5 ms·

> It forces the assertion that "if not for patriarchy, these prejudices wouldn't exist." Implications cannot be automatically reversed, as anyone visiting this

by bakhy 11y ago

> It forces the assertion that "if not for patriarchy, these prejudices wouldn't exist." Implications cannot be automatically reversed, as anyone visiting this site should know ;) I.e. "Patriarchy => prejudice X" does not automatically imply "!Patriarchy => !prejudice X". As for your explanation on patriarchy, it is simplistic. Probably all ideological systems that humans have ever followed have been rich with mythology, symbolism, and various ideals. Patriarchy, like any other human system of thought, is not merely such a cold, pseudo-rational conclusion. There are always ideals that come with a system, most importantly, in this case, the concept of the ideal man and woman. Basically, ask yourself, why was it thought that men would better "manage the organization"? What characteristics were idealized in men to make them fit this role? What is the ideal "man of the family"?

mattlutze 11y ago
Well, I used the context of your assertion, I didn't assume it could be automatically reversed. > I am not negating that there are prejudice against men. I simply wish to point out the obvious - these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. The context of this statement implies the removal of patriarchy will affect these prejudices, and, as it makes no sense to argue for the removal of patriarchy if the effect would be negative (!patriarchy => n * (prejudice X) where n > 1), and since the assertion establishes a correlation between the two (n cannot be 1), we're led to assume you mean !patriarchy => n * (prejudice X) where n < 1. Patriarchy doesn't traditionally espouse the tenant of a useless father figure in the household. The distilled archetype being discussed is a modern comedy trope born of gender exploration from the last 40 years.
- bakhy 11y ago
  Actually, patriarchy does espouse such a tenet. The household is meant for the woman, it is her responsibility, while a man is outside, working for the family. Even if they were not beneath him, an ideal man in patriarchy simply wouldn't be bothered with such menial tasks. This can only naturally produce such a trope. And, OTOH, women are very strongly associated with care and nurture for children, reinforcing the prejudice which causes the unjust treatment of men in custody cases.
  - mattlutze 11y ago
    It feels like there's a lot of projection going on here.
    - bakhy 11y ago
      Well, that's what I get... I try really hard to keep it civil, to address your comments honestly (even though I was tempted to ask you if you ever met any people, so disconnected from reality your ideas seemed), and in return I get this pathetic piece of ad hominem. Shame on you.
      - mattlutze 11y ago
        > Even if they were not beneath him, an ideal man in patriarchy simply wouldn't be bothered with such menial tasks. This can only naturally produce such a trope (Emphasis mine) I made an observation given keying words and phrases you used. I've no doubt your description came from an honestly held belief. Describing the ideal male in a patriarchal society to find raising a family or keeping a household to be menial and beneath him, indicates a viewpoint based on disrespecting women and considering them less, rather than an illogical division of family and social duties based on physical gender differences. Your umbrage is misplaced.
        bakhy 11y ago
        You're really just trolling, are you? :) I already answered this - all systems come with ideals, myths, additional narratives that serve to explain why things are the way they are. And so patriarchy comes with the concept of the ideal man and woman. This is not something I invented. Patriarchy is not merely a value-neutral division of labor, or whatever your cold impersonal description was meant to convey. A key component is placing greater value on men, and hence bestowing them with various privileges, but also obligations, expectations. Finally, even if patriarchy did not insist on male incompetence in the house, the very fact that men never do housework, and are not even allowed to do it unless they want to belittle themselves before others, means that it is very easy to imagine a Real Man (TM) stumbling around during babysitting.

by bakhy 11y ago

mattlutze 11y ago

Well, I used the context of your assertion, I didn't assume it could be automatically reversed. > I am not negating that there are prejudice against men. I simply wish to point out the obvious - these prejudice are a product of patriarchy. The context of this statement implies the removal of patriarchy will affect these prejudices, and, as it makes no sense to argue for the removal of patriarchy if the effect would be negative (!patriarchy => n * (prejudice X) where n > 1), and since the assertion establishes a correlation between the two (n cannot be 1), we're led to assume you mean !patriarchy => n * (prejudice X) where n < 1. Patriarchy doesn't traditionally espouse the tenant of a useless father figure in the household. The distilled archetype being discussed is a modern comedy trope born of gender exploration from the last 40 years.

bakhy 11y ago
Actually, patriarchy does espouse such a tenet. The household is meant for the woman, it is her responsibility, while a man is outside, working for the family. Even if they were not beneath him, an ideal man in patriarchy simply wouldn't be bothered with such menial tasks. This can only naturally produce such a trope. And, OTOH, women are very strongly associated with care and nurture for children, reinforcing the prejudice which causes the unjust treatment of men in custody cases.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  It feels like there's a lot of projection going on here.
  - bakhy 11y ago
    Well, that's what I get... I try really hard to keep it civil, to address your comments honestly (even though I was tempted to ask you if you ever met any people, so disconnected from reality your ideas seemed), and in return I get this pathetic piece of ad hominem. Shame on you.
    - mattlutze 11y ago
      > Even if they were not beneath him, an ideal man in patriarchy simply wouldn't be bothered with such menial tasks. This can only naturally produce such a trope (Emphasis mine) I made an observation given keying words and phrases you used. I've no doubt your description came from an honestly held belief. Describing the ideal male in a patriarchal society to find raising a family or keeping a household to be menial and beneath him, indicates a viewpoint based on disrespecting women and considering them less, rather than an illogical division of family and social duties based on physical gender differences. Your umbrage is misplaced.
      - bakhy 11y ago
        You're really just trolling, are you? :) I already answered this - all systems come with ideals, myths, additional narratives that serve to explain why things are the way they are. And so patriarchy comes with the concept of the ideal man and woman. This is not something I invented. Patriarchy is not merely a value-neutral division of labor, or whatever your cold impersonal description was meant to convey. A key component is placing greater value on men, and hence bestowing them with various privileges, but also obligations, expectations. Finally, even if patriarchy did not insist on male incompetence in the house, the very fact that men never do housework, and are not even allowed to do it unless they want to belittle themselves before others, means that it is very easy to imagine a Real Man (TM) stumbling around during babysitting.