"Patriarchy"

[Me Myself]

We already had that conversation. I already explained why most women are more valuable than most men in patriarchies. I won't go over it with you unless you shape up.

So again answer, you believe that it woulde LESS of a patriarchy if women were the ones doing the wars because they were seen as less valuable?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

"not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form"[4] and the model for all others.[4]

thats a quote from ellen willis.

Do you disagree with this? That patriarchy is the oldest and most universal form of domination?

Also, Mystic had said more than once that male disposability steams from patriarchy and so does female privilege in general.

Yes, I contend that the ways that male disposability and female privilege has appeared throughout patriarchal cultures is at least correlative and at most causative from patriarchal cultures and institutions.

I've also said more than once (if you paid attention) that I abhor matriarchy as much as I do patriarchy. But I've also asked for evidence of matriarchal institutions in our or any society, if your contention of female privilege AND male disposability is always and only caused by matriarchy, and I have not seen evidence of matriarchal elements, then I disagree with your contention.

Therefore, the male disposability and female privilege that is currently being seen is, I submit, symptomatic of patriarchal culture.

The whole thread merely means to say patriarchy is what ptriarchy actually IS.

So sure, it is wrong, but male disposabililty is not part of patriarchy. It is its own gender discrimination iitself . If it didnt exist, it wouldnt be any less of a patriarchy.

Males in majority positions of power who either promote or demote other majority males in positions of power based on concepts of what "masculinity" is in their culture and think adult women need to be protected like fine china from other men who might or might not tarnish or destroy what they want to protect....AND then elevate this perspective to any imperialistic endeavor....you can bet that a patriarchal society has just created male disposability for the purpose of acquiring property (that includes women for reproductive purposes).

Can you provide an explanation for how male disposability in male-dominated militaristic-imperialistic societies are NOT correlated to patriarchy?

 

[Me Myself]

Do you disagree with this? That patriarchy is the oldest and most universal form of domination?



Yes, I contend that the ways that male disposability and female privilege has appeared throughout patriarchal cultures is at least correlative and at most causative from patriarchal cultures and institutions.

I've also said more than once (if you paid attention) that I abhor matriarchy as much as I do patriarchy. But I've also asked for evidence of matriarchal institutions in our or any society, if your contention of female privilege AND male disposability is always and only caused by matriarchy, and I have not seen evidence of matriarchal elements, then I disagree with your contention.

Therefore, the male disposability and female privilege that is currently being seen is, I submit, symptomatic of patriarchal culture.



Males in majority positions of power who either promote or demote other majority males in positions of power based on concepts of what "masculinity" is in their culture and think adult women need to be protected like fine china from other men who might or might not tarnish or destroy what they want to protect....AND then elevate this perspective to any imperialistic endeavor....you can bet that a patriarchal society has just created male disposability for the purpose of acquiring property (that includes women for reproductive purposes).

Can you provide an explanation for how male disposability in male-dominated militaristic-imperialistic societies are NOT correlated to patriarchy?

I never said there is any matriarchy. Why do you think I contend male disposability happens only in matriarchy or did I read you wrong somehow?

I havent argued in any moment that we live in a matriarchy. I simply said that there is both male and female privilege and that patriarchy is what patriarchy is, having nothing to do with male disposability.

As of evidence for patriarchy not being the reason for male disposability, well I quoted a mathrilineal culture where women could hold political power and were deemed more important as mothers than men as father and could divorce and hold property, etc, and ithis culture the men were ALSO the ones who went to war while women didnt.

So if male disposability is present in cultures that are not patriarchal that is a good indicative that it is not a defining patriarchal trait. Or to put it more bluntly:

If a patriarchal society forced its women to go to war and not men because it said that it is better to lose women than to lose men, would this soceity be less patriarchal because of this trait?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I never said there is any matriarchy. Why do you think I contend male disposability happens only in matriarchy or did I read you wrong somehow?

Earlier in the thread you agreed with Revoltingest's contention that there weren't just patriarchal elements in our society, but matriarchal elements in our society. In fact, you applauded him by saying that his post that spelled this out was better put than what you were trying to say.

I havent argued in any moment that we live in a matriarchy. I simply said that there is both male and female privilege and that patriarchy is what patriarchy is, having nothing to do with male disposability.

You've jumped around, backpedaled, and conflicted yourself many times in this thread, and have been called out for it because it seems as if you really don't know what you're talking about.

As of evidence for patriarchy not being the reason for male disposability, well I quoted a mathrilineal culture where women could hold political power and were deemed more important as mothers than men as father and could divorce and hold property, etc, and ithis culture the men were ALSO the ones who went to war while women didnt.

Got it. I always maintained that matriarchy is just as abhorrent because of the various forms of gender privileges and unequal rights. AND I've maintained that THIS culture has seen male disposability manifest from it's patriarchal elements. And now, you're confusing again, because you're suggesting that a matrilineal culture has sent its men to war....implying what you insist you never said: that male disposability ONLY comes from matriarchal cultures.

So if male disposability is present in cultures that are not patriarchal that is a good indicative that it is not a defining patriarchal trait. Or to put it more bluntly:

If a patriarchal society forced its women to go to war and not men because it said that it is better to lose women than to lose men, would this soceity be less patriarchal because of this trait?

It depends....are women considered the property and under the purview of men?

Hey, how's that reading coming? Have you started reading feminist works yet after being provided a free online source?

 

[Me Myself]

Saying that male disosability happens in mathrilineal societies too doesot implies it happens only in matriarchal societies, it implies it is a common gender inequality that is not TIED to patriarchy

If you have a single quote of me saying we live in a matriarchy I would love to see it.

 

[dust1n]

What I'm surprised to find out that no one has ever talked about female dispensability really, even though Warren Clark acknowledges it exists (according to the Wiki).

It's not like women are excluded from crime. They are attacked more and killed less.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf

But who cares. Most any feminist is going to acknowledge a legitimate grievance if they see one. After all, they are familiar with them as is. Not always, but plenty of the time. Sorry if females' main prerogative is looking after themselves. But I wonder why no one is making threads complaining of Chinese workers protesting mainly Chinese government's corruption and power, instead of, like, Iran's treatment of women. Or why black people are generally concerned with issues that affect black people, opposed, to like, libertarian causes. Or prisoner's rights for the treatment of prisoners and conditions of prisons, as opposed to prisoner's being specifically against the War in Iraq... Though, if women are concerned with mainly women's issues, it's a crime against all sensibility. For some reason, they must go out of their way and make concessions for everyone, even though they have been traditionally active in politics (things that effect men), children's rights, so fourth. And I don't blame fathers for being concerned with faulty perceptions about fatherhood in court. Or that soldier's are mad they are getting sent to war. It's just weird when someone is going out of their way to discount some other groups concern with their own rights because they are mainly focused on their... well own rights.

 

[Me Myself]

I am not complaining that their main prerrogative is looking after women. I am simply stating that it is inaccurate to blame it all on patriarchy. Thats all.

There are a lot of gender inequalities that have nothing to do with patriarchy. My argument is merely name it like it is, thats all.

 

[dust1n]

I am not complaining that their main prerrogative is looking after women. I am simply stating that it is inaccurate to blame it all on patriarchy. Thats all.

There are a lot of gender inequalities that have nothing to do with patriarchy. My argument is merely name it like it is, thats all.

I don't anyone who blamed it all on patriarchy in this thread, but it would be inaccurate, much like claiming patriarchy doesn't exist.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't anyone who blamed it all on patriarchy in this thread, but it would be inaccurate, much like claiming patriarchy doesn't exist.

Well, thats all I am saying. Male disposability does not come from patriarchy.

 

[Me Myself]

And is not patriarchy.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Jesus, this topic gets really old. You address one point... trail to another... address another.. trail to another. Let's face it, it doesn't matter the legitimacy of feminism or any of the writings, because some people just aren't going to change their mind. Prove one point... point ditch and move to the next topic. No references, no sources, just the same boring movement to one useless point barely relating to feminism to the next.

I'm re-quoting this from earlier in the thread. Pretty much sums it all up.

 

[Alceste]

Well, thats all I am saying. Male disposability does not come from patriarchy.

Oh right, that explains why women have never had to fight to be allowed into the army, and why they don't have any problems getting combat jobs or working on submarines.

 

[Mathematician]

Oh right, that explains why women have never had to fight to be allowed into the army, and why they don't have any problems getting combat jobs or working on submarines.

Lol, 'had to fight to be in the military.' Because being slaughter for the country and working 16 hours days is so much fun.

For thousands of years men were seen as disposable entities while women were viewed as national or regional treasures. In a fight for the death, the man was expected to put his life first before anyone else - in war, in revolutions, in crime, in family disputes. I love how feminists spin this as patriarchy since it can be seen as viewing women as weak while not realizing it can also be viewed as matriarchy be viewing men as useless.

Reminds me of the Hillary Clinton quote about women being the main victims of war because they lose their husbands and sons. Apparently losing a loved one is worse than - you know - being dismembered and kill. The perfect representation of the victim mentality feminism promotes.

 

[Alceste]

Lol, 'had to fight to be in the military.' Because being slaughter for the country and working 16 hours days is so much fun.

For thousands of years men were seen as disposable entities while women were viewed as national or regional treasures. In a fight for the death, the man was expected to put his life first before anyone else - in war, in revolutions, in crime, in family disputes. I love how feminists spin this as patriarchy since it can be seen as viewing women as weak while not realizing it can also be viewed as matriarchy be viewing men as useless.

Is it or is it not true that women have had to fight to be allowed into the military, to advance there, and to be assigned to various specific positions within the organization?

It's a question of fact. Take your self-pity goggles off for a moment and think about it. Or look it up, if you need to.

 

[Mathematician]

Is it or is it not true that women have had to fight to be allowed into the military, to advance there, and to be assigned to various specific positions within the organization?

It's a question of fact. Take your self-pity goggles off for a moment and think about it. Or look it up, if you need to.

It's not a question of fact. You're distorting thousands of years of history and the reality of not only war but everyday military life to try to promote an image that favors your bias. Being in the military is grueling - especially in the U.S. due to our activities abroad. I have friends in all four major branches and they report back to me that an easy day (other than leave) requires 7 AM to 7 PM service with frequent overtime. Most grunts, and I emphasize this is not a hyperbole, go through serious mental issues before stabilizing or being kicked out. This is not a life style people enjoy, hence why most people who join are desperate to find meaning and use their patriotism to dig out a sum of money and companionship. They enjoy the purpose behind their job and the honor it brings, but it's almost as if you're acting like the men who fought in WW2 and died were better off than the women relegated to the factories.

Women fought to join the military because of gender role bias: it's seen as more inhumane to kill women than men. Similarly, men had to fight for the federal government to recognize female-on-male rape. Does that change the fact for thousands of years women have been the primary victims of rape? Or is that just fact?

 

[Alceste]

It's not a question of fact. You're distorting thousands of years of history and the reality of not only war but everyday military life to try to promote an image that favors your bias. Being in the military is grueling - especially in the U.S. due to our activities abroad. I have friends in all four major branches and they report back to me that an easy day (other than leave) requires 7 AM to 7 PM service with frequent overtime. Most grunts, and I emphasize this is not a hyperbole, go through serious mental issues before stabilizing or being kicked out. This is not a life style people enjoy, hence why most people who join are desperate to find meaning and use their patriotism to dig out a sum of money and companionship.

Women fought to join the military because of gender role bias: it's seen as more inhumane to kill women than men. Similarly, men had to fight for the federal government to recognize female-on-male rape. Does that change the fact for thousands of years women have been the primary victims of rape? Or is that just fact?

And would you say that the gender role bias at play in both these circumstances could be described as "patriarchal?" As in the phrase "patriarchal gender roles"?

Btw, I think being in the military is a crappy job, but I don't believe anyone who wants it should be prohibited from signing up.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh right, that explains why women have never had to fight to be allowed into the army, and why they don't have any problems getting combat jobs or working on submarines.

No. It doesnt. What explains that is the stereotype that says women arent tough, which is another stereotype prevalent in society.

What it does explain, is why non patriarchal societies still display male disposability.

So in simple terms: they are not the same.

 

[Mathematician]

What I'm surprised to find out that no one has ever talked about female dispensability really, even though Warren Clark acknowledges it exists (according to the Wiki).

It's not like women are excluded from crime. They are attacked more and killed less.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf

But who cares. Most any feminist is going to acknowledge a legitimate grievance if they see one. After all, they are familiar with them as is. Not always, but plenty of the time. Sorry if females' main prerogative is looking after themselves. But I wonder why no one is making threads complaining of Chinese workers protesting mainly Chinese government's corruption and power, instead of, like, Iran's treatment of women. Or why black people are generally concerned with issues that affect black people, opposed, to like, libertarian causes. Or prisoner's rights for the treatment of prisoners and conditions of prisons, as opposed to prisoner's being specifically against the War in Iraq... Though, if women are concerned with mainly women's issues, it's a crime against all sensibility. For some reason, they must go out of their way and make concessions for everyone, even though they have been traditionally active in politics (things that effect men), children's rights, so fourth. And I don't blame fathers for being concerned with faulty perceptions about fatherhood in court. Or that soldier's are mad they are getting sent to war. It's just weird when someone is going out of their way to discount some other groups concern with their own rights because they are mainly focused on their... well own rights.

I don't see anyone on RF who is upset about women taking up a mantel about issues that affect women like rape or abortion.

I do see feminists trying to assert that boy's performance in education, violence against men, bias towards mother in court proceedings, longer jail sentences for male convicts, etc is trivial compared to female concerns. In this very thread we had a user blame men and boys for flunking out of school. I see no similar remarks devised here. Which is why the associations with feminism has been dropped by Warren Clark and millions of other men and women.

 

[Me Myself]

And would you say that the gender role bias at play in both these circumstances could be described as "patriarchal?" As in the phrase "patriarchal gender roles"?

Btw, I think being in the military is a crappy job, but I don't believe anyone who wants it should be prohibited from signing up.

Male disosability is not more nor less patriarchal than matriarchal, because it exists in both forms of archies.

So linking them is plain inaccurate.

 

[Mathematician]

And would you say that the gender role bias at play in both these circumstances could be described as "patriarchal?" As in the phrase "patriarchal gender roles"?

Btw, I think being in the military is a crappy job, but I don't believe anyone who wants it should be prohibited from signing up.

These are gender roles both men and women devised thousands of years ago as a matter of convenience. Men fought in wars because they could be more mobile during their youth. Up until the 19th century and even beyond that period for most of the world, the average woman was pregnant for most of her fertile life. Think about the cultural implications. It was in the best interest of tribes, families, and nations for pregnant individuals to not yield a sword or gun. It has little to do with size or physical duress because plenty of short men participated in war (Napoleon). Men were thus put in charge of caring for the well-fare of his group in times of war and through work. Women were primarily expected to care for the child and home as an equal exchange.

I believe women should join the military as well, but it's not the 'man keeping us down just because we're women.' It's a social construct that once had a purpose sticking on until it fades. Just like other cultural mores.

Labeling it patriarchal shows a gender bias. Gender roles were devised by both genders - unlike homophobia and racism. I believe white racism and heterosexism are more predominant than black racism and homosexism. I don't believe sexism is significantly different to warrent a 'patriarchal' ideology.