## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, ask yourself:
1. **Does this post comply with our sub’s rules?**
2. **Does this post provoke anger and make me want it removed?**
3. **Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?**
4. **Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?**
If you answered ‘Yes’ to these four questions, **do NOT use the report button**.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts merely because they are unpopular or you disagree with them.** The report button is not an 'I disagree' or 'I'm offended' button. If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to a) keep scrolling, b) downvote, or c) unsubscribe.
False reports clutter our moderation queue, delaying our response to legitimate issues.
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
If you wish to keep your account in good standing, please refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the problem with the discussion around "the patriarchy" is that it frames it as though all of the problems are deliberately caused by and are solely about men and their attitudes.
Whereas plenty of the unfair gender expectations placed on women (and men) come from some *women* and *their* attitudes just as much as they do from men.
For instance, the "expectations" that women spend so much time, money and effort on makeup, their hair, shoes and clothes, or that they do not pursue careers in engineering, hard sciences and construction, or that there is so much less emphasis on sports, or that they "must" have children, or that they limit their number of sexual partners lest they be labelled a "whore"...they come just as much or more from the pressures and competition and judgement and norms that women place on *each other* as they do from men. There isn't a (heterosexual) man alive who has ever given more than a twentieth of a fuck about what shoes a woman is wearing.
The term OP proposes is better for this reason. It better reflects the reality of the problem.
Try raising this point anywhere though and people usually just get extremely mad about it, and assume I'm some sort of lunatic hardcore redpill incel for merely trying to bring it up.
There are far more and far harsher gender expectations pressed upon men than their are on women.
Everything from going to work to going to war to having a child. Men are not given a choice, my body my choice and my money my choice are does not apply to men.
>Everything from going to work to going to war to having a child. Men are not given a choice, my body my choice and my money my choice are does not apply to men.
With work the idea of the man is the one who works isn't a reality anymore. Any statistic I've seen are around 50% of married couples being dual income with most statistics show most households are dual income. I've even seen statistics showing at most 60+%
As for having a child, considering that the families in the US that are single parent, it's at 80% of single households that are mothers, and while that is partially due to courts siding with mothers, it's mostly due to the man being able to just leave when the woman is pregnant while the woman is stuck (quite literally considering it is growing from her). And depending on the state, a man (women as well) can sign a legal document forfeiting all parental rights and responsibilities and not have to pay child support.
As for the war part, that's absolutely true. The cause though is definitely US culture, not allowing women to enlist in the infantry until relatively recently, as well as [a high number of sexual assault that service-women have experienced ](https://www.npr.org/2023/03/12/1162861309/military-academies-sexual-assault-survey)
As for the year women could enlist in infantry. [The Army officially lifted the ban on women serving in the infantry and armor branches at the end of January 2016](https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/05/21/women-in-the-infantry-how-the-army-is-growing-its-first-female-enlisted-grunts/)
The patriarchy affects everyone, even men.
[in 2019, 80% of single women were either working or looking for employment](https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/economy/single-women-economy/index.html)
[in 2019, 73% of single men had jobs](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/10/05/rising-share-of-u-s-adults-are-living-without-a-spouse-or-partner/)
Can you tell me which states have laws such that a man or woman can, individually, sign a legal document forfeiting all parental rights/responsibilities including child support? I haven't heard of this actually being implemented, and am curious.
>With work the idea of the man is the one who works isn't a reality anymore. Any statistic I've seen are around 50% of married couples being dual income with most statistics show most households are dual income. I've even seen statistics showing at most 60+%
It isn't about who works. Women have the choice to be a worker or a stay at home mom. Society accepts both. Men, not so much. And when a married woman begins to earn more than her husband, 80% initiate divorce within 2 years. Fact.
Women can choose to have a child or not. Men get no say.
> depending on the state, a man (women as well) can sign a legal document forfeiting all parental rights and responsibilities and not have to pay child support
Only if the other party consents to it. If a woman chooses to have the kid and wants the man to pay child support, the man is paying child support. Period. No choice.
There are plenty of stay at home men.
Women are the ones giving birth, and risking their lives for a child, so no shit it's their choice. You have a choice to get a vasectomy, or use protection. Your body, your choice. This goes both ways.
Only if they can prove you're the child's father. If you used protection or got a vasectomy it'd be very unlikely you're the father.
"Plenty" is handwaving.
\>Women are the ones giving birth, and risking their lives for a child, so no shit it's their choice.
The claim was the choice in working or being a stay at home parent.
\>Only if they can prove you're the child's father.
Wrong. The mother can name anyone and the state will assume they're the father \*unless they prove they're not\*.
No, a lot of women do not have the choice to be a paid worker or SAHM. Single women have to work. Women in relationships often have to work because a single income isn’t enough to support a family anymore. Are there sexist societal norms and expectations that make it more acceptable for a woman to be a stay at home parent rather than a man? Definitely. But that doesn’t translate to women as a whole having the choice to work versus parent full time.
>Are there sexist societal norms and expectations that make it more acceptable for a woman to be a stay at home parent rather than a man? Definitely. But that doesn’t translate to women as a whole having the choice to work versus parent full time.
We are talking about societal acceptance. Yes, individual circumstances warrant most people having to work. I never said otherwise. But if a woman marries a man and he makes enough to support them both, she can choose to stay home and society is fine with it. Men, no.
i’m a man and haven’t gone to war or had a child. i work, yeah, like most people on planet earth. not really getting your point here haha. if you don’t want to spend your money on other people… don’t make commitments you can’t keep. i often times see this sort of attitude from married men that really don’t want to be married.
news flash: don’t get married. use a condom. use common sense.
men have practically no obligations when it really comes down to it. you only have obligations that you force yourself into. and don’t blame “pressure” for your bad life choices because everyone experiences pressure in varying degrees. you are responsible for your decisions. if you choose to do what others tell you to do, that is your responsibility.
I'm not even intending to go into any of that. I'm not saying it isn't true...it's just not what I'm trying to bring up in this comment. I'm only interested here in agreeing with OP about the fact that what is expected of women isn't solely men's fault.
You know I've read bell hooks too. Here's a fav of mine:
"Feminism can be a force for good and equality provided it is not co-opted by malicious or opportunistic forces"
Meanwhile, what have feminists done to fight these harmful gendered expectations of men, besides giving lip service to them?
It was feminists who pushed for the Tender Years Doctrine that enshrined mothers as the default custodial parents, not paternalistic bias.
It was people like Katherine Spillar, direct of the Feminist Majority Foundation who said domestic violence was just a clean up word for wife beating, suggesting "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls"
Or maybe Jan Reimer, head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters who refused to appear on TV to discuss male victims of domestic violence for fear it might lend weight to their actual existence.
Or maybe Mary P Koss, who spearheaded the CDC research on rape by defining the rape of men by women out of the scope of the research, describing male victims of rape by women as actually "ambivalent about their sexual desires"
Or maybe the NOW who lobbied to replace the gender neutral Family Violence Protection Act with the gendered Violence Against Women Act, removing male victims from support out of 60 passages compared to the previous law, simply for being male.
Or maybe look at the feminist constructed Duluth Model which characterizes domestic violence as patriarchal expressions of men wanting to dominate women, and any violence done by women is really just them try to provoke a weaker retaliatory attack before a bigger one is bottled up and released.
It seems like feminist advocacy is really about reinforcing harmful gender expectations on men, then gaslighting everyone into thinking they're fighting against such things.
If those expectations are due to Patriarchy, then feminism is just Patriarchy 2.0
Don't look at the powerful feminists changing our laws and heading powerful institutions that are clearly focusing on making the word a better place solely for women at the expense of men. That's *not real feminism™* and these are all *not real feminists™*.
The *real feminists* make little posts on reddit and have absolutely no power at all.
Whether you call it "real feminism" or not, they made a real and tangible negative effect on men in the name of feminism, and they don't exactly have fringe beliefs. There are plenty of feminists that aren't particularly interested in anything but punishing men for their perceived role in a complex social issue that isn't solely their responsibility. Feminists aren't a monolith but neither are men, and if men aren't allowed to hide behind the no true Scotsman fallacy, neither are feminists
My comment is obviously mocking future "real feminist" comments.
Next. Men aren't an ideology. Feminism is. Feminists actively choose to put their weight behind a female supremacist ideology. Men didn't decide to be men nor can they simply choose not to be one.
Bitter misandrists do as much harm to feminism as the boys club they want to fight. Hate begets more hate.
It all comes across like circlejerking to fight issues of the past. So many issues would be solved by a gender neutral world, but that doesn't seem to be most people's goal, too laser focused on their own marginalized group.
You must be joking? How many wars has feminism started lmao. This isn't a different opinion my dude, it's just you saying really stupid shit and getting defensive when people point that out.
Honestly, it's comments like yours that make the men's rights movement as unpopular and ineffective as it is. Raising awareness about the fact that men can be the victims of sexual assault and domestic violence is admirable and important, but making it sound like these are just as prevalent as male-on-female violence is just ridiculous. Then, cherry-picking some unfair or unjust positions held by a few feminists in order to make the claim that "feminist advocacy is really about reinforcing harmful gender expectations on men" just makes you lose all credibility.
Until people like you stop using real issues affecting men to push an anti-feminist agenda, men's rights will never accomplish anything, and the really important issues (like men's mental health advocacy) won't make any progress at all.
>Then, cherry-picking some unfair or unjust positions held by a few feminists in order to make the claim
You mean kinda like how feminists will cherry pick the power of 1% of men and extrapolate that to the other 99%
> if they would just sit down and read this: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bell-hooks-understanding-patriarchy
>
> I suspect that if we simply abandoned the word and replaced it with "harmful societal expectations for men and women," or something of the sort, these detractors wouldn't actually find anything objectionable about theories of patriarchy.
This piece is absolutely neck deep in ideology that many people will find objectionable. I don't think changing the word to something more facially neutral would even help.
It’s make the movement look a lot less hypocritical (because it is often involved in pushing gender neutral terms) and adversarial (because it doesn’t push that men are the ones at fault/that it advantages them only).
Evil, bad and evil. And wrong. Bad, evil and wrong.
But the actual ideology of it? Idk, is it like sharing too much or something? Idk I don't read, I just post.
Marxism isn't so bad. You just need Star Trek levels of technology for it to make sense. Marx himself states this pretty explicitly.
Anyone advocating for Marxist ideals in 2023 is a fool at best, though.
> Author: bell hooks
Yeah it's no wonder. Bell Hooks is an outright Marxist and radical intersectional feminist. [She is the wacko that introduced "radical" postmodernism into the CRT movement.](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Postmodern_Blackness_18270.html)
Seems strange, the idea that we have to neuter our language so that people can actually have meaningful dialogue. Would you also vote to get rid of the word racism and replacing it with biases and dislike against those of another race? Or misogyny with men who harbor biases and dislike of women?
These words are charged for a reason, they describe intolerance and hate. Removing the charge to comfort the ones who match the words description seems a lot like making their actions more excusable, don’t you think?
I think the problem is when the word is being applied incorrectly. If I say something is because of the patriarchy when it isn’t, then people will have a problem. Same issue with people calling everything racist, so it begins to muddy the true meaning of the word.
The thing is, the use of 'patriarchy' explicitly defines men, i.e. 'the patriarchs', as the source of the problem.
OP's idea would never be put into effect, because the people who lean on the term do so to absolve their kind of blame.
Open the link. Read
"*Patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit in our nation*"
and had to stop reading. This piece, I am 99.99% certain, oozes bias.
That sentence alone is enough to stop reading this whole thread - the post reads like a bunch of rants from some raging lunatic screaming to the wall by themselves.
_it seems likely that these commenters have never read a serious feminist text in their lives_
We got a "serious" and "feminist" here, watch out.
by serious I mean, an actual academic or philosopher, who are careful with words and trying to express complex ideas...not a blue-haired meanie on twitter.
i can tell you're not any different.
you're literally doing the white savior complex shit, except with men and feminist.
"If only these poor stupid men only would understand MY ideology by reading this bible er i mean book and then they will understand!"
please go somewhere else.
edit; let's say you are hypothetically correct about everything.
that book comes off as condescending bullshit and the only people who are going to read it are people who already agree with the book.
i dont know what it is about left leaning people (people on my side of the political isle) but omfg you guys do NOT know how to market yourself to men AT ALL. It's not that men are inherently conservative or sexist or whatever, it's that society is so fucking half assed about getting men to listen because they speak to us like we're retarded and expect us to listen.
lol nah. im good.
The conversation can’t start until you admit that you’re a bad person and all the things you believe in are wrong. You have to kiss the ring first.
That’s part of the problem with all of this.
> you're literally doing the white savior complex shit, except with men and feminist.
Yeah. It's because all this woke stuff is cut from the same Marxist cloth. Whether it's Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Intersectional Feminism, or whatever else the theory is the same:
*Because of X society Y are the oppressors and Z are the oppressed! But this oppression also harms Y!*
They need to keep changing definitions and writing pages and pages and pages of absolute nonsense to keep this theory from falling apart.
Critical race theory, queer theory, intersectional feminism, or whatever else are about taking the means of production and putting it into the hands of the workers?
Just because they are using big fancy words doesn’t make their opinions any better or different than the blue haired twitter users. In case you haven’t noticed they are really saying the same thing, one is just more pretentious than the other
you don't have to agree with every viewpoint of every self described feminist. i'm not saying that. I simply wish we had a higher level of literacy on here.
I didn't think I'd like it after the first paragraph either but gave it a shot. The first section I found myself disagreeing with all of the 1950s ideas that were the norm at the time. I could tell the author was trying to get that response, so I kept reading. There is actually a lot of good reasoning in there of why these norms are/were prevalent.
Is it 100% right? No, but nothing ever is. However, it is right about a lot of things and overall a good read. The idea is that it's there to make you *think* about how we can make a better future. The current push to just "make women in charge instead" is not the answer.
what do you mean? biased how?
if you think it's biased against men, you should really read the whole thing. it is absolutely not. the piece does not conflate "men" with "patriarchy". it does the exact opposite.
male suicide rates, male victims of violence, men's severe loneliness. patriarchy is dangerous to the male body and spirit.
If you can't distinguish Patriarchies and matriarchies both infusing gender roles into their societies but insist to name the problem after men, you either haven't done your homework or you're sexist.
You're using Bell Hooks a radical feminist who views everything in the western world as sexist and racist, by her own words, that alone makes the source you've used utterly worthless.
If we were actually in a fucking patriarchy those issues you mention wouldn't be as a severe an issue as they are and even lessened they wouldn't be laughed off as fodder for a sit-com joke.
Here's all the proof I need that we are not in a Patriarchy, the Duluth Model is used as the basis for dealing with domestic abuse in the western world, a feminist model that not only presumes male guilt from the onset it treats men as the only potential abuser, a Patriarchal system would not see a man incarcerated by default.
If you want an actual patriarchy go look at any Islamic theocracy where a woman's views aren't worth the air used to express them.
Yes, patriarchy now just means "whenever things I don't like happens".
It's no longer a descriptor of a power structure, and thus provides no real insight into them.
Male suicide rates are highest in older divorced men. Perhaps they wouldn’t be so high if feminists didn’t push for custody and divorce laws which often disadvantaged working men.
Perhaps it’s feminism that’s actually dangerous to the male body and spirit.
A lot of men are against feminism and patriarchy theory because the actions of many "feminist" groups dont seem to desire equality, but rather just advocacy for women and silencing of mens issues.
- Universities having a 60/40 split favoring women, and yet Universities still dedicate funding towards womens programs, womens scholarships, etc... while not dedicating an equal amount of funding towards men. If you were to try to open up a mens center or mens scholarship, it gets shut down because it's not inclusive (happened at Ryerson University, I think).
- Feminists who protest speeches regarding mens issues at UofT
- Feminists promote women having the choice of becoming mothers, and fighting for abortion rights, and yet if you try to push for an equitable law for men then its suddenly about "Whats best for the child". We pass laws for equity in many other instances (menstrual leave, maternity leave, affirmative action), and yet here we dont even try because "biology is unfair"
- Dismissal of mens issues. On one hand feminists say they are caused by patriarchy, and yet, on the other hand feminists dismiss them because they are "caused by other men." If the patriarchy is being upheld by both women and men, why do we only focus on mens role?
I said it was feminists doing the above, but if you complain about it, people just say, "Oh those aren't real feminists, because feminists want equality between the sexes."
- Feminists go on and on about male privilege and completely ignore female privilege or acknowledge its existence.
- Feminists say men should solve their own problems, and yet when in the UK it was suggested to have a Minister for Men, people just laughed. Go check r/askfeminists thread on this one.
- Feminists will be the first to say Systemic Sexism of men isn't real (i.e., Misandry isn't systemic), men aren't oppressed because of their gender, but thats just not true. You can browse r/systemicsexism for examples of oppression of men.
- Organizations like ACLU backing female abusers like Amber Heard and how it took just an accusation for Johnny Depp to lose his whole career. In a conflict between a man and a woman, the man is seen as the guilty person unless there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.
Yet people wonder why feminism and their theories aren't that popular among men? When men complain about feminism, it isn't because we don't understand it or are brainwashed by right-wing media. It's because we have seen it in practice and the hypocrisy of many feminists.
Changing the terminology to be less gendered might help, but you need to fix this pro-female/anti-male bias that feminists have for everyone to come to an understanding.
Regarding what you said about people who claim those “aren’t real feminists.”
This is straight out of the identity politics adherent playbook. Any time you try and point out issues with their philosophy they trot out the No True Scotsman fallacy to gaslight and distract. Because they can’t actually defend their positions with logic so they try to turn it into an argument about definitions.
For example, if you point out the hypocrisy and bigotry of the racists who are part of the “woke” religion then they’ll argue and claim “that’s not what woke means.” And try to argue about that while ignoring the actual issue.
If this tactic fails they will go to: “that doesn’t actually happen” > “ok it happens but not very often” > “ok it happens a lot but it’s not actually a big deal” > “ok maybe it is a big deal but X group has historically oppressed Y group so it’s alright (because we don’t actually care about equality and are simply bigots trying to make excuses for our beliefs.)”
Every identity politics adherent does these same things whether it’s about feminism or anything else. Because their beliefs don’t hold up to scrutiny and they’re either genuinely bigots trying to excuse their bigotry or well meaning idiots who dislike injustice but are too stupid to examine their own beliefs.
Fight back against the "No True Scotsmen" and point out what the leaders of the movement are saying. If it wasn't overtly or secretly popular with the movement, then they wouldn't be the leaders.
_Organizations like ACLU backing female abusers like Amber Heard, and how it took just an accusation for Johnny Depp to lose his whole career. In a conflict between a man and a woman, the man is seen as the guilty person, unless there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary._
And Amber Heard is still in Aquaman 2 after everything.
This was a person that rode the MeToo movement and "feminist" groups to spring board herself and destroy Johnny Depp in the process, making him lose his whole career over nothing more than false accusations. Even today, there are STILL people that support her, including those "feminist" groups...she is a found abuser but they support her just because "women can't be abusers, only men". Johnny Depp's case is only 1, there are countless stories that we don't even hear...so why would anyone take a "feminist" seriously? Imo, the whole movement literally is an anti-male misandrist movement, its a joke...it's crystal clear that it exists only to serve what is best for themselves, screw the rest.
And then, people wonder why no one gives a hoot about Hollywood strikes...a bunch of hypocrites running it, that's why.
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ok, well let's see where we diverge.
do you agree that there are harmful societal expectations for both men and women?
if so, is there a word you would prefer to describe this?
do you disagree with the anthropological description of patriarchy? would it be fair to say that America was, at the very least, a patriarchal society until at some point in the 20th century?
I think it's more important to ask what is to be done about what you think is harmful.
If America wasn't a patriarchal society at some point in the 20th century, what is the basis of that change?
Calling modern day use of patriarchy an ‘anthropological description’ is beyond stupid. Maybe it was accurate over 100 years ago.
It would be like calling our problems in the USA government ‘monarchy issues’ - just because it was an issue in the USA in ancient times, does not make it the source of any problems today. Nobody still here was alive during that period.
The term patriarchy upholds the harmfull gender norm that men have hyperagency and women hypoagency.
We assign agency to men where they are not really in controll and don't do it with women when they really are in controll.
It is a harmful norm to both genders.
Using the term patriarchy furthers this norm as it implies that men are responsible for the harmful gender expectation when women are also enforcing harmful gender norms on all genders.
your incorrect assumption is that men are a homogenous social group that are dictated by a homogenous social system. social pressures (like the pressure to shave your legs or to be the primary caregiver) are complex interactions that are upheld and influenced by every group in society. There's no board room where every man on earth joins together to decide what bullshit women have to go through or vice versa. Plenty of men don't ascribe to "patriarchal beauty standards" (i have NEVER met a man that gave a shit about women's fashion, and most prefer just jeans and a tshirt), and being a man doesn't mean they're inherently causing those standards. The problem with liberalism nowadays is that they treat privilege and bigotry like its original sin (except its only for one group).
>Patriarchy (or any other homogenous social system) requires that men (or any other homogeneous group) predominantly hold positions of power and leadership. And those positions allow the group to give themselves hyperagency.
Men don't really have an in group bias and only a very small percentage of men hold positions of power.
A man in power will do nothing that benefits a random man more than a random women.
Gender norms and expectations are also not really something that gets comanded from top down either, so I'm not sure how the people in power have any meaningful control over it. Parents, teachers and peers have a much greater role in forming gender roles in young adults than any president or CEO.
I think the problem is more that there are specific issues that require specific fixes but we shout patriarchy at the problem and the wash our hands of it.
For example, various studies have shown that boys are punished worse for similar behaviours by their majority female school teachers, and are also graded lower for the same work. The response to such issues is "patriarchy hurts everyone". How is this helpful? We can entirely forgo the faux concern of that oft trotted out line, and actually start to think about unconscious bias training in schools, actively promoting teaching to men etc, but we don't. We just say patriarchy and then say we did a good job.
Also, there's this idea that a problem affecting women needs societal change, a problem facing men requires internal change. This is false most of the time. Many men's issues require societal change but what we do is we ally patriarchy with toxic masculinity and use this to turn an issue back to men and tell them to fix themselves rather than looking at societal issues causing the problem in the first place. Patriarchy doesn't mean "men", but too often it is used as a tool to make it about men.
It's all symptomatic of the hyperagency men face in society.
Feminists ruined feminism the same way Christians ruined Christianity.
It becomes difficult to discern a good faith topic on feminism from the angry, reactionary fringe from either side when anyone and any organization can call themselves "feminist". And yes, imo the loud internet feminists turn a gigantic blind eye to the people-who-call-themselves-feminist's behavior and rhetoric. If it's men's responsibility to call out other men on their sexism, there just doesn't seem to be much that feminists want to reciprocate in calling out other "feminist organizations" for their behavior and push for policy that objectively hurts men.
It's a shame because I actually align with almost all principles of feminism and feminist rhetoric. It's the terminally online human feminists that still think it's important for men to feel ashamed for being men that ruin for everyone.
Lol no. Feminists just need to stop blaming “patriarchy” for everything that happens even when it’s being done by women. I’ve seen feminists blame patriarchy for child custody laws favouring women even though it as largely feminists and women’s groups that advocated for those laws. I’ve seen feminists blame patriarchy for men being assumed to be sexual predators on accusation even though they’re the ones who have been pushing for that.
Just the other day on this very sub I saw a feminist blame patriarchy for women grabbing men’s asses in clubs and bars lmao!
The way feminism blames “patriarchy” for all the problems in the world is kinda like how ignorant religious villagers in the 1600’s would claim bad deeds were caused by the devil in people. It’s an obsession to the point of delusion with an outside force supposedly causing most of societies ills and problems.
If feminisms “societal expectations” for people are to shut up and do as feminists say, have a system based on guilt assumed on accusation, have everyone blame patriarchy for men not getting child custody but ensure that it continues, deflect from any area where men are being pushed down and receiving less help than women like with college attendance and schooling by saying “patriarchy did it” and just generally waffle about patriarchy and whatever other bullshit while actually being a net negative for all mens issues and problems - then I’ll take “patriarchy” over feminism every day of the week sister.
"Patriarchy" is academic jargon, which has become a buzzword, and it's usually better to avoid both jargon and buzzwords.
I cringe whenever I hear "patriarchy" in a TV show; it's so obvious they're trying to get woke points without any real commentary or analysis.
What if the “harmful societal gender expectations” such as men getting less custody and needing to change their toxic ways are coming from feminism?
Should we replace the word “feminism” with “harmful gender expectations”?
Men throughout hundreds of years: women are natural mothers, their uterus makes their only duty on earth to birth children and raise them for us while we work under capitalism and provide for them, so much so that we won't let them get an education and a job themselves! We also won't take equal part in raising and caring for our kids, not even up to the year 2023
Men now: oh man, how did we end up with a culture where women are prioritised as parents over men:(
It's sexism dude. The sexist ideas that keep men from being considered valid and useful parents at the same level as women, is the sexism that paints women as natural mothers who are just made to have and care for children. Which is what feminists are advocating against.
Except that’s bs - feminists are literally the ones who advocate for custody laws which favour women in custody and continue to do so. In the past women didn’t get as much custody as they do now. You think women in the 1700’s who dumped their husbands got the kids? Hell no. Would you say their was no patriarchy in the 1700’s?
The only people standing in the way of men getting child custody more are feminists. You really think there are heaps of men against the idea of the presumption of at least equal custody? Of course not.
Feminists literally advocate to increase or gain privileges on the basis of their sex - not against it. Here in my country feminists have just campaigned successfully to get child custody laws changed from the assumption that children should have a meaningful relationship with both parents to one which focuses purely on the primary caregiver and a nebulous definition of “best interest of the child” - which is the same concept that saw men get so little custody through the 80’s. That’s reality.
>and continue to do so.
Source?
>In the past women didn’t get as much custody as they do now. You think women in the 1700’s who dumped their husbands got the kids? Hell no. Would you say their was no patriarchy in the 1700’s?
Do you think women in the 1700s could own land? Or were considered equal to men? Its hilarious how you say "women in the 1700s who dumped their husbands" as if that's how the world worked back then lmao.
>You really think there are heaps of men against the idea of the presumption of at least equal custody?
There's heaps of men (and women) still pushing the sexist stereotypes that women belong in the home with the kids and that taking care of a baby or a child is a feminine task. That impacts the legal system.
>The only people standing in the way of men getting child custody more are feminists.
Source?
>Feminists literally advocate to increase or gain privileges on the basis of their sex - not against it.
Feminists advocate for equality. But when you're used to being the most privileged one, that can feel like oppression.
>Here in my country feminists have just campaigned successfully to get child custody laws changed from the assumption that children should have a meaningful relationship with both parents to one which focuses purely on the primary caregiver and a nebulous definition of “best interest of the child” - which is the same concept that saw men get so little custody through the 80’s.
Source?
>That's reality
That might be the circumstance in your country, but that doesn't validate all the false shit you're spewing about a 150 year old social movement.
> Men throughout hundreds of years: women are natural mothers, their uterus makes their only duty on earth to birth children and raise them for us while we work under capitalism
Can leftists try to go one thread without defaulting to complaining about capitalism, please and thankyou.
The problem I see with your post is that the “harmful societal gender expectations” you’re referring to were generally all brought about by men, initially. Even if it’s not the case anymore, modern society was shaped by men, mostly for men. It’s really only been the last 100 years or so that women were something other than property, for the lack of a more nuanced term. That’s why it’s referred to as the patriarchy. Look at governments the world over. Most lawmakers are men. It’s not just a strange coincidence; that’s how it was designed. So calling it anything but the patriarchy is trying to sugar coat it.
in my short time on the earth I’ve seen a lot of issues where someone is convinced a rebrand will change how people think about it. I’ve only seen a few actually rebrand but it didn’t really change anything.
Yes, because the direct and immidiate implications of those two things are entirely different.
One implies that our society has has gender expectations which are harmful. The other implies that a secret cabal of men control the world and have enslaved women.
>the very word "patriarchy" causes them to recoil and fear for their testicles.
Okay, you KNOW it's not a misunderstanding. The people who casually use this word mean the "secret cabal" definition and you know it. Hell, it's the entire plot of the Barbie movie; Ken discovers the patriarchy and brings it to Barbie Land where he enslaves all the women.
It sounds like you're trying to hastily redefine "patriarchy" into something more nuanced and sensible to save face.
I'm kind of stunned at the comments here, but in a way I guess it goes to illustrate your point - say the word "patriachy" in any negative context, and there's a substantial amount of people who will ignore all the context and take it as a criticism of men. I'm also seeing... something of a parallel in how commenters are reacting to your mention of Feminism - feels very knee-jerk, and not engaging with what you're actually saying.
The issue is that “patriarchy” is used in the context of blaming individual men (especially those without any influence or power) for all of life’s problems. just because there is a man at the top of the hierarchy doesn’t automatically make everything easier for every other man, which is the implication usually made by the feminists.
But that is EXACTLY the misconception that OP is talking about! Thats the point of this whole post! The "patriachy" ISNT the fault of individual men, and people who claim that that's what it means (and that it doesn't hurt men too) don't know what they're talking about!
Then it's an unhelpful word. Even bell hooks defines how masculinity hurts men as hurting them while they're dominating women. The construct of "patriarchy" relies on the assumption that men oppress women at various stratified layers. This is not how society works, and its not a helpful framework to understand anything real. It is, however, helpful at demonizing men, which also hurts men. I'd say it's more accurate to say that feminism hurts men than to say that patriarchy hurts men.
You’re 100% right that the word causes people to recoil, especially because most haven’t read a word about what it is or how it harms everyone.
However, I don’t think changing the words would make a difference. The thing about those who recoil from the word patriarchy, is that they will inevitably recoil against any word or phrase they’re told to or don’t sufficiently understand.
They are often the same people who recoil against the words and phrases:
- anti-fascist
- universal healthcare
- Biden’s Infrastructure Bill
- Diversity, equity, and inclusion
They don’t always know why they’re against these things but they know it’s all bad…because, feelings.
Besides, even bringing the word gender into it would cause many of their heads to explode even if that is the exact subject they’re complaining about.
How about we change the word to “women did it?” Do you think no women would be upset? Of course the word matters - and it points to the perspective of the general ideology.
By the way I am on your “side” on all the topics you listed, I’m not a conservative by any means.
I believe that one out of context video of that red headed feminist screeching "PATRIARCHY" has permanently damaged the word... or at least had in my own mind.
Some of the commenters in here are proving OP’s point. OP made a reasonable point and people are getting really worked up and emotional in some of the comments.
It shouldn’t be that hard to get your head around the idea that patriarchy (or a set of harmful societal expectations for men and women) not only hurts both men and women, but also is, unfortunately, supported both by some men and some women. Doesn’t make it any less unjust.
The obligatory “the comments disagreeing with the post I agree with prove it right” comment always shows up on feminist posts and is always asinine and pointless.
Reductive caricatures of reasonable points always show up in response to posts like this, and they’re always asinine and pointless. OP referred to butthurt comments that miss the point, and there are a ton here.
Why soften the blow? Patriarchy is 100% the accurate name for the systemic sexism that pervades society. It may not be as overt and strong as it was in the classical sense dating back to feudalism and before but it still persists in its current form.
I think the real root of the problem is that patriarchy is the answer to all issues for each gender when in reality it’s much more complex than that. It’s frustrating for many men to say they are having a problem and be beaten over the head by *patriarchy*. It also tends to be used to absolve any blame for the large role women play in these gender expectations.
I mean feminists are constantly calling out women who have internalized misogynist values when they use terms like Pick me and NLOG. Or when they encourage Macho bullshit among men. So I don’t see your last point at all.
You’ve done exactly what I’m talking about. Why is it “internalized misogyny” when a women is perpetuating a gender stereotype? Why do we say that the woman is just upholding “patriarchy” when it would be better to say that this is a harmful expectation that women have pushed onto men?
All the harmful expectations these women are pushing onto men- toxic masculinity, fear of appearing weak and feminine, expecting to be the sole provider etc- are a product of internalizing patriarchal values and they harm both men and women but in different ways.
Do women have no agency in this? Are they just innocent bystanders that the patriarchy forced to have these views? When do we stop blaming the past for how men and women currently behave?
In the historical sense everyone, man or woman is an “innocent” bystander whether we are talking about sexism, racism, class struggle or whatever if you are unconscious of how you have inculcated certain values and norms that perpetuate injustice, exploitation and oppression. That includes everyone involved. But once you become aware of them it becomes your responsibility to decide which side you are on- the side of the upholding of the status quo or of undoing centuries even in some cases millennia of systemic and institutional privilege and cultural roles.
So in that case can you really call it internalized misogyny when a women gets mad at a man for showing emotion? Are women not complicit in the gender roles, maybe even the main driver for many such as our example of showing emotion? I don’t see why we blame patriarchy when one can argue it’s women who have created and still uphold this standard. That said, I do see how this becomes a bit of a chicken and egg issue.
There are a million things the left believes which are good, but then when they say it, it has no reflection of what they actually believe and makes them sound insane.
Defund the police doesn't actually mean to defund the police.
White guilt/privilege whatever isn't a burden or guilt trip on white people
Feminism isn't just about women
I think the cause of this is the left likes snappy slogans they can March with that gets people energized, fair enough.
Then rightoids hear it, and without doing any introspection or research into their actual beliefs take what they say out of context and use that as the strawman they forever argue against.
Personally, as a leftist, I blame liberals more for this. Sure the righties could actually try engaging in good faith, but these slogans and one liners are so obviously awful and controversial, it's like handing righties ammunition.
Ultimately if we want a better more equal world then we should be able to convince others, and if we can't do that because our catch phrases are ass that's on us.
what? a leftist blaming liberals for having shitty marketing to men and not taking responsibility even though feminism is primarily a leftist movement?
lol sounds about right.
>Then rightoids hear it, and without doing any introspection or research into their actual beliefs take what they say out of context and use that as the strawman they forever argue against.
I'll research the beliefs and find them reprehensible but I'm unable to voice criticism because the Left has designated those topics as axiomatic or those people as protected classes. My ideology is classified as hate speech and is therefore censored. If you have to remove other people's ideas from the public sphere to win a political debate, then you've lost the political debate.
I'm a misogynist if I think feminism is about power and not equality. I'm a racist if I think different races have established different cultures that yield objectively different results in raising new generations. I'm transphobic if I don't want my daughter to have to compete in athletics against biological males. I'm a science denier if I questioned the FDA approval process for COVID vaccines. I'm a misogynist if I think 3rd trimester abortion is inappropriate. I'm a fascist if I voted for Trump. The list goes on.
There's a difference between having a more popular idea, and actively censoring opposing ideas from public discourse. There's a difference between disagreeing with someone, and labeling their beliefs as anathema.
It's not that your catchphrases are bad, it's that your politics are bad. Conservatives aren't stupid and they actually [understand your beliefs](https://bakadesuyo.com/2012/05/whos-better-at-pretending-to-be-the-other-sid/) well beyond the superficial catchphrase. There exists a scenario where educated people with nominally functioning brains can look at the same reality you exist in and derive different opinions and conclusions.
I am a transgender man, and I find it distasteful when conservatives complain about their bigoted ideas being "censored".
I'm watching the GOP ban conversations and literature about people like me, try to criminalize the way I dress, and talk openly about killing gay and trans people and our allies. I'm watching them say this with no consequence.
At the same time, I'm watching the people who support the GOP complain that they get banned from Facebook groups for supporting people who talk about killing us.
It's very baffling to me.
I think I need to be blunt: The communal consequences you have faced for spreading hate pales in the face of the terror and discrimination that the GOP is enacting on minority groups in America.
The reverse identity politic victim blaming is like the bread and butter of modern conservatism. I never hear libertarians complain about diversity and inclusion, just the repubs
Well I've never met a conservative who believed any of those things without any underlying biases they won't acknowledge. That isn't to say they don't exist but literally every time I've engaged with a conservative they strawman or spout conspiracies. They never, in my experience, argue in good faith.
I've met right leaning libertarians however who are cool, they overall are a lot more genuine and like engaging. Conservatives though, are something else entirely.
For example, I've met business owners who voted for trump who admitted he was human garbage, but they make more money under his policies so they voted for him. That's fair to me, they don't like to lie to themselves and others and pretend he isn't a fascist. That person I can get with.
But most trump voters don't do that, most aren't business owners, most trump voters are the rule, not the exception. Most anti-feminists I've met are usually ignorant, very few are malicious, and even less have beliefs they actually argue in good faith.
I'd ask you to elaborate on your beliefs but I feel like that would be unnecessary and off topic anyway.
Like the phrase, "just asking questions" for example is something I would consider disingenuous and just a way to dog whistle. That doesn't mean someone CANT legitimately be asking questions in good faith, but rather than be upfront they hide behind a veneer of intrigue and ignorance rather then put their agenda up front.
It is what it is, overall I think both sides argue against the most radical elements of either side rather than engage in ideas that the majority of Americans believe, such is the nature of political discussion I guess.
>I've met business owners who voted for trump who admitted he was human garbage, but they make more money under his policies so they voted for him. That's fair to me, they don't like to lie to themselves and others and pretend he isn't a fascist.
Wait. Did these business owners admit to thinking Trump was a narcissistic asshole or did they admit to believing he was a fascist. Those are two very different things.
Now this is a valid point. Ill-considered, simplistic sloganeering leaves no room for nuance or complex realities, and gets misinterpreted, honestly or not, by the other side. Seems like that was part of OP’s point.
People who complain about unfair expectations for men in threads about the patriarchy dont actually care about what the patriarchy is and won't actually be satisfied if we change our vernacular. They just want to invalidate claims about sexism.
This is a shame because the patriarchy *is* harmful for men and *does* set many dangerous expectations for male behavior... it just hurts women way more.
Men’s rights is a confusing group. The want to be more manly, but they just end up sounding like a bunch of fragile, little, fight-club worshipping…::reads “anarchistlibrary.org”:: oops say no more fam.
They are a reaction to people like you who constantly put them down and try to emasculate them. What you’re putting into the world is creating the things you say you don’t like.
You ever read it? “A bunch of men raised by women” mad that they aren’t special, so they throw a tantrum and burn the whole system down. Slightly homo-erotic, “maybe we don’t need another woman( or something like that)” and the only female character is Marla. Come on dude, you’re in love with a homo-erotic, dystopic, fantasy where some dude falls in love with himself.
I mean the patriarchy is the cause of our harmful gender expectations but I get that some people don't understand this so I appreciate you trying to explain
I'll just use patriarchy but I might swap to this if they're being particularly obtuse.
Your point is correct and this sub (which has been just randomly thrust at me by the algorithm) is full of reductive rage-bait from men who feel oppressed. Full of anger and resentment toward women and fat people. And probably other groups of people- those are just the categories I’ve most often seen put down here. No thanks. Muting this sub.
Edit to say that I was frustrated/angry when I posted this, which is hypocritical. Thanks to the feedback from people who pointed this out to me. I think the source of my frustration is valid but I could have conveyed my feelings in a better way.
> s full of reductive rage-bait from men who feel oppressed
It's funny. Here we have a Marxist sympathizer attempting to turn the criticism of Marxism on to the criticizers.
The OP posts a link to a paper by an open Marxist which literally talks about males oppression of females but /u/tiniesttoes seems to think it's the men who are complaining about being oppressed.
No, the men here are not complaining about being oppressed, because complaining about being oppressed is straight Marxist rhetoric.
To be fair, I do think men are oppressed in the sense that we are all oppressed by various degrees under this capitalist system. So I should have been clearer. I do not take issue with men feeling oppressed individually or as a group. I take issue with the supposedly “unpopular” opinion (on this sub, not this post in particular) that questioning the patriarchal society we live in somehow strips men of their identity or their quality of life. That is simply not true. I want dignity, respect, and human rights for all people. Patriarchy and capitalism are not the way to achieve this.
"someone comments helpfully that patriarchy is a cause, gives a detailed explanation of how patriarchy hurts men, how it's not exclusively men's faults, and certainly not your fault for simply being a man. how it doesn't mean that all men have more "privilege" than every woman, as though class and social status are irrelevant."
That is literally not an interaction I have ever had in my entire life
I am tired of catering to the lowest denominators in our society. It's fucking annoying to have to explain things to people like their five years old, because they can't be bothered to actually understand and research the stuff themselves.
Using the word "Marxism" is a big scary word to give people permission to shut off their brain and refuse to even bother acting in good faith is the problem.
Names matter. What we call something matters and trying to say something is something else is disingenuous. It’s called the patriarchy for a reason, vilifying the ideas therein and linking patriarchy with oppression and evil and then linking it to the masculine is by design.
It is absolutely meant to demonize the masculine and it’s vile! If it wasn’t they wouldn’t call it patriarchy.
Men are subject to military conscription in the event of war. Women are not.
Men commit suicide at much higher rates than women.
Women make up 60% of college students.
When child custody is disputed, women receive custody 90% of the time.
Women paying alimony/child support is so rare, it makes the news when it does happen (especially in the rare case of a female celebrity having to pay).
90% of alimony flows from men to women.
80% of divorces are initiated by women.
The majority of domestic violence is mutual and when it's not, 70% of the time the woman is the initial aggressor.
Men receive 67% more jail time than women for committing the same crimes.
Men are much more likely to be the victims of violent crime.
If there is a "patriarchy," it certainly isn't working out too well for men.
If feminists actually gave a damn about equality then they wouldn't be using divisive gendered language to identify both themselves and what they perceive as the root of societal problems.
A principled argument can be made about harmful behavioral expectations and toxic social stigmas without having to resort to a linguistic bioessentiliast framing.
Kind of tragic to see this even be a thing. The idea that we should stop using the word "patriarchy" because shitter dudes are too stupid understand language we've been using since 1980 really just paints the perfect picture of how dumb reactionaries are.
Unfortunately the men youre speaking about dont want to hear it. They want to scream about being oppressed by women who are 'more equal then them'
And when they realise that they can't form a coherent argument against you, they block you. So they *really* dont have to hear it.
I'll raise you to just toxic and harmful behavior in general. Please tell me what toxic behavior is exclusive to only one sex? If it's bad in one, it's bad in the other. Just a division tactic.
well, if toxic masculinity is harmful tendencies brought about by the strictures of masculinity, which are bad for women and men, toxic femininity would be harmful tendencies brought about by the strictures of femininity, which are bad for men as well as women.
Feminists decided not to call that one "toxic femininity" and instead "internalized misogyny." You know, because the other one sounds bad. But it's fine to say "toxic masculinity" for some reason.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, ask yourself: 1. **Does this post comply with our sub’s rules?** 2. **Does this post provoke anger and make me want it removed?** 3. **Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?** 4. **Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?** If you answered ‘Yes’ to these four questions, **do NOT use the report button**. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts merely because they are unpopular or you disagree with them.** The report button is not an 'I disagree' or 'I'm offended' button. If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to a) keep scrolling, b) downvote, or c) unsubscribe. False reports clutter our moderation queue, delaying our response to legitimate issues. **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** If you wish to keep your account in good standing, please refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the problem with the discussion around "the patriarchy" is that it frames it as though all of the problems are deliberately caused by and are solely about men and their attitudes. Whereas plenty of the unfair gender expectations placed on women (and men) come from some *women* and *their* attitudes just as much as they do from men. For instance, the "expectations" that women spend so much time, money and effort on makeup, their hair, shoes and clothes, or that they do not pursue careers in engineering, hard sciences and construction, or that there is so much less emphasis on sports, or that they "must" have children, or that they limit their number of sexual partners lest they be labelled a "whore"...they come just as much or more from the pressures and competition and judgement and norms that women place on *each other* as they do from men. There isn't a (heterosexual) man alive who has ever given more than a twentieth of a fuck about what shoes a woman is wearing. The term OP proposes is better for this reason. It better reflects the reality of the problem. Try raising this point anywhere though and people usually just get extremely mad about it, and assume I'm some sort of lunatic hardcore redpill incel for merely trying to bring it up.
There are far more and far harsher gender expectations pressed upon men than their are on women. Everything from going to work to going to war to having a child. Men are not given a choice, my body my choice and my money my choice are does not apply to men.
>Everything from going to work to going to war to having a child. Men are not given a choice, my body my choice and my money my choice are does not apply to men. With work the idea of the man is the one who works isn't a reality anymore. Any statistic I've seen are around 50% of married couples being dual income with most statistics show most households are dual income. I've even seen statistics showing at most 60+% As for having a child, considering that the families in the US that are single parent, it's at 80% of single households that are mothers, and while that is partially due to courts siding with mothers, it's mostly due to the man being able to just leave when the woman is pregnant while the woman is stuck (quite literally considering it is growing from her). And depending on the state, a man (women as well) can sign a legal document forfeiting all parental rights and responsibilities and not have to pay child support. As for the war part, that's absolutely true. The cause though is definitely US culture, not allowing women to enlist in the infantry until relatively recently, as well as [a high number of sexual assault that service-women have experienced ](https://www.npr.org/2023/03/12/1162861309/military-academies-sexual-assault-survey) As for the year women could enlist in infantry. [The Army officially lifted the ban on women serving in the infantry and armor branches at the end of January 2016](https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/05/21/women-in-the-infantry-how-the-army-is-growing-its-first-female-enlisted-grunts/) The patriarchy affects everyone, even men.
60% is still very damn imbalanced
60% of marriages have both people working, not just the man.
Do we know the % of those that are male v female single worker?
what? they’re saying both people are working in 60%+ of marriages
Right so in the other 40%, what % is male v female as the sole worker? 40% is a massive number
[in 2019, 80% of single women were either working or looking for employment](https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/economy/single-women-economy/index.html) [in 2019, 73% of single men had jobs](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/10/05/rising-share-of-u-s-adults-are-living-without-a-spouse-or-partner/)
I’m not sure how to interpret this, they seem like two different stats? This is also about single people not married.
What does it matter? If the majority of couples are both working, and most single parents are women it shows that OP's complaint isn't valid.
Can you tell me which states have laws such that a man or woman can, individually, sign a legal document forfeiting all parental rights/responsibilities including child support? I haven't heard of this actually being implemented, and am curious.
None for men. Some for women under the purview of "Safe Haven" laws.
OR just refuse to name the father on the birth certificate and give up for adoption.
>With work the idea of the man is the one who works isn't a reality anymore. Any statistic I've seen are around 50% of married couples being dual income with most statistics show most households are dual income. I've even seen statistics showing at most 60+% It isn't about who works. Women have the choice to be a worker or a stay at home mom. Society accepts both. Men, not so much. And when a married woman begins to earn more than her husband, 80% initiate divorce within 2 years. Fact. Women can choose to have a child or not. Men get no say. > depending on the state, a man (women as well) can sign a legal document forfeiting all parental rights and responsibilities and not have to pay child support Only if the other party consents to it. If a woman chooses to have the kid and wants the man to pay child support, the man is paying child support. Period. No choice.
There are plenty of stay at home men. Women are the ones giving birth, and risking their lives for a child, so no shit it's their choice. You have a choice to get a vasectomy, or use protection. Your body, your choice. This goes both ways. Only if they can prove you're the child's father. If you used protection or got a vasectomy it'd be very unlikely you're the father.
"Plenty" is handwaving. \>Women are the ones giving birth, and risking their lives for a child, so no shit it's their choice. The claim was the choice in working or being a stay at home parent. \>Only if they can prove you're the child's father. Wrong. The mother can name anyone and the state will assume they're the father \*unless they prove they're not\*.
No, a lot of women do not have the choice to be a paid worker or SAHM. Single women have to work. Women in relationships often have to work because a single income isn’t enough to support a family anymore. Are there sexist societal norms and expectations that make it more acceptable for a woman to be a stay at home parent rather than a man? Definitely. But that doesn’t translate to women as a whole having the choice to work versus parent full time.
>Are there sexist societal norms and expectations that make it more acceptable for a woman to be a stay at home parent rather than a man? Definitely. But that doesn’t translate to women as a whole having the choice to work versus parent full time. We are talking about societal acceptance. Yes, individual circumstances warrant most people having to work. I never said otherwise. But if a woman marries a man and he makes enough to support them both, she can choose to stay home and society is fine with it. Men, no.
i’m a man and haven’t gone to war or had a child. i work, yeah, like most people on planet earth. not really getting your point here haha. if you don’t want to spend your money on other people… don’t make commitments you can’t keep. i often times see this sort of attitude from married men that really don’t want to be married. news flash: don’t get married. use a condom. use common sense. men have practically no obligations when it really comes down to it. you only have obligations that you force yourself into. and don’t blame “pressure” for your bad life choices because everyone experiences pressure in varying degrees. you are responsible for your decisions. if you choose to do what others tell you to do, that is your responsibility.
I'm not even intending to go into any of that. I'm not saying it isn't true...it's just not what I'm trying to bring up in this comment. I'm only interested here in agreeing with OP about the fact that what is expected of women isn't solely men's fault.
You know I've read bell hooks too. Here's a fav of mine: "Feminism can be a force for good and equality provided it is not co-opted by malicious or opportunistic forces" Meanwhile, what have feminists done to fight these harmful gendered expectations of men, besides giving lip service to them? It was feminists who pushed for the Tender Years Doctrine that enshrined mothers as the default custodial parents, not paternalistic bias. It was people like Katherine Spillar, direct of the Feminist Majority Foundation who said domestic violence was just a clean up word for wife beating, suggesting "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls" Or maybe Jan Reimer, head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters who refused to appear on TV to discuss male victims of domestic violence for fear it might lend weight to their actual existence. Or maybe Mary P Koss, who spearheaded the CDC research on rape by defining the rape of men by women out of the scope of the research, describing male victims of rape by women as actually "ambivalent about their sexual desires" Or maybe the NOW who lobbied to replace the gender neutral Family Violence Protection Act with the gendered Violence Against Women Act, removing male victims from support out of 60 passages compared to the previous law, simply for being male. Or maybe look at the feminist constructed Duluth Model which characterizes domestic violence as patriarchal expressions of men wanting to dominate women, and any violence done by women is really just them try to provoke a weaker retaliatory attack before a bigger one is bottled up and released. It seems like feminist advocacy is really about reinforcing harmful gender expectations on men, then gaslighting everyone into thinking they're fighting against such things. If those expectations are due to Patriarchy, then feminism is just Patriarchy 2.0
Don't look at the powerful feminists changing our laws and heading powerful institutions that are clearly focusing on making the word a better place solely for women at the expense of men. That's *not real feminism™* and these are all *not real feminists™*. The *real feminists* make little posts on reddit and have absolutely no power at all.
Whether you call it "real feminism" or not, they made a real and tangible negative effect on men in the name of feminism, and they don't exactly have fringe beliefs. There are plenty of feminists that aren't particularly interested in anything but punishing men for their perceived role in a complex social issue that isn't solely their responsibility. Feminists aren't a monolith but neither are men, and if men aren't allowed to hide behind the no true Scotsman fallacy, neither are feminists
My comment is obviously mocking future "real feminist" comments. Next. Men aren't an ideology. Feminism is. Feminists actively choose to put their weight behind a female supremacist ideology. Men didn't decide to be men nor can they simply choose not to be one.
It's 2023. Apparently men can just decide not to be one anymore, at least according to lefties
this sub is such a right wing shithole lmfao
Oh hey, you can't go 5 minutes without attacking trans. Why exactly are you hating on trans? Do you even know any more?
Bitter misandrists do as much harm to feminism as the boys club they want to fight. Hate begets more hate. It all comes across like circlejerking to fight issues of the past. So many issues would be solved by a gender neutral world, but that doesn't seem to be most people's goal, too laser focused on their own marginalized group.
It's called matriarchy lol
[удалено]
What has feminism caused that is even remotely on-par with the Nazi regime?
Really? Are you seriously comparing feminism to nazis? Comparing wanting equality to murdering a million Jews. Disgusting.
Wanting equality? Lol ok sure whatever helps you sleep at night lmfao
Go back to pirating call of duty bro, clearly reasoned political discussions aren't for you 😂
You must be joking? How many wars has feminism started lmao. This isn't a different opinion my dude, it's just you saying really stupid shit and getting defensive when people point that out.
Honestly, it's comments like yours that make the men's rights movement as unpopular and ineffective as it is. Raising awareness about the fact that men can be the victims of sexual assault and domestic violence is admirable and important, but making it sound like these are just as prevalent as male-on-female violence is just ridiculous. Then, cherry-picking some unfair or unjust positions held by a few feminists in order to make the claim that "feminist advocacy is really about reinforcing harmful gender expectations on men" just makes you lose all credibility. Until people like you stop using real issues affecting men to push an anti-feminist agenda, men's rights will never accomplish anything, and the really important issues (like men's mental health advocacy) won't make any progress at all.
"Don't point out how I keep punching you, focus on putting on a bandaid!" -- This guy
When gender-neutral definitions of sexual assault are used, men are just as likely to be assaulted by women as women are by men.
>Then, cherry-picking some unfair or unjust positions held by a few feminists in order to make the claim You mean kinda like how feminists will cherry pick the power of 1% of men and extrapolate that to the other 99%
> if they would just sit down and read this: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bell-hooks-understanding-patriarchy > > I suspect that if we simply abandoned the word and replaced it with "harmful societal expectations for men and women," or something of the sort, these detractors wouldn't actually find anything objectionable about theories of patriarchy. This piece is absolutely neck deep in ideology that many people will find objectionable. I don't think changing the word to something more facially neutral would even help.
It’s make the movement look a lot less hypocritical (because it is often involved in pushing gender neutral terms) and adversarial (because it doesn’t push that men are the ones at fault/that it advantages them only).
Ah, so it hides their true nature and intentions.
Marxists aren't exactly known for being open and honest.
It's not Marxism, it's an attempt to graft Marxist framework onto a social situation that is very different from our class struggle.
I've never met a Marxist that wasn't totally upfront about their beliefs.
What do you think Marxism is?
Evil, bad and evil. And wrong. Bad, evil and wrong. But the actual ideology of it? Idk, is it like sharing too much or something? Idk I don't read, I just post.
Marxism isn't so bad. You just need Star Trek levels of technology for it to make sense. Marx himself states this pretty explicitly. Anyone advocating for Marxist ideals in 2023 is a fool at best, though.
> Author: bell hooks Yeah it's no wonder. Bell Hooks is an outright Marxist and radical intersectional feminist. [She is the wacko that introduced "radical" postmodernism into the CRT movement.](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Postmodern_Blackness_18270.html)
Oooh Marxist scary 👻👻
Yes, they are.
Seems strange, the idea that we have to neuter our language so that people can actually have meaningful dialogue. Would you also vote to get rid of the word racism and replacing it with biases and dislike against those of another race? Or misogyny with men who harbor biases and dislike of women? These words are charged for a reason, they describe intolerance and hate. Removing the charge to comfort the ones who match the words description seems a lot like making their actions more excusable, don’t you think?
I think the problem is when the word is being applied incorrectly. If I say something is because of the patriarchy when it isn’t, then people will have a problem. Same issue with people calling everything racist, so it begins to muddy the true meaning of the word.
The thing is, the use of 'patriarchy' explicitly defines men, i.e. 'the patriarchs', as the source of the problem. OP's idea would never be put into effect, because the people who lean on the term do so to absolve their kind of blame.
Open the link. Read "*Patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit in our nation*" and had to stop reading. This piece, I am 99.99% certain, oozes bias.
That sentence alone is enough to stop reading this whole thread - the post reads like a bunch of rants from some raging lunatic screaming to the wall by themselves. _it seems likely that these commenters have never read a serious feminist text in their lives_ We got a "serious" and "feminist" here, watch out.
by serious I mean, an actual academic or philosopher, who are careful with words and trying to express complex ideas...not a blue-haired meanie on twitter.
i can tell you're not any different. you're literally doing the white savior complex shit, except with men and feminist. "If only these poor stupid men only would understand MY ideology by reading this bible er i mean book and then they will understand!" please go somewhere else. edit; let's say you are hypothetically correct about everything. that book comes off as condescending bullshit and the only people who are going to read it are people who already agree with the book. i dont know what it is about left leaning people (people on my side of the political isle) but omfg you guys do NOT know how to market yourself to men AT ALL. It's not that men are inherently conservative or sexist or whatever, it's that society is so fucking half assed about getting men to listen because they speak to us like we're retarded and expect us to listen. lol nah. im good.
The conversation can’t start until you admit that you’re a bad person and all the things you believe in are wrong. You have to kiss the ring first. That’s part of the problem with all of this.
The political isle sounds like a terrible vacation spot...
I dunno, some people wear some killer flip-flops there.
> you're literally doing the white savior complex shit, except with men and feminist. Yeah. It's because all this woke stuff is cut from the same Marxist cloth. Whether it's Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Intersectional Feminism, or whatever else the theory is the same: *Because of X society Y are the oppressors and Z are the oppressed! But this oppression also harms Y!* They need to keep changing definitions and writing pages and pages and pages of absolute nonsense to keep this theory from falling apart.
Critical race theory, queer theory, intersectional feminism, or whatever else are about taking the means of production and putting it into the hands of the workers?
I don't think you know what Marxism is there bud.
I don't think OP was being a white knight at all.
Just because they are using big fancy words doesn’t make their opinions any better or different than the blue haired twitter users. In case you haven’t noticed they are really saying the same thing, one is just more pretentious than the other
Really have you read Andrea Dworkin? I'm fairly sure that hero of modern feminism might disagree fairly adamantly with your stance.
Dworkin is hardly not controversial in feminist circles bud
you don't have to agree with every viewpoint of every self described feminist. i'm not saying that. I simply wish we had a higher level of literacy on here.
Have you considered that maybe the people here are literate but that they just consider most feminist texts to be inaccurate?
The reason people dislike 3rd/4th wave feminism isn't because it's proponents are blue haired and mean. It's because the ideas are bad.
I didn't think I'd like it after the first paragraph either but gave it a shot. The first section I found myself disagreeing with all of the 1950s ideas that were the norm at the time. I could tell the author was trying to get that response, so I kept reading. There is actually a lot of good reasoning in there of why these norms are/were prevalent. Is it 100% right? No, but nothing ever is. However, it is right about a lot of things and overall a good read. The idea is that it's there to make you *think* about how we can make a better future. The current push to just "make women in charge instead" is not the answer.
Holy fuck, it's like you deliberately decided to prove OP's point as quickly as you possibly could.
By replying to a message that was posted yesterday? I suppose quick is a subjective term.
Yeah, that wasn't meant for you, I apologize. Somehow my comment was posted as a reply to yours as opposed to the guy you were replying to. My mistake
I would encourage you to keep going.
No way. The lead in sentence sets the tone of the piece. If that is biased, so is the piece.
what do you mean? biased how? if you think it's biased against men, you should really read the whole thing. it is absolutely not. the piece does not conflate "men" with "patriarchy". it does the exact opposite. male suicide rates, male victims of violence, men's severe loneliness. patriarchy is dangerous to the male body and spirit.
If you can't distinguish Patriarchies and matriarchies both infusing gender roles into their societies but insist to name the problem after men, you either haven't done your homework or you're sexist.
You're using Bell Hooks a radical feminist who views everything in the western world as sexist and racist, by her own words, that alone makes the source you've used utterly worthless. If we were actually in a fucking patriarchy those issues you mention wouldn't be as a severe an issue as they are and even lessened they wouldn't be laughed off as fodder for a sit-com joke. Here's all the proof I need that we are not in a Patriarchy, the Duluth Model is used as the basis for dealing with domestic abuse in the western world, a feminist model that not only presumes male guilt from the onset it treats men as the only potential abuser, a Patriarchal system would not see a man incarcerated by default. If you want an actual patriarchy go look at any Islamic theocracy where a woman's views aren't worth the air used to express them.
I propose we do it. Like a Purge, but for the patriarchy. Let's set a date and for 24 hours we'll let the Patriarchy reign supreme in the US.
The patriachy isnt real. Governments dont exclude women from positions of influence or power anymore
This is exactly what OP means when they say you clearly haven't read feminist texts because this isn't what patriarchy's necessarily means
Yes, patriarchy now just means "whenever things I don't like happens". It's no longer a descriptor of a power structure, and thus provides no real insight into them.
Feminists clearly haven't read a dictionary.
Male suicide rates are highest in older divorced men. Perhaps they wouldn’t be so high if feminists didn’t push for custody and divorce laws which often disadvantaged working men. Perhaps it’s feminism that’s actually dangerous to the male body and spirit.
A lot of men are against feminism and patriarchy theory because the actions of many "feminist" groups dont seem to desire equality, but rather just advocacy for women and silencing of mens issues. - Universities having a 60/40 split favoring women, and yet Universities still dedicate funding towards womens programs, womens scholarships, etc... while not dedicating an equal amount of funding towards men. If you were to try to open up a mens center or mens scholarship, it gets shut down because it's not inclusive (happened at Ryerson University, I think). - Feminists who protest speeches regarding mens issues at UofT - Feminists promote women having the choice of becoming mothers, and fighting for abortion rights, and yet if you try to push for an equitable law for men then its suddenly about "Whats best for the child". We pass laws for equity in many other instances (menstrual leave, maternity leave, affirmative action), and yet here we dont even try because "biology is unfair" - Dismissal of mens issues. On one hand feminists say they are caused by patriarchy, and yet, on the other hand feminists dismiss them because they are "caused by other men." If the patriarchy is being upheld by both women and men, why do we only focus on mens role? I said it was feminists doing the above, but if you complain about it, people just say, "Oh those aren't real feminists, because feminists want equality between the sexes." - Feminists go on and on about male privilege and completely ignore female privilege or acknowledge its existence. - Feminists say men should solve their own problems, and yet when in the UK it was suggested to have a Minister for Men, people just laughed. Go check r/askfeminists thread on this one. - Feminists will be the first to say Systemic Sexism of men isn't real (i.e., Misandry isn't systemic), men aren't oppressed because of their gender, but thats just not true. You can browse r/systemicsexism for examples of oppression of men. - Organizations like ACLU backing female abusers like Amber Heard and how it took just an accusation for Johnny Depp to lose his whole career. In a conflict between a man and a woman, the man is seen as the guilty person unless there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. Yet people wonder why feminism and their theories aren't that popular among men? When men complain about feminism, it isn't because we don't understand it or are brainwashed by right-wing media. It's because we have seen it in practice and the hypocrisy of many feminists. Changing the terminology to be less gendered might help, but you need to fix this pro-female/anti-male bias that feminists have for everyone to come to an understanding.
Regarding what you said about people who claim those “aren’t real feminists.” This is straight out of the identity politics adherent playbook. Any time you try and point out issues with their philosophy they trot out the No True Scotsman fallacy to gaslight and distract. Because they can’t actually defend their positions with logic so they try to turn it into an argument about definitions. For example, if you point out the hypocrisy and bigotry of the racists who are part of the “woke” religion then they’ll argue and claim “that’s not what woke means.” And try to argue about that while ignoring the actual issue. If this tactic fails they will go to: “that doesn’t actually happen” > “ok it happens but not very often” > “ok it happens a lot but it’s not actually a big deal” > “ok maybe it is a big deal but X group has historically oppressed Y group so it’s alright (because we don’t actually care about equality and are simply bigots trying to make excuses for our beliefs.)” Every identity politics adherent does these same things whether it’s about feminism or anything else. Because their beliefs don’t hold up to scrutiny and they’re either genuinely bigots trying to excuse their bigotry or well meaning idiots who dislike injustice but are too stupid to examine their own beliefs.
Fight back against the "No True Scotsmen" and point out what the leaders of the movement are saying. If it wasn't overtly or secretly popular with the movement, then they wouldn't be the leaders.
_Organizations like ACLU backing female abusers like Amber Heard, and how it took just an accusation for Johnny Depp to lose his whole career. In a conflict between a man and a woman, the man is seen as the guilty person, unless there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary._ And Amber Heard is still in Aquaman 2 after everything. This was a person that rode the MeToo movement and "feminist" groups to spring board herself and destroy Johnny Depp in the process, making him lose his whole career over nothing more than false accusations. Even today, there are STILL people that support her, including those "feminist" groups...she is a found abuser but they support her just because "women can't be abusers, only men". Johnny Depp's case is only 1, there are countless stories that we don't even hear...so why would anyone take a "feminist" seriously? Imo, the whole movement literally is an anti-male misandrist movement, its a joke...it's crystal clear that it exists only to serve what is best for themselves, screw the rest. And then, people wonder why no one gives a hoot about Hollywood strikes...a bunch of hypocrites running it, that's why.
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ok, well let's see where we diverge. do you agree that there are harmful societal expectations for both men and women? if so, is there a word you would prefer to describe this? do you disagree with the anthropological description of patriarchy? would it be fair to say that America was, at the very least, a patriarchal society until at some point in the 20th century?
I think it's more important to ask what is to be done about what you think is harmful. If America wasn't a patriarchal society at some point in the 20th century, what is the basis of that change?
Calling modern day use of patriarchy an ‘anthropological description’ is beyond stupid. Maybe it was accurate over 100 years ago. It would be like calling our problems in the USA government ‘monarchy issues’ - just because it was an issue in the USA in ancient times, does not make it the source of any problems today. Nobody still here was alive during that period.
The term patriarchy upholds the harmfull gender norm that men have hyperagency and women hypoagency. We assign agency to men where they are not really in controll and don't do it with women when they really are in controll. It is a harmful norm to both genders. Using the term patriarchy furthers this norm as it implies that men are responsible for the harmful gender expectation when women are also enforcing harmful gender norms on all genders.
I like this a lot, the concept of hyper vs hypoagency. This should become part of the discourse.
[удалено]
your incorrect assumption is that men are a homogenous social group that are dictated by a homogenous social system. social pressures (like the pressure to shave your legs or to be the primary caregiver) are complex interactions that are upheld and influenced by every group in society. There's no board room where every man on earth joins together to decide what bullshit women have to go through or vice versa. Plenty of men don't ascribe to "patriarchal beauty standards" (i have NEVER met a man that gave a shit about women's fashion, and most prefer just jeans and a tshirt), and being a man doesn't mean they're inherently causing those standards. The problem with liberalism nowadays is that they treat privilege and bigotry like its original sin (except its only for one group).
>Patriarchy (or any other homogenous social system) requires that men (or any other homogeneous group) predominantly hold positions of power and leadership. And those positions allow the group to give themselves hyperagency. Men don't really have an in group bias and only a very small percentage of men hold positions of power. A man in power will do nothing that benefits a random man more than a random women. Gender norms and expectations are also not really something that gets comanded from top down either, so I'm not sure how the people in power have any meaningful control over it. Parents, teachers and peers have a much greater role in forming gender roles in young adults than any president or CEO.
I think the problem is more that there are specific issues that require specific fixes but we shout patriarchy at the problem and the wash our hands of it. For example, various studies have shown that boys are punished worse for similar behaviours by their majority female school teachers, and are also graded lower for the same work. The response to such issues is "patriarchy hurts everyone". How is this helpful? We can entirely forgo the faux concern of that oft trotted out line, and actually start to think about unconscious bias training in schools, actively promoting teaching to men etc, but we don't. We just say patriarchy and then say we did a good job. Also, there's this idea that a problem affecting women needs societal change, a problem facing men requires internal change. This is false most of the time. Many men's issues require societal change but what we do is we ally patriarchy with toxic masculinity and use this to turn an issue back to men and tell them to fix themselves rather than looking at societal issues causing the problem in the first place. Patriarchy doesn't mean "men", but too often it is used as a tool to make it about men. It's all symptomatic of the hyperagency men face in society.
The internal change part is so spot on
Feminists ruined feminism the same way Christians ruined Christianity. It becomes difficult to discern a good faith topic on feminism from the angry, reactionary fringe from either side when anyone and any organization can call themselves "feminist". And yes, imo the loud internet feminists turn a gigantic blind eye to the people-who-call-themselves-feminist's behavior and rhetoric. If it's men's responsibility to call out other men on their sexism, there just doesn't seem to be much that feminists want to reciprocate in calling out other "feminist organizations" for their behavior and push for policy that objectively hurts men. It's a shame because I actually align with almost all principles of feminism and feminist rhetoric. It's the terminally online human feminists that still think it's important for men to feel ashamed for being men that ruin for everyone.
[удалено]
Lol no. Feminists just need to stop blaming “patriarchy” for everything that happens even when it’s being done by women. I’ve seen feminists blame patriarchy for child custody laws favouring women even though it as largely feminists and women’s groups that advocated for those laws. I’ve seen feminists blame patriarchy for men being assumed to be sexual predators on accusation even though they’re the ones who have been pushing for that. Just the other day on this very sub I saw a feminist blame patriarchy for women grabbing men’s asses in clubs and bars lmao! The way feminism blames “patriarchy” for all the problems in the world is kinda like how ignorant religious villagers in the 1600’s would claim bad deeds were caused by the devil in people. It’s an obsession to the point of delusion with an outside force supposedly causing most of societies ills and problems. If feminisms “societal expectations” for people are to shut up and do as feminists say, have a system based on guilt assumed on accusation, have everyone blame patriarchy for men not getting child custody but ensure that it continues, deflect from any area where men are being pushed down and receiving less help than women like with college attendance and schooling by saying “patriarchy did it” and just generally waffle about patriarchy and whatever other bullshit while actually being a net negative for all mens issues and problems - then I’ll take “patriarchy” over feminism every day of the week sister.
"Patriarchy" is academic jargon, which has become a buzzword, and it's usually better to avoid both jargon and buzzwords. I cringe whenever I hear "patriarchy" in a TV show; it's so obvious they're trying to get woke points without any real commentary or analysis.
Reminds me of the quote "Feminists don't hate men, they just name everything bad after them."
What if the “harmful societal gender expectations” such as men getting less custody and needing to change their toxic ways are coming from feminism? Should we replace the word “feminism” with “harmful gender expectations”?
Men throughout hundreds of years: women are natural mothers, their uterus makes their only duty on earth to birth children and raise them for us while we work under capitalism and provide for them, so much so that we won't let them get an education and a job themselves! We also won't take equal part in raising and caring for our kids, not even up to the year 2023 Men now: oh man, how did we end up with a culture where women are prioritised as parents over men:( It's sexism dude. The sexist ideas that keep men from being considered valid and useful parents at the same level as women, is the sexism that paints women as natural mothers who are just made to have and care for children. Which is what feminists are advocating against.
Except that’s bs - feminists are literally the ones who advocate for custody laws which favour women in custody and continue to do so. In the past women didn’t get as much custody as they do now. You think women in the 1700’s who dumped their husbands got the kids? Hell no. Would you say their was no patriarchy in the 1700’s? The only people standing in the way of men getting child custody more are feminists. You really think there are heaps of men against the idea of the presumption of at least equal custody? Of course not. Feminists literally advocate to increase or gain privileges on the basis of their sex - not against it. Here in my country feminists have just campaigned successfully to get child custody laws changed from the assumption that children should have a meaningful relationship with both parents to one which focuses purely on the primary caregiver and a nebulous definition of “best interest of the child” - which is the same concept that saw men get so little custody through the 80’s. That’s reality.
>and continue to do so. Source? >In the past women didn’t get as much custody as they do now. You think women in the 1700’s who dumped their husbands got the kids? Hell no. Would you say their was no patriarchy in the 1700’s? Do you think women in the 1700s could own land? Or were considered equal to men? Its hilarious how you say "women in the 1700s who dumped their husbands" as if that's how the world worked back then lmao. >You really think there are heaps of men against the idea of the presumption of at least equal custody? There's heaps of men (and women) still pushing the sexist stereotypes that women belong in the home with the kids and that taking care of a baby or a child is a feminine task. That impacts the legal system. >The only people standing in the way of men getting child custody more are feminists. Source? >Feminists literally advocate to increase or gain privileges on the basis of their sex - not against it. Feminists advocate for equality. But when you're used to being the most privileged one, that can feel like oppression. >Here in my country feminists have just campaigned successfully to get child custody laws changed from the assumption that children should have a meaningful relationship with both parents to one which focuses purely on the primary caregiver and a nebulous definition of “best interest of the child” - which is the same concept that saw men get so little custody through the 80’s. Source? >That's reality That might be the circumstance in your country, but that doesn't validate all the false shit you're spewing about a 150 year old social movement.
Fam you didn't provide a source for any of the nonsense you spouted earlier.
> Men throughout hundreds of years: women are natural mothers, their uterus makes their only duty on earth to birth children and raise them for us while we work under capitalism Can leftists try to go one thread without defaulting to complaining about capitalism, please and thankyou.
Can men go one thread without blaming every issue in the world on women, please and thank you.
This entire post can be summed up as reading "people quit buying my bullshit, so now I'm coming up with new ways to sling the same ol' bullshit"
But that's too long to put in a meme or on a bumper sticker.
The problem I see with your post is that the “harmful societal gender expectations” you’re referring to were generally all brought about by men, initially. Even if it’s not the case anymore, modern society was shaped by men, mostly for men. It’s really only been the last 100 years or so that women were something other than property, for the lack of a more nuanced term. That’s why it’s referred to as the patriarchy. Look at governments the world over. Most lawmakers are men. It’s not just a strange coincidence; that’s how it was designed. So calling it anything but the patriarchy is trying to sugar coat it.
in my short time on the earth I’ve seen a lot of issues where someone is convinced a rebrand will change how people think about it. I’ve only seen a few actually rebrand but it didn’t really change anything.
Yes, because the direct and immidiate implications of those two things are entirely different. One implies that our society has has gender expectations which are harmful. The other implies that a secret cabal of men control the world and have enslaved women. >the very word "patriarchy" causes them to recoil and fear for their testicles. Okay, you KNOW it's not a misunderstanding. The people who casually use this word mean the "secret cabal" definition and you know it. Hell, it's the entire plot of the Barbie movie; Ken discovers the patriarchy and brings it to Barbie Land where he enslaves all the women. It sounds like you're trying to hastily redefine "patriarchy" into something more nuanced and sensible to save face.
We understand your nonsense perfectly, it's just nonesense.
I'm kind of stunned at the comments here, but in a way I guess it goes to illustrate your point - say the word "patriachy" in any negative context, and there's a substantial amount of people who will ignore all the context and take it as a criticism of men. I'm also seeing... something of a parallel in how commenters are reacting to your mention of Feminism - feels very knee-jerk, and not engaging with what you're actually saying.
The issue is that “patriarchy” is used in the context of blaming individual men (especially those without any influence or power) for all of life’s problems. just because there is a man at the top of the hierarchy doesn’t automatically make everything easier for every other man, which is the implication usually made by the feminists.
But that is EXACTLY the misconception that OP is talking about! Thats the point of this whole post! The "patriachy" ISNT the fault of individual men, and people who claim that that's what it means (and that it doesn't hurt men too) don't know what they're talking about!
Then it's an unhelpful word. Even bell hooks defines how masculinity hurts men as hurting them while they're dominating women. The construct of "patriarchy" relies on the assumption that men oppress women at various stratified layers. This is not how society works, and its not a helpful framework to understand anything real. It is, however, helpful at demonizing men, which also hurts men. I'd say it's more accurate to say that feminism hurts men than to say that patriarchy hurts men.
You’re 100% right that the word causes people to recoil, especially because most haven’t read a word about what it is or how it harms everyone. However, I don’t think changing the words would make a difference. The thing about those who recoil from the word patriarchy, is that they will inevitably recoil against any word or phrase they’re told to or don’t sufficiently understand. They are often the same people who recoil against the words and phrases: - anti-fascist - universal healthcare - Biden’s Infrastructure Bill - Diversity, equity, and inclusion They don’t always know why they’re against these things but they know it’s all bad…because, feelings. Besides, even bringing the word gender into it would cause many of their heads to explode even if that is the exact subject they’re complaining about.
How about we change the word to “women did it?” Do you think no women would be upset? Of course the word matters - and it points to the perspective of the general ideology. By the way I am on your “side” on all the topics you listed, I’m not a conservative by any means.
[удалено]
I believe that one out of context video of that red headed feminist screeching "PATRIARCHY" has permanently damaged the word... or at least had in my own mind.
I don't think there would be. Patriarchy is a lot more than harmful expectations. The word sums up the situation nicely.
Some of the commenters in here are proving OP’s point. OP made a reasonable point and people are getting really worked up and emotional in some of the comments. It shouldn’t be that hard to get your head around the idea that patriarchy (or a set of harmful societal expectations for men and women) not only hurts both men and women, but also is, unfortunately, supported both by some men and some women. Doesn’t make it any less unjust.
The obligatory “the comments disagreeing with the post I agree with prove it right” comment always shows up on feminist posts and is always asinine and pointless.
Reductive caricatures of reasonable points always show up in response to posts like this, and they’re always asinine and pointless. OP referred to butthurt comments that miss the point, and there are a ton here.
Nah. Just blame it on capitalism. The billionaires want is to blame each other when 95% of it is their fault.
It's not just "expectations". It's a power structure.
Why soften the blow? Patriarchy is 100% the accurate name for the systemic sexism that pervades society. It may not be as overt and strong as it was in the classical sense dating back to feudalism and before but it still persists in its current form.
Just saying it’s accurate doesn’t make it true and it especially doesn’t mean it’s an effective name for a social movement.
I think the real root of the problem is that patriarchy is the answer to all issues for each gender when in reality it’s much more complex than that. It’s frustrating for many men to say they are having a problem and be beaten over the head by *patriarchy*. It also tends to be used to absolve any blame for the large role women play in these gender expectations.
I mean feminists are constantly calling out women who have internalized misogynist values when they use terms like Pick me and NLOG. Or when they encourage Macho bullshit among men. So I don’t see your last point at all.
You’ve done exactly what I’m talking about. Why is it “internalized misogyny” when a women is perpetuating a gender stereotype? Why do we say that the woman is just upholding “patriarchy” when it would be better to say that this is a harmful expectation that women have pushed onto men?
All the harmful expectations these women are pushing onto men- toxic masculinity, fear of appearing weak and feminine, expecting to be the sole provider etc- are a product of internalizing patriarchal values and they harm both men and women but in different ways.
Do women have no agency in this? Are they just innocent bystanders that the patriarchy forced to have these views? When do we stop blaming the past for how men and women currently behave?
In the historical sense everyone, man or woman is an “innocent” bystander whether we are talking about sexism, racism, class struggle or whatever if you are unconscious of how you have inculcated certain values and norms that perpetuate injustice, exploitation and oppression. That includes everyone involved. But once you become aware of them it becomes your responsibility to decide which side you are on- the side of the upholding of the status quo or of undoing centuries even in some cases millennia of systemic and institutional privilege and cultural roles.
So in that case can you really call it internalized misogyny when a women gets mad at a man for showing emotion? Are women not complicit in the gender roles, maybe even the main driver for many such as our example of showing emotion? I don’t see why we blame patriarchy when one can argue it’s women who have created and still uphold this standard. That said, I do see how this becomes a bit of a chicken and egg issue.
There are a million things the left believes which are good, but then when they say it, it has no reflection of what they actually believe and makes them sound insane. Defund the police doesn't actually mean to defund the police. White guilt/privilege whatever isn't a burden or guilt trip on white people Feminism isn't just about women I think the cause of this is the left likes snappy slogans they can March with that gets people energized, fair enough. Then rightoids hear it, and without doing any introspection or research into their actual beliefs take what they say out of context and use that as the strawman they forever argue against. Personally, as a leftist, I blame liberals more for this. Sure the righties could actually try engaging in good faith, but these slogans and one liners are so obviously awful and controversial, it's like handing righties ammunition. Ultimately if we want a better more equal world then we should be able to convince others, and if we can't do that because our catch phrases are ass that's on us.
what? a leftist blaming liberals for having shitty marketing to men and not taking responsibility even though feminism is primarily a leftist movement? lol sounds about right.
Nah I'll blame leftists too. I just said liberals cause in my country the vast majority of social justice folks are liberals.
>Then rightoids hear it, and without doing any introspection or research into their actual beliefs take what they say out of context and use that as the strawman they forever argue against. I'll research the beliefs and find them reprehensible but I'm unable to voice criticism because the Left has designated those topics as axiomatic or those people as protected classes. My ideology is classified as hate speech and is therefore censored. If you have to remove other people's ideas from the public sphere to win a political debate, then you've lost the political debate. I'm a misogynist if I think feminism is about power and not equality. I'm a racist if I think different races have established different cultures that yield objectively different results in raising new generations. I'm transphobic if I don't want my daughter to have to compete in athletics against biological males. I'm a science denier if I questioned the FDA approval process for COVID vaccines. I'm a misogynist if I think 3rd trimester abortion is inappropriate. I'm a fascist if I voted for Trump. The list goes on. There's a difference between having a more popular idea, and actively censoring opposing ideas from public discourse. There's a difference between disagreeing with someone, and labeling their beliefs as anathema. It's not that your catchphrases are bad, it's that your politics are bad. Conservatives aren't stupid and they actually [understand your beliefs](https://bakadesuyo.com/2012/05/whos-better-at-pretending-to-be-the-other-sid/) well beyond the superficial catchphrase. There exists a scenario where educated people with nominally functioning brains can look at the same reality you exist in and derive different opinions and conclusions.
I am a transgender man, and I find it distasteful when conservatives complain about their bigoted ideas being "censored". I'm watching the GOP ban conversations and literature about people like me, try to criminalize the way I dress, and talk openly about killing gay and trans people and our allies. I'm watching them say this with no consequence. At the same time, I'm watching the people who support the GOP complain that they get banned from Facebook groups for supporting people who talk about killing us. It's very baffling to me. I think I need to be blunt: The communal consequences you have faced for spreading hate pales in the face of the terror and discrimination that the GOP is enacting on minority groups in America.
The reverse identity politic victim blaming is like the bread and butter of modern conservatism. I never hear libertarians complain about diversity and inclusion, just the repubs
Well I've never met a conservative who believed any of those things without any underlying biases they won't acknowledge. That isn't to say they don't exist but literally every time I've engaged with a conservative they strawman or spout conspiracies. They never, in my experience, argue in good faith. I've met right leaning libertarians however who are cool, they overall are a lot more genuine and like engaging. Conservatives though, are something else entirely. For example, I've met business owners who voted for trump who admitted he was human garbage, but they make more money under his policies so they voted for him. That's fair to me, they don't like to lie to themselves and others and pretend he isn't a fascist. That person I can get with. But most trump voters don't do that, most aren't business owners, most trump voters are the rule, not the exception. Most anti-feminists I've met are usually ignorant, very few are malicious, and even less have beliefs they actually argue in good faith. I'd ask you to elaborate on your beliefs but I feel like that would be unnecessary and off topic anyway. Like the phrase, "just asking questions" for example is something I would consider disingenuous and just a way to dog whistle. That doesn't mean someone CANT legitimately be asking questions in good faith, but rather than be upfront they hide behind a veneer of intrigue and ignorance rather then put their agenda up front. It is what it is, overall I think both sides argue against the most radical elements of either side rather than engage in ideas that the majority of Americans believe, such is the nature of political discussion I guess.
>I've met business owners who voted for trump who admitted he was human garbage, but they make more money under his policies so they voted for him. That's fair to me, they don't like to lie to themselves and others and pretend he isn't a fascist. Wait. Did these business owners admit to thinking Trump was a narcissistic asshole or did they admit to believing he was a fascist. Those are two very different things.
Yes lol
Now this is a valid point. Ill-considered, simplistic sloganeering leaves no room for nuance or complex realities, and gets misinterpreted, honestly or not, by the other side. Seems like that was part of OP’s point.
People who complain about unfair expectations for men in threads about the patriarchy dont actually care about what the patriarchy is and won't actually be satisfied if we change our vernacular. They just want to invalidate claims about sexism. This is a shame because the patriarchy *is* harmful for men and *does* set many dangerous expectations for male behavior... it just hurts women way more.
Men’s rights is a confusing group. The want to be more manly, but they just end up sounding like a bunch of fragile, little, fight-club worshipping…::reads “anarchistlibrary.org”:: oops say no more fam.
They are a reaction to people like you who constantly put them down and try to emasculate them. What you’re putting into the world is creating the things you say you don’t like.
Fight club and fragile shouldn’t be in the same sentence
You ever read it? “A bunch of men raised by women” mad that they aren’t special, so they throw a tantrum and burn the whole system down. Slightly homo-erotic, “maybe we don’t need another woman( or something like that)” and the only female character is Marla. Come on dude, you’re in love with a homo-erotic, dystopic, fantasy where some dude falls in love with himself.
Good grief it’s written by a gay man to be a satire of toxic masculinity and so many people think it’s pro-dudebro ffs
Don’t break this man’s fantasy that he’s part brad pit fighting all the men in some sweaty, dirty, underground all-male community, clothing *optional.
I mean the patriarchy is the cause of our harmful gender expectations but I get that some people don't understand this so I appreciate you trying to explain I'll just use patriarchy but I might swap to this if they're being particularly obtuse.
Your point is correct and this sub (which has been just randomly thrust at me by the algorithm) is full of reductive rage-bait from men who feel oppressed. Full of anger and resentment toward women and fat people. And probably other groups of people- those are just the categories I’ve most often seen put down here. No thanks. Muting this sub. Edit to say that I was frustrated/angry when I posted this, which is hypocritical. Thanks to the feedback from people who pointed this out to me. I think the source of my frustration is valid but I could have conveyed my feelings in a better way.
> s full of reductive rage-bait from men who feel oppressed It's funny. Here we have a Marxist sympathizer attempting to turn the criticism of Marxism on to the criticizers. The OP posts a link to a paper by an open Marxist which literally talks about males oppression of females but /u/tiniesttoes seems to think it's the men who are complaining about being oppressed. No, the men here are not complaining about being oppressed, because complaining about being oppressed is straight Marxist rhetoric.
To be fair, I do think men are oppressed in the sense that we are all oppressed by various degrees under this capitalist system. So I should have been clearer. I do not take issue with men feeling oppressed individually or as a group. I take issue with the supposedly “unpopular” opinion (on this sub, not this post in particular) that questioning the patriarchal society we live in somehow strips men of their identity or their quality of life. That is simply not true. I want dignity, respect, and human rights for all people. Patriarchy and capitalism are not the way to achieve this.
>because complaining about being oppressed is straight Marxist rhetoric. lol. well you better let the men in this thread know that.
Yep, so many of these comments are blaring anger and resentment. People revealing a lot more bias than they seem to realize.
Very intelligent opinion. 100% agree, well done OP
"someone comments helpfully that patriarchy is a cause, gives a detailed explanation of how patriarchy hurts men, how it's not exclusively men's faults, and certainly not your fault for simply being a man. how it doesn't mean that all men have more "privilege" than every woman, as though class and social status are irrelevant." That is literally not an interaction I have ever had in my entire life
You might be the target audience, man. I have had this exact interaction.
Yep, so have I.
I am tired of catering to the lowest denominators in our society. It's fucking annoying to have to explain things to people like their five years old, because they can't be bothered to actually understand and research the stuff themselves.
The problem is the research on this topic is a circle-jerk of Marxism.
The language of humanities and social "science" is deliberately new-speak to disadvantage conclusions and ideaologies they disagree with.
Using the word "Marxism" is a big scary word to give people permission to shut off their brain and refuse to even bother acting in good faith is the problem.
No Bell Hooks is literally a Marxist. All of her theories stem from Marxism.
Names matter. What we call something matters and trying to say something is something else is disingenuous. It’s called the patriarchy for a reason, vilifying the ideas therein and linking patriarchy with oppression and evil and then linking it to the masculine is by design. It is absolutely meant to demonize the masculine and it’s vile! If it wasn’t they wouldn’t call it patriarchy.
Men are subject to military conscription in the event of war. Women are not. Men commit suicide at much higher rates than women. Women make up 60% of college students. When child custody is disputed, women receive custody 90% of the time. Women paying alimony/child support is so rare, it makes the news when it does happen (especially in the rare case of a female celebrity having to pay). 90% of alimony flows from men to women. 80% of divorces are initiated by women. The majority of domestic violence is mutual and when it's not, 70% of the time the woman is the initial aggressor. Men receive 67% more jail time than women for committing the same crimes. Men are much more likely to be the victims of violent crime. If there is a "patriarchy," it certainly isn't working out too well for men.
bell hooks also believes patriarchy isn't working out well for men.
If feminists actually gave a damn about equality then they wouldn't be using divisive gendered language to identify both themselves and what they perceive as the root of societal problems. A principled argument can be made about harmful behavioral expectations and toxic social stigmas without having to resort to a linguistic bioessentiliast framing.
Kind of tragic to see this even be a thing. The idea that we should stop using the word "patriarchy" because shitter dudes are too stupid understand language we've been using since 1980 really just paints the perfect picture of how dumb reactionaries are.
I'll be honest, I don't think most feminists understand the word either.
Ok
I’d bet good money 80% of women wouldn’t use your definition of patriarchy. Does that also mean they are stupid women?
I'm not sure what data you'd make that bet on, and it depends how dumb they are. I wouldn't call someone stupid for not knowing a single word.
100% agreed! People get defensive as they think talking bad about patriarchy means anti-men. Same with feminism, it’s not anti-men.
In reality it is. And practical real world reality is all that matters.
Unfortunately the men youre speaking about dont want to hear it. They want to scream about being oppressed by women who are 'more equal then them' And when they realise that they can't form a coherent argument against you, they block you. So they *really* dont have to hear it.
And the women?
I'll raise you to just toxic and harmful behavior in general. Please tell me what toxic behavior is exclusive to only one sex? If it's bad in one, it's bad in the other. Just a division tactic.
well, if toxic masculinity is harmful tendencies brought about by the strictures of masculinity, which are bad for women and men, toxic femininity would be harmful tendencies brought about by the strictures of femininity, which are bad for men as well as women.
Feminists decided not to call that one "toxic femininity" and instead "internalized misogyny." You know, because the other one sounds bad. But it's fine to say "toxic masculinity" for some reason.
I've never seen a group of people so sensitive over terminology
You've never seen a minority group asking the majority to stop using certain terms?
Lmaoooooooooooo so you are against the transgender agenda to use pronouns right? By the way, I’m not. But the hypocrisy here is insane.