The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Des-Bal]

Yeah, because a lot of the discrepancies that you can point to in society, in which men have additional circumstances (the draft in this case) were born out of the societal sexism towards women, which deliberately limited military service to men. It comes from men in the past self-imposing such things on men, by deliberate exclusion of women. Quite ironic if I do say myself.

And yeah...typically speaking you won't find many looking to expand the draft system. Rather more people, especially those on the more liberal and progressive spectrum of social issues, are concerned with abolishing the draft altogether.

That's only ironic if you aren't paying attention. Society imposes different roles upon the sexes enforced across all levels in different ways, when men are affected by it it's not irony it's a flaw in the popular and wildly over simplistic narrative of "men oppress women."

[Jello Biafra]

Yeah, because a lot of the discrepancies that you can point to in society, in which men have additional circumstances (the draft in this case) were born out of the societal sexism towards women, which deliberately limited military service to men. It comes from men in the past self-imposing such things on men, by deliberate exclusion of women. Quite ironic if I do say myself.

And yeah...typically speaking you won't find many looking to expand the draft system. Rather more people, especially those on the more liberal and progressive spectrum of social issues, are concerned with abolishing the draft altogether.

That's only ironic if you aren't paying attention. Society imposes different roles upon the sexes enforced across all levels in different ways, when men are affected by it it's not irony it's a flaw in the popular and wildly over simplistic narrative of "men oppress women."

"Men oppress women, and other men too. Following this, women oppress women, and many men as well."

[Mattopilos II]

Yeah, because a lot of the discrepancies that you can point to in society, in which men have additional circumstances (the draft in this case) were born out of the societal sexism towards women, which deliberately limited military service to men. It comes from men in the past self-imposing such things on men, by deliberate exclusion of women. Quite ironic if I do say myself.

And yeah...typically speaking you won't find many looking to expand the draft system. Rather more people, especially those on the more liberal and progressive spectrum of social issues, are concerned with abolishing the draft altogether.

That's only ironic if you aren't paying attention. Society imposes different roles upon the sexes enforced across all levels in different ways, when men are affected by it it's not irony it's a flaw in the popular and wildly over simplistic narrative of "men oppress women."

I think that thinking itself is a flaw. Because, well, that narrative itself was built upon what men did. It wasn't like that narrative never existed then JUST appeared out of thin air.

[Des-Bal]

I think that thinking itself is a flaw. Because, well, that narrative itself was built upon what men did. It wasn't like that narrative never existed then JUST appeared out of thin air.

The fact that the "patriarchy" is and has been shitting on men means that we need to consider whether the maleness of the patriarchy ever mattered. See, if the problem isn't as simple as "men have power, men hurt women" then ideas focusing men as the problem are liable to change who's doing the shitting but not necessarily who gets shit on or how much, with the handy effect of ascribing blame to those men whose role in society is the persistent receiving of shit. The problem is that we allow society to assign roles and that we participate in their enforcement, it's something men and women both do and it hurts our perceptions of one another as individuals and it denies people opportunities.

[Mattopilos II]

I think that thinking itself is a flaw. Because, well, that narrative itself was built upon what men did. It wasn't like that narrative never existed then JUST appeared out of thin air.

The fact that the "patriarchy" is and has been shitting on men means that we need to consider whether the maleness of the patriarchy ever mattered. See, if the problem isn't as simple as "men have power, men hurt women" then ideas focusing men as the problem are liable to change who's doing the shitting but not necessarily who gets shit on or how much, with the handy effect of ascribing blame to those men whose role in society is the persistent receiving of shit. The problem is that we allow society to assign roles and that we participate in their enforcement, it's something men and women both do and it hurts our perceptions of one another as individuals and it denies people opportunities.

No, the maleness did matter, insofar it was men who were in power. That is pretty much all one needs to draw from that. It is like if in history, women had been the ones in power for almost all tribal groups and later kingdoms and federations. The cases would be flipped, and the name of a idea to explain this phenomenon would be... Matriarchy. However, that is not what anthropology supports, as it supports the opposite time and time again. And funny how you talk of assigning roles to hurt each other,yet are simply trying to spread out the blame in a rather crude manner. Not that simple, bud - civilization didn't teeter to egalitarianism for one reason or another, and that has implications all the way up to now, to the harm of men and women and non-binary.

[Des-Bal]

No, the maleness did matter, insofar it was men who were in power. That is pretty much all one needs to draw from that. It is like if in history, women had been the ones in power for almost all tribal groups and later kingdoms and federations. The cases would be flipped, and the name of a idea to explain this phenomenon would be... Matriarchy. However, that is not what anthropology supports, as it supports the opposite time and time again. And funny how you talk of assigning roles to hurt each other,yet are simply trying to spread out the blame in a rather crude manner. Not that simple, bud - civilization didn't teeter to egalitarianism for one reason or another, and that has implications all the way up to now, to the harm of men and women and non-binary.

Which ones? The ones making up the overwhelming bulk of casualties in every conflict in human history? I don't feel like they had all that much power. When the ruling body is made up predominantly of members of group 1 and that body imposes limitations on and causes harm to both group 1 and group 2 suggesting that the problem is group 1's position of power neglects some major issues. That neglect is more pronounced when those limitations and harms are, and must be spread by individuals across all levels of society. It is entirely valid that group 1 and group 2 deserve equal representation but framing the problem as group 1 fucking group 2 can only be the product of someone lying or not paying attention.

[Geoagorist Territory]

You're seriously arguing that men being in armies throughout history proves society has always been matriarchal? Okay.

[Mattopilos II]

You're seriously arguing that men being in armies throughout history proves society has always been matriarchal? Okay.

Seems like it. Man that is a horrible argument.

[Mattopilos II]

No, the maleness did matter, insofar it was men who were in power. That is pretty much all one needs to draw from that. It is like if in history, women had been the ones in power for almost all tribal groups and later kingdoms and federations. The cases would be flipped, and the name of a idea to explain this phenomenon would be... Matriarchy. However, that is not what anthropology supports, as it supports the opposite time and time again. And funny how you talk of assigning roles to hurt each other,yet are simply trying to spread out the blame in a rather crude manner. Not that simple, bud - civilization didn't teeter to egalitarianism for one reason or another, and that has implications all the way up to now, to the harm of men and women and non-binary.

Which ones? The ones making up the overwhelming bulk of casualties in every conflict in human history? I don't feel like they had all that much power. When the ruling body is made up predominantly of members of group 1 and that body imposes limitations on and causes harm to both group 1 and group 2 suggesting that the problem is group 1's position of power neglects some major issues. That neglect is more pronounced when those limitations and harms are, and must be spread by individuals across all levels of society. It is entirely valid that group 1 and group 2 deserve equal representation but framing the problem as group 1 fucking group 2 can only be the product of someone lying or not paying attention.

You just spent a whole paragraph saying "Men fought in wars so thye don't have power!" What a crock of shit. That lacks any form of logic whatsoever. sorry, but if I had a day off, I might be able to list the issues with that argument, but there is far too much for it when I am going to bed soon. Maybe look over what you just said, and realize that men have been in power and fought in wars... STILL HAD POWER. One doesn't exclude the other.

[Des-Bal]

You just spent a whole paragraph saying "Men fought in wars so thye don't have power!" What a crock of shit. That lacks any form of logic whatsoever. sorry, but if I had a day off, I might be able to list the issues with that argument, but there is far too much for it when I am going to bed soon. Maybe look over what you just said, and realize that men have been in power and fought in wars... STILL HAD POWER. One doesn't exclude the other.

No I didn't.
Bill the medieval dirt farmer who got drafted and stabbed in a conflict he had no real understanding of, didn't spend his weekends attending the regular meetings of the Patriarchy. You're conflating being in power and looking like the people in power which is a big mistake because people in power will absolutely shit on the people who look like them.

[Mattopilos II]

You just spent a whole paragraph saying "Men fought in wars so thye don't have power!" What a crock of shit. That lacks any form of logic whatsoever. sorry, but if I had a day off, I might be able to list the issues with that argument, but there is far too much for it when I am going to bed soon. Maybe look over what you just said, and realize that men have been in power and fought in wars... STILL HAD POWER. One doesn't exclude the other.

No I didn't.
Bill the medieval dirt farmer who got drafted and stabbed in a conflict he had no real understanding of, didn't spend his weekends attending the regular meetings of the Patriarchy. You're conflating being in power and looking like the people in power which is a big mistake because people in power will absolutely shit on the people who look like them.

And Bill's wife is living in royalty, of course. You really aren't making much of an argument as you claim to be. The Patriarchy theory doesn't claim any illuminati like structure exists - it claims a history and structure that is man-centric in almost all cultures, and as such impacts modern life and societal structures. That is a strawman among strawmans. So yeah, I ain't conflating shit. You are.

[Des-Bal]

And Bill's wife is living in royalty, of course¹.You really aren't making much of an argument as you claim to be. The Patriarchy theory doesn't claim any illuminati like structure exists - it claims a history and structure that is man-centric in almost all cultures, and as such impacts modern life and societal structures. That is a strawman among strawmans.² So yeah, I ain't conflating shit. You are.³

1. This is a strawman.
2. This is accusing me of creating strawmen.
3. This is just saying "No u"

[Chestaan]

In India, 17 year old girl and 12 year old boy have sex, boy is charged with sexual offence

Taking victim blaming to a whole new level of fucked up.

[Galloism]

In India, 17 year old girl and 12 year old boy have sex, boy is charged with sexual offence

Taking victim blaming to a whole new level of fucked up.

Scenarios like that aren't as uncommon as you would think.

[Luminesa]

In India, 17 year old girl and 12 year old boy have sex, boy is charged with sexual offence

Taking victim blaming to a whole new level of fucked up.

[Galloism]

In India, 17 year old girl and 12 year old boy have sex, boy is charged with sexual offence

Taking victim blaming to a whole new level of fucked up.

In not sure why this is particularly shocking to you.

This is the place where parliament attempted to amend the rape laws to make the punishment stiffer and make rape gender neutral, and local feminist groups protested so heavily they relented and made them sexist again.

So, charges against a 12 year old boy for sex with a 17 year old girl seems probable and logical given the context. Disgusting sure, but not shocking. Stupid shit like this is the logical result of sexist laws.

[Jello Biafra]

In India, 17 year old girl and 12 year old boy have sex, boy is charged with sexual offence

Taking victim blaming to a whole new level of fucked up.

I'm not sure, from the article, what the particular crime he's supposed to have committed was.

[Galloism]

In India, 17 year old girl and 12 year old boy have sex, boy is charged with sexual offence

Taking victim blaming to a whole new level of fucked up.

I'm not sure, from the article, what the particular crime he's supposed to have committed was.

Well, it looks like he was charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. So that's probably something equivalent to statutory rape, unlawful sexual activity with a minor, or something along those lines.

I don't see the exact specific charge listed, but it's reasonable that's the gist.

[Jello Biafra]

I'm not sure, from the article, what the particular crime he's supposed to have committed was.

Well, it looks like he was charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. So that's probably something equivalent to statutory rape, unlawful sexual activity with a minor, or something along those lines.

I don't see the exact specific charge listed, but it's reasonable that's the gist.

That does seem to be the implication, in which case it is odd that the 12-year-old would be charged.

[Galloism]

Well, it looks like he was charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. So that's probably something equivalent to statutory rape, unlawful sexual activity with a minor, or something along those lines.

I don't see the exact specific charge listed, but it's reasonable that's the gist.

That does seem to be the implication, in which case it is odd that the 12-year-old would be charged.

Again, given the context, that's not that odd. Keep in mind this is a place where the law was explicitly changed from rape being a gender-specific crime to a gender neutral crime, and, based on feminist backlash in the country, changed back to a gender specific crime amid huge feminist protest.

It's disgusting, certainly, but not odd.

[Mattopilos II]

And Bill's wife is living in royalty, of course¹.You really aren't making much of an argument as you claim to be. The Patriarchy theory doesn't claim any illuminati like structure exists - it claims a history and structure that is man-centric in almost all cultures, and as such impacts modern life and societal structures. That is a strawman among strawmans.² So yeah, I ain't conflating shit. You are.³

1. This is a strawman.
2. This is accusing me of creating strawmen.
3. This is just saying "No u"

1. You created a hypothetical, so I added to it. You seemed to imply men has it bad back then... and only men? Just men? I think there is little wrong with that addition.
2. You did strawman it. Most people strawman the use of the term patriarchy, since many people tend to not know what it refers to, and instead act upon a given stigma of it from a popular view.
3. and this post you made is nothing more than a very, very short checklist without much context and content.

[Tahar Joblis]

In not sure why this is particularly shocking to you.

This is the place where parliament attempted to amend the rape laws to make the punishment stiffer and make rape gender neutral, and local feminist groups protested so heavily they relented and made them sexist again.

So, charges against a 12 year old boy for sex with a 17 year old girl seems probable and logical given the context. Disgusting sure, but not shocking. Stupid shit like this is the logical result of sexist laws.

For further reading on the story of India's sexist laws surrounding sexual offenses and feminist lobbying:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 049606.cms
http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/onl ... nsK1H.html
https://qz.com/264512/indias-law-should ... raped-too/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_(Amendment)_Act,_2013

Specifically regarding this case, we refer to this statute:

http://arpan.org.in/wp-content/uploads/ ... nglish.pdf

The statue has provisions for (II-A) "penetrative sexual assault" and a lesser offense of "sexual assault" (II-C) that includes touching. In principle, the 17 year old probably could be charged under II-C, while the 12 year old probably is being charged under II-A. It is not a gender-neutral law, although II-C does include provisions that would in theory apply to cases with female perpetrators and/or male victims.

[Tahar Joblis]

1. This is a strawman.
2. This is accusing me of creating strawmen.
3. This is just saying "No u"

1. You created a hypothetical, so I added to it. You seemed to imply men has it bad back then... and only men? Just men? I think there is little wrong with that addition.
2. You did strawman it. Most people strawman the use of the term patriarchy, since many people tend to not know what it refers to, and instead act upon a given stigma of it from a popular view.
3. and this post you made is nothing more than a very, very short checklist without much context and content.

If "many people tend not to know" what "patriarchy" refers to, it is because the term has a variety of mutually inconsistent definitions.

Patriarchy is defined here as a kinship-ordered social structure with strictly defined sex roles in which women are subordinated to men. - Moghadam 1992

Patriarchy is defined as the institutionalized system of male dominance and control over women. - Nes & Iadicola 1989

Patriarchy is defined here in terms of power and ideology: males demonstrably possess superior social, cultural, and economic power in most countries of the world. - Chung 1994

We define patriarchy as a set of social relations with a material base which enables men to dominate women.Cain et al 1979

We can usefully define patriarchy as a set of social relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women. Hartmann 1979

manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in general. - Lerner 1987

Patriarchy is defined by gender difference in property ownership as women are stated as the owners of only 8.7% of all property in Turkey in official statistics (The First Social Work Congress, 2004). Gelbal et al 2008

Patriarchy is defined by Warren (1993) as a conceptual framework characterized by (a) hierarchical thinking in which the status of one group is placed over another, (b) dualistic thinking that reduces reality into oppositional rather than complementary pairs, and (c) logic of domination thinking that supports the status of the dominating group over the subordinated group. [Citation taken from this article, as the original Warren article isn't available through Google Scholar and I don't feel like digging through the library.

Patriarchy is defined as the construction of social and personal relationships according to the law of the father, which makes everything else subservient. - Conn 1993

Patriarchy is defined in this study as a hierarchy of authority that is controlled and dominated by males in which women are subordinated to the role of permanent minors. Knauss 1987

Therefore, gender as a theoretical concept, reveals that patriarchy is defined by male/masculine centered cultural values. Azevedo 2011 [master's thesis, not really an article, but demonstrating what's currently accepted by a particular women's studies department in its graduates]

Mirriam-Webster 2003 defines patriarchy as social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly, control by men of a disproportionately large share of power, sort of a bet-hedging measure between anthropological use and feminist use of the term. As can be seen fairly clearly, there's a wide variation in feminist definitions of patriarchy. Some are highly specific, some are more vague. We have everything from the anthropological definition and its natural social extension to "interdependence and solidarity" among men, to simple male domination, to "hierarchical dualistic domination" type thinking.

Everything, including pretty much all activity and thought by feminists, falls under one or another definition of patriarchy, if we apply them all together inclusively and without regard. This is why it's necessary to first state that "because patriarchy" is often not a particularly meaningful phrase.

Take the idea that patriarchy is the method by which women are subordinated. By definition, anything which contributes to women's subordination in practice is part of patriarchy, regardless of who did it and why. Did giving women the vote pacify them and lead them to be happy and complacent with their gender role in the thirties, forties, and fifties? Giving the women the vote was an act of patriarchy, then.

Hartman (1979) is particularly representative of the paranoid conspiracy theory version of "patriarchy" that is not uncommon in radical feminist writing. If it's not crystal clear, look at the definition of "solidarity" and then back at Hartman's use of the term.

[Mattopilos II]

1. You created a hypothetical, so I added to it. You seemed to imply men has it bad back then... and only men? Just men? I think there is little wrong with that addition.
2. You did strawman it. Most people strawman the use of the term patriarchy, since many people tend to not know what it refers to, and instead act upon a given stigma of it from a popular view.
3. and this post you made is nothing more than a very, very short checklist without much context and content.

If "many people tend not to know" what "patriarchy" refers to, it is because the term has a variety of mutually inconsistent definitions.

I won't deny that. It doesn't help that given it is a term expanded on from feminist theory a lot, different feminists have taken it upon themselves with their biases to give patriarchy some overarching meaning of oppression in some form or another. You might notice I try and tie it to history in the anthropological sense, as to make it a bit more embedded in human society as a whole and not some relatively new idea. Is it perfect? No. Does it lack bias? I would say no, given that tends to be the answer for anything like a theory in the colloquial sense.
So yeah, it has some very broad, overarching implication to it, but what direction it goes in as a concept is very much up in the air. I reject the ones that focus purely on women's struggles and tie it back to the suffering of all as a result of the existence of certain hierarchical systems that have only slowly dyed away.
I will admit it is something that, if they want to be taken seriously, need to make a single, consistent meaning to it. I think what I think it is is better than the truly memey ones, but maybe that is just me.

[Hirota]

1. You created a hypothetical, so I added to it.

Well, you also added a bit of snark to it. Lets remove that snark and compare shall we.

And Bill's wife is living in royalty, of course

So...you're the self-identified intersectionalist, tell us which measures up on the current league table of the oppression olympics progressive stack: a dead white male, or a living white woman. Both with equal backgrounds, equal income. Which is more advantaged?

Most people strawman the use of the term patriarchy, since many people tend to not know what it refers to,

Including most feminists apparently. Juliet Mitchell, Juliet Mitchell, Roberta Hamilton, Heidi Hartmann, Sheila Rowbotham, Friedrich Engels to name a few have all used different definitions or variations on a theme to describe what Patriarchy actually means and whilst you offer one definition, that is by no means the only definition floated around for a incredibly vague principal that has about as much substance as your average boogeyman. If Feminists can't get their act together and actually agree on things then shiting on non-Feminists who might have a definition of their own is a meaningless exercise in utter pointlessness. You might as well call it "snargenflotspik" for all the meaning it has if Feminism can't establish any meaning for it.

EDIT: Annnnd that serves me right for writing a post and leaving it an hour or two before submitting it.