4 ms·

There's a massive difference between high-status men and low-status men. High-status men are almost certainly part of a patriarchy, but as you've probably noti

by lhnz 13y ago

There's a massive difference between high-status men and low-status men. High-status men are almost certainly part of a patriarchy, but as you've probably noticed are loved and admired by millions of women. Low-status men in contrast have very little power and wealth, but get almost all of the flak for the patriarchy and in contrast significantly less access to women. This term patriarchy is rarely used by a woman against men that she respects or admires even if they are extremely privileged. Most of the time it's a rationalisation for why she hates the average man that is uninteresting to her sexually. So, yes, there is a patriarchy, but it's an integral part of the sexual politics which forces men to aggressively shoot for the top or receive nothing; it's not something that you can get rid of without the macro desires of women changing considerably; we're all part of the same system - one which orders men and women around masculine elitism.

rayiner 13y ago
It's not low-status men making the decisions about parental leave policies.
- lhnz 13y ago
  Quite right. I was simply pointing out that the word "patriarchy" is often used to imply that all men are extremely privileged, and the reason why this word doesn't even begin to negatively effect the real male ruling class. (What I was saying doesn't have much to do with the original article, but has a lot to do with the comment above yours saying "patriarchy doesn't exist.")
rmc 13y ago
There's a massive difference between high-status men and low-status men. This is called "intersectionality". Sometimes people have advantages from being one thing (e.g. male), but they also have disadvantages due to being other things (e.g. a low-status person). You could have a gay white low-status male. They're male, so they have some advantages there, they're low status, so they have some disadvantages, white, so they have some advantages, and gay, so they have some disadvantages. Not everyone who is male automatically is disadvantage free. It's the intersection of all these things that are important in different situtations. You've discovered intersectionality, doesn't mean male priviliege and the patriarchy doesn't exist. It just means that for many people "It's complicated"
- lhnz 13y ago
  >> You've discovered intersectionality I read about that years ago and I don't take kindly to others trying to humiliate me with condescending statements like that. >> doesn't mean male priviliege and the patriarchy doesn't exist That is why I said: "So, yes, there is a patriarchy." But you miss the whole point as what I said has nothing to do with intersectionality. I'm trying to make the point that "men" even without some kind of obvious status disqualifiers are not always on the top of the status hierarchy. This is the case with almost all big groups. It's not so simple. I was also trying to point out that it's the lowest status men that get derided for being patriarchal as high status is attractive and untouchable.

by lhnz 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

It's not low-status men making the decisions about parental leave policies.

lhnz 13y ago
Quite right. I was simply pointing out that the word "patriarchy" is often used to imply that all men are extremely privileged, and the reason why this word doesn't even begin to negatively effect the real male ruling class. (What I was saying doesn't have much to do with the original article, but has a lot to do with the comment above yours saying "patriarchy doesn't exist.")

rmc 13y ago

There's a massive difference between high-status men and low-status men. This is called "intersectionality". Sometimes people have advantages from being one thing (e.g. male), but they also have disadvantages due to being other things (e.g. a low-status person). You could have a gay white low-status male. They're male, so they have some advantages there, they're low status, so they have some disadvantages, white, so they have some advantages, and gay, so they have some disadvantages. Not everyone who is male automatically is disadvantage free. It's the intersection of all these things that are important in different situtations. You've discovered intersectionality, doesn't mean male priviliege and the patriarchy doesn't exist. It just means that for many people "It's complicated"

lhnz 13y ago
>> You've discovered intersectionality I read about that years ago and I don't take kindly to others trying to humiliate me with condescending statements like that. >> doesn't mean male priviliege and the patriarchy doesn't exist That is why I said: "So, yes, there is a patriarchy." But you miss the whole point as what I said has nothing to do with intersectionality. I'm trying to make the point that "men" even without some kind of obvious status disqualifiers are not always on the top of the status hierarchy. This is the case with almost all big groups. It's not so simple. I was also trying to point out that it's the lowest status men that get derided for being patriarchal as high status is attractive and untouchable.