somehow watch trans people TikTok, The men’s biggest complaint is that they now have no friends.
So yes, the patriarchy exists even if gender is a construct. Because one of those constructed genders oppresses the others, and themselves.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
That’s cool, except if only certain people with certain body configurations have the uncontrolled freedom to be themselves, that’s still a problem.
Or, as long as people who do not identify with the body they were given are ostricized, there are problems. As long as there are people who are groped because their body is different, lynched because their skin is different, or kept out of certain rooms just because of growths on their bodies they have no control over, there are problems.
Just because you remove a label doesn’t mean there isnt a problem any more.
In that case, is “patriarchy” the right label? Most men (racial minorities, non-cis, etc) face systematic oppression, so it doesn’t seem like gender is the problem. Seems like oppression follows class lines, not gender, race, orientation, etc.
Maybe Kyriarchy works better for you? It describes a multi layered and interactive web of stacked series of oppressive factors that encompasses race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ablism issues etc.
Though under the definitions of patriarchy men are still oppressed. Young men and the poor are held in sway and looked at as disposable pawns and labor by the patriarchs - powerful men in the lead positions, like male heads of the family, but in this instance the ‘family’ is government, military, businesses and corperations, guilds, unions and bosses. The the buy in for those men at the bottom is that even a lowly man gets to feel like they are better at least than women. The act of being a woman is an automatic sort of failure state. Hence why men behaving in a feminine fashion are a threat. It subverts the hierarchy when someone willing chooses to behave as “lesser” of their own volition and seem happier for it.
This hasn’t been my experience, most authorities in my life have been women (teachers, bosses, etc). Even upper leadership in the company I currently work for has slightly more women than men. Obviously not everyone has the same experience, but I don’t think the picture you tried to paint is a universal truth.
I don’t think it is a universal truth and never stated as such, particularly since we have a solid century of advocacy and protest dismantling these ideas. It’s more that the original idea of “patriarchy”(which is a single concept within the body of feminism as socio-political theory and feminism is not a monolith ) isn’t usually what people think. It doesn’t mean men overall are the oneswho benefit but rather hierarchical established powers which are still legacy holdings of male dominated structures.
If you are in a space that is female dominated that still is not the overall norm. If you look at the most powerful business empires in the world only 1 in 10 is lead by a female CEO. E
It doesn’t even have to be at the top.
For example : In my industry of film for instance the majority of departments are male dominated and even some of the ones that aren’t hostile to women can have invisible greased poles which keep women at the bottom. It can be simple as bosses hiring on their friends onto crews. If their all male beer and pretzels buddies are their first four staff picks and a crew is only seven people then that can leave less than half the open spaces that are filled by merit. Even if the boss’s motives aren’t overtly sexist their lack of comfort being around women socially and favoring people they feel they relate to with personalities they enjoy because of similarity of life experience can mean that a smaller share of options are available to the unfavored group. The less of a group is represented the less they self advocate as well because they cannot build easy consensus. This means the merit hires are also more vulnerable to being replaced if they speak up or the work pool narrows where the nepotistic ones have security so any dip in the industry can hit those merit groups that much harder.
Fighting patriarchy often requires being conscious of how your personal choices, which are often by no means evil, are potentially narrowing the open spaces actually available to people who do not closely resemble yourself as a man.
It’s not to say that women placed in positions of authority won’t also potentially recreate these structures if they are uncomfortable with the company of men… But examples of Matriarchies are more fragile. Historically they have a habit of collapsing because one feature of patriarchy that matriarchy does not often have is historically patriarchy seeks to physically or socially isolate women from the public sphere and if they cannot do that in their own society they go off an subjugate and enslave women outside of their culture by force. Most Matriarch societies value men for their physical labor over their reproductive qualities (because lineages are always secure) which means that social isolation is simply not on the table whereas patriarchy of antiquity values secluding women to ensure a reproductive lineage. If a group cannot gather in numbers they cannot organize or resist hence why a lot of societies that our modern society is based off of basically kept their women as pets confined to the domestic sphere and told that they as a group were simply expressing a different form of excellence.
Women’s equality is precarious. History is rife with examples of them rising in autonomy before men slamed them back down the into forced servitude once again and re solidifying their dominance over the social sphere.
Oppression follows ALL those lines. Oppression and privilege are intersections. That’s why a woman can be black but also be rich and live a better life than a dude who’s poor.
I don’t care if you call it The Wibbly Fuck Problem. Stop worrying about what it’s called and just do something about it. Damn. Everyone always worry about the unimportant shit.
What are you doing to stop the ruling class from oppressing the rest of us? Seems like you’re just posting on Lemmy, same as me.
I see a lot of mouth and no trousers/skirt in this statement.
Pervert. I don’t have to show you my ass just so you don’t be a dick.
Removed by mod
A scientific journal about the differences between sex and gender for you to read whilst you keep vomiting fecal matter.
Removed by mod
Spoken like someone who doesn’t know any psychiatrists or psychologists…
Removed by mod
What hearings are you referring to?
I have a XX/XY friend. You tell me their sex/gender.
Removed by mod
Something being a social construct does not mean it has no real world effects. That’s kind of the point of identifying it as a social construct. HTH
Removed by mod
It’s still a social construct if it’s based on facts. Social construct doesn’t mean fake, it means we gave it a name and meaning.
So you do think there is a patriarchy? And you think it is based on fact, not the social construction of gender?
Removed by mod
The natural male urge to sit in a cubicle for 10 hours a day
So, you think you live in a society where discrimination based on sex does not exist.
Where is that, and what is your evidence for your claim?
Removed by mod
The story is about Italy?
You didn’t give your evidence so perhaps you’d prefer to refute this? Patriarchy in disguise — the myth of gender equality in the Netherlands
“Patriarchy.” You use the word but you dont know what it means. We’re not talking about heads of households, we’re talking about the halls of power; which are controlled by cis men. Gender Equality advocates are not making claims that “men don’t exist,” just that gender its a highly varied spectrum. My guess is you already know this, and willfully ignore nuance so you can push a counter ideological stance. That makes you a lame-o. Sorry.
Removed by mod
How come
Removed by mod
“It’s worse somewhere else so the problem doesn’t exist” has always been a shit argument and you know it.
Removed by mod
Neither do I guess. 👋
So as long as it isn’t as bad as Saudi Arabia there are no problems?
No, there still is. Trans men suffer from all of the same patriarchal oppression that cis men suffer from. The loneliness, the isolation, the expectation that they have no emotion. If you somehow watch trans people TikTok, The men’s biggest complaint is that they now have no friends.
So yes, the patriarchy exists even if gender is a construct. Because one of those constructed genders oppresses the others, and themselves.
And from what I’m being told by the internet, men make the best women.
Removed by mod