NationStates

There are 4 underlying premises upon which patriarchy theory is based on. The idea that men dominate in political, educational, economic, and social settings. I will go through to disprove 4 of these definitively and make a motion to move to excessive debate.

Feminists often complain about inadequate Government representation, but women aren’t adequately represented in Government because not many women want to be politicians. Women have controlled the outcome of every election since 1964, they’re the ones that most consistently exercise their right to vote more men are admitted into Government due to female support, not male supremacy. To make it clear I will give an example of how this holds to be true. If all the women who actively participate in politics were to unanimously agree to vote for a female they could win with 0 male support at the polls. If all men were to do the same without women they could not vote in the candidate of their choice. Political power in this case is represented by potential power, which women yield and have yielded since 1964. It is then fair to assume that women are in no way, shape, or form held back in politics simply because of their gender.

Source: http://www.mic.com/articles/9417/what-women-voters-want

Feminists often make the incredibly false claim that somehow the education system is hardwired to be naturally against women. However women make up the majority of college graduates, and our current school system actually favors women starting from kindergarten. Women also receive the majority of gender oriented scholarship as most of them are available for women only rather than men only. We set men up for academic failure since kindergarten.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... 04898.html

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/25-fewe ... nt-america

The economic case for women privilege is by far the most convincing. As many times as the wage gap has been dismissed and destroyed, even if there was a wage gap, women have control of over 80% of household spending and spend 51% of personal income despite not even making half of it.

Source: http://www.supportingadvancement.com/ve ... luence.htm

The Courts are vehemently dominate by women, the fact that many judges are males does not go to help any feminist cause or claim at all. In fact it would rather discredit the idea of a patriarchy outright due to women excising statistical privilege over men even in a typically male industry. Women get shorter sentences all around, retain custody in 90% of divorces while initiating more than 66% of divorces. Also men are more than twice as likely than women to commit suicide.

Also some very good videos on the subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es1pADNS78w

So my question is, according to the facts presented before you, are western women overreacting to a non-existent issue? What say you NSG?

Feminism, in theory, is a fine idea. The idea that women should work to gain equal rights is noble. I'd argue that feminism in countries such as, say, India, is necessary. Now, as for Western Feminism, I dislike it. Women are given the same rights as men, and there is certainly no patriarchy, yet people bitch and moan about how oppressed females are under the cloak of "muh feminism." Feminism has turned into a rather futile movement that offers no productive solutions, and for that matter, shows few real gender issues in the West. Women have affirmative action, women can vote, women can work wherever they damn please, women can cook if they damn please, as can all members of a free society. Feminism is entirely unnecessary.

Couldn't this fit into one of the previously existing feminist threads?

OP you really need to hammer out these ideas more.


I recommend "We Should All Be Feminists"
by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Couldn't this fit into one of the previously existing feminist threads?

No, this is about patriarchy theory and deserves it's own distinct thread.

lol that's technically not how elections work even if everyone were to vote in an extremely unnatural manner like you just suggested

nobody ever actually said "every man better than every woman now and forever" and you may be very shocked to discover that things like women getting shorter sentences or winning more custody cases is something we have already considered, and is in actuality, perfectly consistent with what we've been saying.

Nierra wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Couldn't this fit into one of the previously existing feminist threads?

No, this is about patriarchy theory and deserves it's own distinct thread.

If you state that you're for equality in one part of your signature and against feminism in another, then you've essentially lost the right to be taken seriously when you create a separate thread. Have fun, though.

How many threads about gender discussion have you started at this point?

I'm starting to think you've got a real big chip on your shoulder about something.

On this site!? *grabs popcorn* Dis gonna be good.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Nierra wrote:
No, this is about patriarchy theory and deserves it's own distinct thread.

If you state that you're for equality in one part of your signature and against feminism in another, then you've essentially lost the right to be taken seriously when you create a separate thread. Have fun, though.

That's laughable. To acknowledge feminism as a legitimate movement is to acknowledge that they are disadvantaged to men. Which I believe, for many reasons stated in this thread, is false. And western feminism is a farce.

Souseiseki wrote:lol that's technically not how elections work even if everyone were to vote in an extremely unnatural manner like you just suggested

nobody ever actually said "every man better than every woman now and forever" and you may be very shocked to discover that things like women getting shorter sentences or winning more custody cases is something we have already considered, and is in actuality, perfectly consistent with what we've been saying.

The injustice of having your word valued more than that of a man's, and your implicit right to child custody even though you could never have had that child without said man?

Completely consistent with women being oppressed. (Women aren't oppressed)

Patriarchy exists like those vile fascist Nazis valiant Putin is trying to oust from Ukraine, and all the Unicorns Best Korea has around.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Couldn't this fit into one of the previously existing feminist threads?

Yes.

Heraklea- wrote:How many threads about gender discussion have you started at this point?

I'm starting to think you've got a real big chip on your shoulder about something.

He's Chessmistress's hubby, probably.

Grand Britannia wrote:Patriarchy exists like those vile fascist Nazis valiant Putin is trying to oust from Ukraine, and all the Unicorns Best Korea has around.

Ponies can't melt steel privilege, bra.

Nierra wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:lol that's technically not how elections work even if everyone were to vote in an extremely unnatural manner like you just suggested

nobody ever actually said "every man better than every woman now and forever" and you may be very shocked to discover that things like women getting shorter sentences or winning more custody cases is something we have already considered, and is in actuality, perfectly consistent with what we've been saying.

The injustice of having your word valued more than that of a man's, and your implicit right to child custody even though you could never have had that child without said man?

Completely consistent with women being oppressed. (Women aren't oppressed)

wow it's almost like society still to a certain extent views women as the proper caretakers etc., i am sure that that is something that is exclusive to the courts where it may be beneficial in some cases and magically does not apply any time at any place outside of the courts where it may be detrimental, warping into the void whenever inconvenient to vagina-havers through the power of atomized misandry.

This seems to be a favored topic of yours. You've created many threads on your version of straw feminism and you predictably burn down your straw feminist and declare victory.

What's odd is you somehow expect non straw feminists to be persuaded by it.

I suggest that instead of spending so much time trying to teach feminists what feminism is... that you instead take some time, a year or two, to really research what feminism is, what patriarchy theory is, what priviledge means, and then when you really understand them go ahead and open a thread to dicuss it.

Until then all I see are piles and piles of straw.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Couldn't this fit into one of the previously existing feminist threads?

Yes.

Heraklea- wrote:How many threads about gender discussion have you started at this point?

I'm starting to think you've got a real big chip on your shoulder about something.

He's Chessmistress's hubby, probably.

tbh, it wouldn't surprise me if they're the same person.

Nierra wrote:There are 4 underlying premises upon which patriarchy theory is based on. The idea that men dominate in political, educational, economic, and social settings. I will go through to disprove 4 of these definitively and make a motion to move to excessive debate.

You won't and you haven't, but whatever.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Nierra wrote:
No, this is about patriarchy theory and deserves it's own distinct thread.

If you state that you're for equality in one part of your signature and against feminism in another, then you've essentially lost the right to be taken seriously when you create a separate thread. Have fun, though.

The only person who lost the right to be taken seriously is you.

Someone can be for equality but not be a feminist. Feminism is a political group. Not a state of mind. Believing in equality does not make you a feminist. Claiming you are a feminist makes you a feminist.

Assuming you're a feminist, you do not have the right to discredit my or anyone's opinion for refusing to assimilate with your political cult. I am a woman, and because I am a woman, I have the freedom to choose who I do and don't associate myself with. I have the right to decide what I believe and why I believe it.

I am a woman. I am a woman who believes men and women should be treated equally. I am not a feminist. You, as a feminist, do not get to dictate the amount of respect I am worthy of for not associating with your group. You do not decide who I am. I decide.

Souseiseki wrote:

Nierra wrote:
The injustice of having your word valued more than that of a man's, and your implicit right to child custody even though you could never have had that child without said man?

Completely consistent with women being oppressed. (Women aren't oppressed)

wow it's almost like society still to a certain extent views women as the proper caretakers etc., i am sure that that is something that is exclusive to the courts where it may be beneficial in some cases and magically does not apply any time at any place outside of the courts where it may be detrimental, warping into the void whenever inconvenient to vagina-havers through the power of atomized misandry.

Men are consistently viewed as care takers of women, so much so that marrying is actually financially detrimental to men on average while at the same time most discontinued relationships and divorces are driven by women.

Also men are much more likely to be required to pay child support than women.

Nierra wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:lol that's technically not how elections work even if everyone were to vote in an extremely unnatural manner like you just suggested

nobody ever actually said "every man better than every woman now and forever" and you may be very shocked to discover that things like women getting shorter sentences or winning more custody cases is something we have already considered, and is in actuality, perfectly consistent with what we've been saying.

The injustice of having your word valued more than that of a man's,

It's almost like you don't know how most rape trials go or something.

and your implicit right to child custody even though you could never have had that child without said man?

Or that most child custody arrangements are decided out of court between the parents.

It's almost like you haven't got a clue what you're talking about and are just stirring the pot in a bid for attention and lulz or something.

Natapoc wrote:This seems to be a favored topic of yours. You've created many threads on your version of straw feminism and you predictably burn down your straw feminist and declare victory.

What's odd is you somehow expect non straw feminists to be persuaded by it.

I suggest that instead of spending so much time trying to teach feminists what feminism is... that you instead take some time, a year or two, to really research what feminism is, what patriarchy theory is, what priviledge means, and then when you really understand them go ahead and open a thread to dicuss it.

Until then all I see are piles and piles of straw.

"Research what feminism is"

Can't speak for OP but I can sure as hell tell you what it isn't: For me. Or a respectable group.

Short Answer to the Question: Yes, Patriarchy Theory is nonsense. It's part of an ongoing victim complex constructed by radical feminists to explain away people disregarding their ludicrous ideas. If you want actual equality, Egalitarianism is a pretty good bet. Or Communism, if you're into that sort of thing.

And yeah, this could have been rolled into the other thread about Gender Politics, but at least now I get to have a front row seat to the madness.

*retcon*