Is Feminism an Anti-Family, Anti-Male Movement?

[Deleted]

Why the all or nothing approach? Why are you acting as though it's either women being completely treated as property or there not being any sexism at all? There's a huge gulf between those two extremes.

Which gender has it better in the western world?
Going by standard indicators of human well being?

[Synros]

Why the all or nothing approach? Why are you acting as though it's either women being completely treated as property or there not being any sexism at all? There's a huge gulf between those two extremes.

Because when your movement is based on disprovable lies, which are passed off as "fact", there's an issue with your movement. The sexism they ride their "existance" off of, just doesn't exist, or is just "sexism" instead. They've blurred the lines so much, that being "offended" now equates to "sexism". The Wage Gap has been debunked over 10 times, there is no proof to their 1 in 3 claims, and women between the ages of 22-40 are actually making more then their male coworkers in North America and UK. But I guess that's not enough, because 1st World Feminism is clearly about Supremacy, not Equality.

PS: I have to head out, I'll reply to anything when I get back.

[Deleted]

The wage gap has not been debunked though. It is often misinterpreted but it is an indisputable fact. So far as I remember a very specific demographic of women are making slightly more money than men.

[Kasierith]

No, i said before 1917, and i can give you one, but you'll need to learn dutch.

http://www.isgeschiedenis.nl/nieuws/...nnenkiesrecht/

But to be fair, this was a highpoint, the 1.9% and it was in the city of Amsterdam.

The context of this entire discussion has been largely in the setting of the United States. The reason being that if we start looking at things internationally, it becomes hopelessly muddled and turns into a constant argument of "but in THIS country no in this country" and so on and so forth.

[pateuvasiliu]

The wage gap has not been debunked though. It is often misinterpreted but it is an indisputable fact. So far as I remember a very specific demographic of women are making slightly more money than men.

Single women make more than single men, yeah.

[breadisfunny]

Yeah, it wants to destroy the family and all men.

i knew it! to the patriarchymobile!

[Mahourai]

That wasn't the person you were talking to if you follow the quotes back, that was a separate conversation.

You're lying about a conversation chain I linked in full.

You posted the assertion you were defending, and when you realized it was untenable you tried to change subjects.

I showed a convention shut down and attempts to silence others

So, by "shut down", you mean "changed venues before it began and proceeded as planned"?

You didn't actually read any of the links, did you? That's why you linked "four examples" that were just repeating yourself twice, and why you think the convention was "shut down" - you only read the headline, if that.

[Deleted]

Why the all or nothing approach? Why are you acting as though it's either women being completely treated as property or there not being any sexism at all? There's a huge gulf between those two extremes.

The all or nothing approach is exactly what patriarchy is.

Feminist patriarchy theory holds "all men" and "all women" as two homogenous groups, and says one group has always and still has all the power, and the other group is oppressed.

That is pretty much the basis for all the feminist language around privilege, reparations, positive discrimination, etc.

Simply put, this is not true. Women have equal rights to men in every way. It has even tilted towards women having more rights than men currently.

To hold on to patriarchy theory when all the evidence goes the other way is just intellectually dishonest, and dogmatic.

[Kasierith]

But it was just as hard for a man to get a divorce so your initial point was flawed.

Like I said, maybe my statement was a little far reaching, but the premise was sound.

Your original statement that women "had to stay in marriages even though they were being beaten" was a misrepresentation of the situation. An appeal to emotions.

Not really. Unless there was something like a public beating or other obvious aspects, it came down to word against word. Which at the time meant that it came down to who the judge favored more. As participator's in the public sphere, men had far more influence with courts than women. You could point out that it was separate but equal and women had more influence with plenty of other areas like local medicines than men, but it ultimately came down to convincing a male. And the fact that a woman forfeited numerous resources through a divorce because the dividing of property was heavily sided towards the husband means that a judge could easily come to the conclusion that a divorce was unfeasible because she was dependent on the man.

If that is how you feel. I don't really care though.

Yes, that you don't really care about understanding the point others make has become quite evident.

Do you not know the difference between me telling you that something is irrelevant and me telling you that you can't say something? That is a serious question.

I don't know if you understand that I am allowed to say that because as you stated this is "an open forum."

PS - still irrelevant.

And I'm allowed to say what I want in response. If you are so grievously offended by a discussion going slightly off topic, you should pursue internet setups that discourage any delineations from the original topic to any degree.

[Deleted]

Single women make more than single men, yeah.

IIRC it was single women within within a specific age bracket. And it's a new phenomenon so any contributing factors have yet to be explained.

[Mahourai]

Feminist patriarchy theory holds all men and all women as two homogenous groups, and says one group has always and still has all the power, and the other group is oppressed.

No, it doesn't.

[Kasierith]

So, if I understand you correctly, the monumentally stupid point that you're making here is that up until then, male genital mutilation wasn't an issue because it was only happening to Jewish boys?

It wasn't a universal problem. If you really want to get into tiny areas of problematic areas as opposed to the entire picture, I suppose we can start digging up things like the Salem Witch trials and the systematic rape of Native American women through military campaigns.

[Vanyali]

I'm a Democrat, and even I think Modern Feminism is a fucking joke. What Protar said is utter bullshit. There is no ruling "Patriarchy", otherwise women wouldn't be able to drive, vote, own homes, work, marry who they want, have extremely divorce court bias, own a business, etc, etc. Just more grasping at straws. 1st World Feminism reached it's goals, but the problem is it's been taken over by spoiled little middle class girls, who don't know when to quit. This isn't a black and white political issue. There's a hole lot of gray in there.

Patriarchy isn't an overruling council.

It's a culture marker. It has to do with the way the culture is set up (in our case, traditionally family is counted through the man, women tended to go live in the man's house instead of men moving to the woman's house, men held the majority of power / influence). It's not some council of men deciding anything, and the fact that people think that because women do things it auto-disproves the idea that we're in a patriarchal society is baffling. Learn what it actually means instead of jumping to conclusions, because patriarchy, in itself, is neither a good thing or a bad thing. It's a freaking marker for how a society tracks bloodlines / who traditionally has power, just like matriarchy. Neither require that all men or all women be powerful or powerless.

[Deleted]

No, it doesn't.

Yes it is.

Go read your gender studies course materials.

Ironically, I have:

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/fr/.../fr197921a.pdf

[Deleted]

The context of this entire discussion has been largely in the setting of the United States. The reason being that if we start looking at things internationally, it becomes hopelessly muddled and turns into a constant argument of "but in THIS country no in this country" and so on and so forth.

And here i was thinking it was about the western world and about feminism... Way to go on the cherry picking.
Womans rights is a global thing, at least this is what has been claimed throughout the whole thread. If the reason for keeping up feminism in the states is because of the awful way woman are treated in other country's (because why have something around that serves no purpose, the goals have been made, man and woman are equal for the law right?) then it is also relevant how other country's in the west have coped with the whole idea of womans rights.

[Deleted]

Patriarchy isn't an overruling council.

It is a made up concept that strangely works against male interests as a group.

Objectively woman have it better in every single bracket of human wellbeing excluding political participation.
Protar convieniently dodges this fact.

[Wells]

It is a made up concept that strangely works against male interests as a group.

Objectively woman have it better in every single bracket of human wellbeing excluding political participation.
Protar convieniently dodges this fact.

This is this board in a nutshell. Men are the only group that has it bad. Everyone else is either privledged or got what was coming to them.

[Mahourai]

Yes it is.

Go read your gender studies course materials.

Ironically, I have:

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/fr/.../fr197921a.pdf

Here's what the material you linked actually says:

The concept of patriarchy which has been developed within feminist writings is not a single or simple concept but has a whole variety of different meanings.

Well I guess that puts the immediate lie to your simple, all-or-nothing definition of patriarchy theory. We'll go on:

Marxist feminists have attempted to analyze not simply patriarchy but the relationship between patriarchy and the capitalist mode of production. This is because they do not believe the subordination of women can be absolutely separated from the other forms of exploitation and oppression which exist in capitalist societies, for example, class exploitation and racism...

This doesn't fit at all with your simplistic definition of patriarchy theory. The feminists being described here are concerned with all kinds of exploitation, not saying that "one group has all the power" at all.

[Deleted]

This is this board in a nutshell. Men are the only group that has it bad. Everyone else is either privledged or got what was coming to them.

No just that an overdue focus and ignoring the male perspective is dishonest maybe even counterproductive thus a pure "feminin"
movement is just tilting the issue further in the wrong direction when we need a whole society approach.

[Vanyali]

It is a made up concept that strangely works against male interests as a group.

Objectively woman have it better in every single bracket of human wellbeing excluding political participation.
Protar convieniently dodges this fact.

You're full of shit, as usual.

It's an anthropological concept that's being misused by extremists and anti-extremists. It's a classification system that determines where a culture determined power / lineage was counted from. It's "made up" in the sense that it's short for "lineage-counted-in-men-men-traditionally-have-power-women-move-in-with-men-men-held-in-higher-esteem-traditionally. In other words, it's like any other freaking word, including your own goddamn name.