3 ms·

Spot the contradiction: - the patriarchy teaches men to bottle up their feelings - in the patriarchy, women's issues are systematically ignored in favor of

by tnone 9y ago

Spot the contradiction: - the patriarchy teaches men to bottle up their feelings - in the patriarchy, women's issues are systematically ignored in favor of men Men generally don't hang out on sites to talk about their burrito shits, they don't bond over their gender, lacking a mechanism for in group preference based on it. They bond over shared interests and hobbies. Unlike women, for whom "X For Women" is inevitably created as an end in itself. If you want to talk about privilege, the fact that your gender has a political movement, media sector and academic faculty dedicated to it is probably relevant. As does the general ability to damsel, act childlike, and shy away from conflict without paying a price in respect. When you turn all this privilege theory back onto the originators, the result is loud and vicious protest, and the insistence that you just shut up and let women speak. Backed and enforced by sympathetic ears in the halls of power. It doesn't add up.

gpawl 9y ago
> Men generally don't hang out on sites to talk about their burrito shits, they don't bond over their gender. reddit.com would like a word with you. One of the most active websites in the world, especially social websites. And every thread that tangentially involves a woman (in OP or in comments) features highly upvoted crass discussion of her as a sexual being. Every thread. So women get tired of it and form their own spaces where they can not be drowned out by that garbage.
monknomo 9y ago
Patriarchy is not 100% beneficial to men, that's true. I'll agree with my sibling comment that men do hang out on the internet talking burrito shits. I'll point to reddit, or garage journal, or advrider or any number of gun sites' off-topic sections. These gendered modes of behavior you're complaining about are symptoms of the patriarchy; they are some of the few easy ways to reclaim a bit of personal power. They are not, however, woman-specific. I've known men that act dumb on purpose for help, I've known men that have never grown up and I know conflict averse men. Conflict aversion rarely causes a person to pay a price, beyond a greater likely-hood of losing the conflict. The only woman-specific aspect to your complaint is the language you use to describe it. It is sufficiently harmful to women that they are collectively motivated to form political groups to do something about it, despite a relatively high cost (compared to do nothing) for doing so. I'm not sure which halls of power you're talking about. Certainly not political halls of power. I assume you're talking about cultural halls of power, like, say, Jezebel or the NYT? I think loudly defending certain strains of feminism is a class marker, but I don't think the defense translates into action that makes a difference beyond mildly offending people such as yourself. It looks like what you would prefer is for women to gain equality by not talking about their problems, not organizing to solve their problems and not acting in ways that have feminine descriptors. I rather doubt that is possible.

by tnone 9y ago

gpawl 9y ago

> Men generally don't hang out on sites to talk about their burrito shits, they don't bond over their gender. reddit.com would like a word with you. One of the most active websites in the world, especially social websites. And every thread that tangentially involves a woman (in OP or in comments) features highly upvoted crass discussion of her as a sexual being. Every thread. So women get tired of it and form their own spaces where they can not be drowned out by that garbage.

monknomo 9y ago

Patriarchy is not 100% beneficial to men, that's true. I'll agree with my sibling comment that men do hang out on the internet talking burrito shits. I'll point to reddit, or garage journal, or advrider or any number of gun sites' off-topic sections. These gendered modes of behavior you're complaining about are symptoms of the patriarchy; they are some of the few easy ways to reclaim a bit of personal power. They are not, however, woman-specific. I've known men that act dumb on purpose for help, I've known men that have never grown up and I know conflict averse men. Conflict aversion rarely causes a person to pay a price, beyond a greater likely-hood of losing the conflict. The only woman-specific aspect to your complaint is the language you use to describe it. It is sufficiently harmful to women that they are collectively motivated to form political groups to do something about it, despite a relatively high cost (compared to do nothing) for doing so. I'm not sure which halls of power you're talking about. Certainly not political halls of power. I assume you're talking about cultural halls of power, like, say, Jezebel or the NYT? I think loudly defending certain strains of feminism is a class marker, but I don't think the defense translates into action that makes a difference beyond mildly offending people such as yourself. It looks like what you would prefer is for women to gain equality by not talking about their problems, not organizing to solve their problems and not acting in ways that have feminine descriptors. I rather doubt that is possible.