The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Sundiata]

No, not the entire Catholic Church.

That doesn't matter a single lick. Your leaders, even the supposedly forward-thinking Francis, are directly responsible for perpetuating it. I couldn't care less that some homey little local Catholic parish might not be personally involved, all of the people who actually matter in your system are directly aiding and protecting child rapists, and they are largely able to do so because of the power and influence given to them by people like you who think that frowning disapprovingly while not lifting a finger to do a damn thing about it is good enough.

And that's not even getting into the atrocious way the Bible itself addresses rape.

Not doing anything to solve it? That's untrue.

The church has undergone reform in recent years to combat predators who seek these positions of influence to harm young people. Lay Catholics do not tolerate this sort of behavior from abusive clergymen. Catholics do not turn a blind eye to injustice.

[Sundiata]

Not today, not Pope Francis.

He made a few comments on it, but that's about it unless he did something I don't know about (which is entirely possible)

He has made church activity far more transparent and abuse-prevention material more readily available for anyone involved with the church. Action has been taken to combat the issue.

[Purgatio]

He made a few comments on it, but that's about it unless he did something I don't know about (which is entirely possible)

He has made church activity far more transparent and abuse-prevention material more readily available for anyone involved with the church. Action has been taken to combat the issue.

Yes, and he's also done this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/19/pope-francis-victims-church-sexual-abuse-slander-chile

Pope Francis has accused victims of Chile’s most notorious paedophile of slander, in an astonishing end to a visit meant to help heal the wounds of a sex abuse scandal that has cost the Catholic church its credibility in the country.

Francis said that until he sees proof that Bishop Juan Barros was complicit in covering up the sex crimes of the Rev Fernando Karadima, such accusations against Barros are “all calumny”.

The pope’s remarks drew shock from Chileans and immediate rebuke from victims and their advocates. They noted the accusers were deemed credible enough by the Vatican that it sentenced Karadima to a lifetime of “penance and prayer” for his crimes in 2011.

A Chilean judge also found the victims to be credible, saying that while she had to drop criminal charges against Karadima because too much time had passed, proof of his crimes was not lacking.

As per usual, the Catholic Church and its leaders are all talk, no action. All symbolic, tokenistic changes at the top, without actually holding people accountability for their abuses of power, protecting and defending their own when it matters. You can't wax lyrical about how terrible "rape culture" is, but say nothing about the institutional culture of complicity of the Catholic Church leadership.

[Giovenith]

Their upper ranks do seem much more interested in keeping it quiet than actually fighting it...

Not today, not Pope Francis.

First of all, whether or not Francis has actually done jack besides pay lipservice is highly questionable.

And second of all, one recent Pope does not magically erase all the rot inside the Catholic Church, and if you think it does, then you are completely ignorant on this issue. The moving around and protection of pedophiles within the Catholic Church is something that happens on a regular, worldwide scale, often under the tables and with no proper authorities being notified of who these people are. You think that Francis came in like ten years ago, waved his magic wand, and made that disappear? Do you not understand the extent of this issue, do you just think it's this occasional priest who everybody gets shocked by and then gets personally sent to jail by Francis? Did you just not here about Australia, where 7% of priests had abused children?

That doesn't matter a single lick. Your leaders, even the supposedly forward-thinking Francis, are directly responsible for perpetuating it. I couldn't care less that some homey little local Catholic parish might not be personally involved, all of the people who actually matter in your system are directly aiding and protecting child rapists, and they are largely able to do so because of the power and influence given to them by people like you who think that frowning disapprovingly while not lifting a finger to do a damn thing about it is good enough.

And that's not even getting into the atrocious way the Bible itself addresses rape.

Not doing anything to solve it? That's untrue.

The church has undergone reform in recent years to combat predators who seek these positions of influence to harm young people. Lay Catholics do not tolerate this sort of behavior from abusive clergymen. Catholics do not turn a blind eye to injustice.

You don't know what you're talking about, and it's extraordinarily obvious.

The Church does not actually fix anything. They make half-assed PR moves to save their image and the only people who fall for it are those eager to swallow it, especially those who have never actually listened to stories about the abuse in any great detail and have only listened to the Church's wah-wah-whitewashed versions of it, which I am certain you have. That's why you get absolutely embarrassing instances such as one a few years back when the guy they put in charge of the council of keeping kids safe from sexual abuse was found guilty of sexually abusing kids, and why to this day there are 1,700 known pedophile clergy still working around children with zero supervision from either the Church or law enforcement, and why the organization for survivors of Church abuse are protesting people that Francis himself put in charge this year, again, again, and again.

Do you want to put your money where your mouth is with this little concerned, caring routine you've got going? Do me a really simple favor: Stop using Catholics are your only source for what the Catholic Church is like. You and I both know that this is where you're getting your information from, and it is very misguided.

Listen to survivor organizations.
Listen to organizations combating belief-based child abuse.
Watch "The Keepers" on Netflix if you have the time and listen to it.

Not to people who have a vested interest in painting a rosy picture of the Church to you.

And listen to this from me as someone who does not like your beliefs: I believe that you believe you're trying to do the right thing in life. But from what I've seen, you, like many religious fanatics, seem to think that "doing the right thing" only entails being friendly and polite. I'm telling you now, it doesn't matter how much of a sunny disposition you put on when you believe and do things that hurt others. Your beliefs hurt women, your beliefs hurt children, and they don't stop doing so all because you chatter on about how much you love, love, love women and children. I don't care about that, I care about your actions. If you don't want to take it from me, then take it from Jesus, who frequently say that a tree is judged by its fruit — nobody cares how great the tree itself is or how the nice the dirt it grows out of it if it only produces rotten fruit. I'm telling you now that your fruit sucks.

It is the utmost insincere, hypocritical, bad faith thing to claim that you care about the victims of something, but then only ever listen to the entity that made them victims to begin with. Those are not the actions of someone who cares, those are the actions of someone with too much of the sin of pride to truly look at a mirror and risk seeing something ugly.

[New haven america]

Their upper ranks do seem much more interested in keeping it quiet than actually fighting it...

Not today, not Pope Francis.

*Points to the ~2000 year history of the Catholic Church's sexual abuses and crimes*

Yeah, no, just gonna forget those? Ok then.

[Giovenith]

Not today, not Pope Francis.

*Points to the ~2000 year history of the Catholic Church's sexual abuses and crimes*

Yeah, no, just gonna forget those? Ok then.

Oh but Francis said he'd stop it and put together a few councils and meetings to address the issue! Never mind all the other Popes who also said they'd stop it and put together all these other groups to address the issue that not only repeatedly failed but were consistently found to be corrupt, this time they mean it for realzies guys.

[New haven america]

*Points to the ~2000 year history of the Catholic Church's sexual abuses and crimes*

Yeah, no, just gonna forget those? Ok then.

Oh but Francis said he'd stop it and put together a few councils and meetings to address the issue! Never mind all the other Popes who also said they'd stop it and put together all these other groups to address the issue that not only repeatedly failed but were consistently found to be corrupt, this time they mean it for realzies guys.

I do wonder what his logic of continually posting here is.

Even couple of weeks, on the dot without fail "I believe women should be put on pedestals and I'd kiss the ground they walk on because I love them because I'm Catholic." Every couple of weeks, beat by beat, nonstop, over and over and over again.

[The Rich Port]

*Points to the ~2000 year history of the Catholic Church's sexual abuses and crimes*

Yeah, no, just gonna forget those? Ok then.

Oh but Francis said he'd stop it and put together a few councils and meetings to address the issue! Never mind all the other Popes who also said they'd stop it and put together all these other groups to address the issue that not only repeatedly failed but were consistently found to be corrupt, this time they mean it for realzies guys.

Looks into camera because Catholic Church has taken 2000 years to progress even a little bit

Bazduko

[Ostroeuropa]

OH MY GOD OSTRO HOW ARE YOU UNIRONICALLY, IN ONE POST
a. implying you think "gynocentrism" has existed as far back as the 19th century in the USA
b. believing in QAnon
c. quoting r*ck and morty

1. Gynocentrism has existed as far back as the middle ages under some examinations of it. It was merely counterbalanced more.
2. I'm drawing comparisons between the way feminists interact with reality and QAnon, not believing in it.
3. Because it's a show you need to be quite intelligent to watch.

So many, many, many men in the South who owned slaves, were part of the slaver political class, dominated Southern State Legislatures, voted for secession motions, gathered State militias, fought in the Confederate army, controlled and commanded troops to battle the Union....but instead, you overlook the role and influence of all those male Confederate leaders, and you zero in, in isolation, on the power and influence that a tiny sliver of extremely-wealthy Southern women had (the United Daughters of the Confederacy), and unironically try and paint the 19th Century American South as this female-dominated society where Southern women wielded so much incredible political influence to dominate over Southern men and "delegitimise criticism and opposition".

But apparently not powerful enough to actually get equal legal rights with Southern men.

Clearly the right to vote is detrimental to everyone and should be taken away too. The mental gymnastics of pseudo-fascists amirite.

Also, Ostro, you missed like 99% of the video talking about how Q-Anon is wrong. But apparently an hour is too long for some people to stop being deliberately ignorant.

The bits examining how QAnon is wrong aren't necessary to the point being made, which is that the way of engaging with reality maps quite cleanly onto the feminist movement. I took it as a given everyone here thought QAnon was wrong.

Specifically;
There's a temptation to engage on that level and point out the ways they are just materially wrong, it largely does not work. What's unique is the degree to which it does not work, the degree to which they are immune to evidence. Because ultimately it's not about facts, it's about power. They're not empty vessels who believe one wacky thing, they have an agenda. What they accept and believe are driven by the outcomes they justify. The reason they aren't more bothered by constantly getting things wrong, more bothered by the extreme inconsistencies and outright contradictions, by the claims that are just materially wrong, is because it gives them power over others who are bound by something as weak and flimsy as reality. They claim to be against sexism while hanging their hat on an openly sexist movement, and that naked hypocrisy is the point.

They effortlessly carve out exceptions because it makes them exceptional. Engaging in wild hypocrisy as an act of domination, believing in something demonstrably untrue out of spite. Their will is a hammer they are using to beat reality into a shape of their choosing, a world that looks exactly like it does through their eyes.

(See the studies on how womens perceptions on these topics are demonstrably flawed, like the in-group bias study and the study showing they can't tell the difference between equality and misogyny, instead thinking female privilege is equality.).

[Ostroeuropa]

So many, many, many men in the South who owned slaves, were part of the slaver political class, dominated Southern State Legislatures, voted for secession motions, gathered State militias, fought in the Confederate army, controlled and commanded troops to battle the Union....but instead, you overlook the role and influence of all those male Confederate leaders, and you zero in, in isolation, on the power and influence that a tiny sliver of extremely-wealthy Southern women had (the United Daughters of the Confederacy), and unironically try and paint the 19th Century American South as this female-dominated society where Southern women wielded so much incredible political influence to dominate over Southern men and "delegitimise criticism and opposition".

But apparently not powerful enough to actually get equal legal rights with Southern men.

This is an unfortunate dualistic approach you've taken. Merely because women had political agency and power and in some ways got their own way quite frequently does not mean the same is not true of men.
Women did not seek certain rights for most of human history because the status quo suited them. When they sought them, they got them, precisely because they already had enough political agency and influence over society to bring about that change.

It sound alien to western liberal ears, but the vast majority of women did not actually want the vote for an extremely long time. When they wanted it, they organized for it, and got it. There is not some long line of women stretching back through the ages who were using their agency to get "equal rights" but were denied it by the evil patriarchy. They were using their agency to advance their interests as a class. Thinking otherwise falls into the liberal delusion that voting is all that matters and the only way to affect political change, when it's one of the least important ways of doing so. It's *symbolically and emotionally meaningful*, but there is a good case to be made that you'd be better off spending an hour in a lobbying group than bothering to go vote.

As for the 19th century being female-dominated, that's not what I said. I said that womens activism there basically shaped the culture, because they focused their activism on schools, shaping narratives of history, and the "Lost cause" mythology. Noticing how the south is an example of a culture massively shaped by women and knowing how they came to do that somewhat undermines feminist mythology about patriarchal control of society though, it's a good counter-example of how cultural norms are down to male domination.

[Purgatio]

So many, many, many men in the South who owned slaves, were part of the slaver political class, dominated Southern State Legislatures, voted for secession motions, gathered State militias, fought in the Confederate army, controlled and commanded troops to battle the Union....but instead, you overlook the role and influence of all those male Confederate leaders, and you zero in, in isolation, on the power and influence that a tiny sliver of extremely-wealthy Southern women had (the United Daughters of the Confederacy), and unironically try and paint the 19th Century American South as this female-dominated society where Southern women wielded so much incredible political influence to dominate over Southern men and "delegitimise criticism and opposition".

But apparently not powerful enough to actually get equal legal rights with Southern men.

This is an unfortunate dualistic approach you've taken. Merely because women had political agency and power and in some ways got their own way quite frequently does not mean the same is not true of men.
Women did not seek certain rights for most of human history because the status quo suited them. When they sought them, they got them, precisely because they already had enough political agency and influence over society to bring about that change.

It sound alien to western liberal ears, but the vast majority of women did not actually want the vote for an extremely long time. When they wanted it, they organized for it, and got it. There is not some long line of women stretching back through the ages who were using their agency to get "equal rights" but were denied it by the evil patriarchy. They were using their agency to advance their interests as a class. Thinking otherwise falls into the liberal delusion that voting is all that matters and the only way to affect political change, when it's one of the least important ways of doing so. It's *symbolically and emotionally meaningful*, but there is a good case to be made that you'd be better off spending an hour in a lobbying group than bothering to go vote.

As for the 19th century being female-dominated, that's not what I said. I said that womens activism there basically shaped the culture, because they focused their activism on schools, shaping narratives of history, and the "Lost cause" mythology. Noticing how the south is an example of a culture massively shaped by women and knowing how they came to do that somewhat undermines feminist mythology about patriarchal control of society though, it's a good counter-example of how cultural norms are down to male domination.

Except I didn't say "right to vote". I said "equal legal rights". Women suffered from legal and institutional discrimination throughout the 19th Century in far more ways than simply denial of the right to vote. They were often locked out of the licensed professions, were under-represented if not largely absent from all the major institutions that held power in the South - State legislatures, Confederate military officers, religious leaders etc. And especially in the Antebellum South where the 'planter elite' was socially, politically, and economically dominant, women were very heavily underrepresented in that class of society - even a quick scroll through WIkipedia's list of "American slave owners" makes the sex-imbalance impossible to miss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_slave_owners).

Its far more than just women not having the right to vote. Its a question of which sex held power and influence, which sex really wielded political and social power over the other. You seem to think that the sex which held power in the Antebellum South is the female sex, and your justification for that view is to point to the robust cultural and economic influence that the United Daughters of the Confederacy were able to wield over Southern textbooks and education, to make the argument that women had a socio-political advantage over men to the point of being able to "force change on society while delegitimising criticism and opposition" in a way that men's organisations could not.

Even if that is true, its a very blinkered way of looking at the Antebellum South. Take anything in historical isolation from its context, and you can twist it to fit whatever pre-existing political narrative you have. You want to paint American history as female-dominated, where women's groups held all the power in society? Zero in on the UDC's activities, strip it of any and all context, conveniently ignore the fact that men dominated basically every lever of power in the Antebellum South, from the legislature, to the military, to the churches, to the ownership of the plantations and the slaves - then yes, ignore all of that, and then yes, the UDC proves the Antebellum South was female-dominated and controlled. Point made.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is an unfortunate dualistic approach you've taken. Merely because women had political agency and power and in some ways got their own way quite frequently does not mean the same is not true of men.
Women did not seek certain rights for most of human history because the status quo suited them. When they sought them, they got them, precisely because they already had enough political agency and influence over society to bring about that change.

It sound alien to western liberal ears, but the vast majority of women did not actually want the vote for an extremely long time. When they wanted it, they organized for it, and got it. There is not some long line of women stretching back through the ages who were using their agency to get "equal rights" but were denied it by the evil patriarchy. They were using their agency to advance their interests as a class. Thinking otherwise falls into the liberal delusion that voting is all that matters and the only way to affect political change, when it's one of the least important ways of doing so. It's *symbolically and emotionally meaningful*, but there is a good case to be made that you'd be better off spending an hour in a lobbying group than bothering to go vote.

As for the 19th century being female-dominated, that's not what I said. I said that womens activism there basically shaped the culture, because they focused their activism on schools, shaping narratives of history, and the "Lost cause" mythology. Noticing how the south is an example of a culture massively shaped by women and knowing how they came to do that somewhat undermines feminist mythology about patriarchal control of society though, it's a good counter-example of how cultural norms are down to male domination.

Except I didn't say "right to vote". I said "equal legal rights". Women suffered from legal and institutional discrimination throughout the 19th Century in far more ways than simply denial of the right to vote. They were often locked out of the licensed professions, were under-represented if not largely absent from all the major institutions that held power in the South - State legislatures, Confederate military officers, religious leaders etc. And especially in the Antebellum South where the 'planter elite' was socially, politically, and economically dominant, women were very heavily underrepresented in that class of society - even a quick scroll through WIkipedia's list of "American slave owners" makes the sex-imbalance impossible to miss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_slave_owners).

Its far more than just women not having the right to vote. Its a question of which sex held power and influence, which sex really wielded political and social power over the other. You seem to think that the sex which held power in the Antebellum South is the female sex, and your justification for that view is to point to the robust cultural and economic influence that the United Daughters of the Confederacy were able to wield over Southern textbooks and education, to make the argument that women had a socio-political advantage over men to the point of being able to "force change on society while delegitimising criticism and opposition" in a way that men's organisations could not.

Even if that is true, its a very blinkered way of looking at the Antebellum South. Take anything in historical isolation from its context, and you can twist it to fit whatever pre-existing political narrative you have. You want to paint American history as female-dominated, where women's groups held all the power in society? Zero in on the UDC's activities, strip it of any and all context, conveniently ignore the fact that men dominated basically every lever of power in the Antebellum South, from the legislature, to the military, to the churches, to the ownership of the plantations and the slaves - then yes, ignore all of that, and then yes, the UDC proves the Antebellum South was female-dominated and controlled. Point made.

And yet as a result of those professions being held by their husbands they obtained access to people who wielded that influence *in addition to being able to form clubs like the UDC which could lobby for political change*. I'm suggesting to you both sexes held power in the south, merely manifest in different ways and used to advance different interests. You seem to be focusing solely on one form of power and ignoring others.


French+Raven, types of power:
Legitimate – This comes from the belief that a person has the formal right to make demands, and to expect others to be compliant and obedient.
Reward – This results from one person's ability to compensate another for compliance.
Expert – This is based on a person's high levels of skill and knowledge.
Referent – This is the result of a person's perceived attractiveness, worthiness and right to others' respect.
Coercive – This comes from the belief that a person can punish others for noncompliance.


Men had a near monopoly on *legitimate* power, as has been pointed out endlessly and tritely by those believing in feminist mythology.
Men had a more Reward power, but women had some to enact change.
Women may well have had more expert power when you consider that they were deemed to have *moral expertise which men lacked by virtue of them being women*.
Women may well have had more referent power than men, linked to the former.
I'd say coercive power was probably equally shared.

And guess what. "Legitimate" power is *downstream* of the other forms of power.

You also seem to think that it has to be a case of one sex holding power over the other, and that if they do hold more power than the other, they are the arbiters of everything in society, as opposed to power being a resource both spend on particular interests and fights.

If women wanted a thing, men had to calculate whether it was worth resisting them on it and spending political capital. Same for if men wanted a thing.

Both men and women shaped society in political coalition with eachother. One being junior in that coalition would not change that dynamic. But it can be disputed who was junior, compared to who was assigned *particular spheres of interest based on the ones they demanded, had interests in, and suited their needs*.

Feminist mythology is based on an *oppositional* relationship between men and women historically being the case, when that simply isn't so. It is not a matter of the labour being there to mewl quietly while the Tories do whatever they want because they have a majority until it's "Labours turn". As I said, it was more like a political coalition with separate spheres of influence negotiated. But acknowledge that and their whole sexist narrative comes crashing down, despite it being abundantly obvious that the reason women "Put up" with it for thousands of years isn't that they were putting up with it, it's that they were actively contributing to, supporting, and constructing that society alongside men.

[Purgatio]

Except I didn't say "right to vote". I said "equal legal rights". Women suffered from legal and institutional discrimination throughout the 19th Century in far more ways than simply denial of the right to vote. They were often locked out of the licensed professions, were under-represented if not largely absent from all the major institutions that held power in the South - State legislatures, Confederate military officers, religious leaders etc. And especially in the Antebellum South where the 'planter elite' was socially, politically, and economically dominant, women were very heavily underrepresented in that class of society - even a quick scroll through WIkipedia's list of "American slave owners" makes the sex-imbalance impossible to miss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_slave_owners).

Its far more than just women not having the right to vote. Its a question of which sex held power and influence, which sex really wielded political and social power over the other. You seem to think that the sex which held power in the Antebellum South is the female sex, and your justification for that view is to point to the robust cultural and economic influence that the United Daughters of the Confederacy were able to wield over Southern textbooks and education, to make the argument that women had a socio-political advantage over men to the point of being able to "force change on society while delegitimising criticism and opposition" in a way that men's organisations could not.

Even if that is true, its a very blinkered way of looking at the Antebellum South. Take anything in historical isolation from its context, and you can twist it to fit whatever pre-existing political narrative you have. You want to paint American history as female-dominated, where women's groups held all the power in society? Zero in on the UDC's activities, strip it of any and all context, conveniently ignore the fact that men dominated basically every lever of power in the Antebellum South, from the legislature, to the military, to the churches, to the ownership of the plantations and the slaves - then yes, ignore all of that, and then yes, the UDC proves the Antebellum South was female-dominated and controlled. Point made.

And yet as a result of those professions being held by their husbands they obtained access to people who wielded that influence *in addition to being able to form clubs like the UDC which could lobby for political change*. I'm suggesting to you both sexes held power in the south, merely manifest in different ways and used to advance different interests. You seem to be focusing solely on one form of power and ignoring others.


French+Raven, types of power:
Legitimate – This comes from the belief that a person has the formal right to make demands, and to expect others to be compliant and obedient.
Reward – This results from one person's ability to compensate another for compliance.
Expert – This is based on a person's high levels of skill and knowledge.
Referent – This is the result of a person's perceived attractiveness, worthiness and right to others' respect.
Coercive – This comes from the belief that a person can punish others for noncompliance.


Men had a near monopoly on *legitimate* power, as has been pointed out endlessly and tritely by those believing in feminist mythology.
Men had a more Reward power, but women had some to enact change.
Women may well have had more expert power when you consider that they were deemed to have *moral expertise which men lacked by virtue of them being women*.
Women may well have had more referent power than men, linked to the former.
I'd say coercive power was probably equally shared.

And guess what. "Legitimate" power is *downstream* of the other forms of power.

You also seem to think that it has to be a case of one sex holding power over the other, and that if they do hold more power than the other, they are the arbiters of everything in society, as opposed to power being a resource both spend on particular interests and fights.

If women wanted a thing, men had to calculate whether it was worth resisting them on it and spending political capital. Same for if men wanted a thing.

Both men and women shaped society in political coalition with eachother. One being junior in that coalition would not change that dynamic. But it can be disputed who was junior, compared to who was assigned *particular spheres of interest based on the ones they demanded, had interests in, and suited their needs*.

How does any of that undermine the feminist argument about patriarchy? I've never met a single feminist who would deny the basic idea that women throughout history have been able to influence or persuade people who held institutional or legal power into exercising that power in a way the influencer wanted. This is not a novel insight. There's no shortage of Empress-Dowagers in Chinese history or Queen Mothers throughout the history of European monarchies who wielded indirect power behind the throne because of the sway and influence they held over a man who sat on that throne (i.e. their son). And so? What feminist author would disagree with that observation? Does that somehow undermine the claim about legal and institutional discrimination? Does it undermine the basic argument that its unequal and discrimiantory when an entire sexual reproductive class of our society was excluded and locked out of the most powerful institutions and organs in our history, and the only influence they had was second-hand - convincing or persuading men who actually occupied those positions into doing X or Y?

No one is arguing women have never held any power, under any circumstances, over any one, throughout history. If thats what you think the feminist characterisation of patriarchy is, then you're arguing against a strawman. No one thinks that. Literally no one. No one believes that not a single woman throughout history has held any power or influence whatsoever. Especially when we're talking about extremely-wealthy heiresses to the socially-prestigious 'planter elite' like the members of the UDC were. But the very fact that that power or influence was entirely second-hand, the very fact that it came from women having to convince and persuade the powerful men in their lives into wielding that power in a way they wanted, because of the aforesaid legally-sanctioned sexist discrimination that excluded women from directly occupying those positions of power, is the core point. That historical reality can still easily co-exist with the recognition of the simple fact that, yes, women weren't completely 100% powerless throughout history. But again, no one's arguing that. Not even feminists.

[Ostroeuropa]

And yet as a result of those professions being held by their husbands they obtained access to people who wielded that influence *in addition to being able to form clubs like the UDC which could lobby for political change*. I'm suggesting to you both sexes held power in the south, merely manifest in different ways and used to advance different interests. You seem to be focusing solely on one form of power and ignoring others.


French+Raven, types of power:
Legitimate – This comes from the belief that a person has the formal right to make demands, and to expect others to be compliant and obedient.
Reward – This results from one person's ability to compensate another for compliance.
Expert – This is based on a person's high levels of skill and knowledge.
Referent – This is the result of a person's perceived attractiveness, worthiness and right to others' respect.
Coercive – This comes from the belief that a person can punish others for noncompliance.


Men had a near monopoly on *legitimate* power, as has been pointed out endlessly and tritely by those believing in feminist mythology.
Men had a more Reward power, but women had some to enact change.
Women may well have had more expert power when you consider that they were deemed to have *moral expertise which men lacked by virtue of them being women*.
Women may well have had more referent power than men, linked to the former.
I'd say coercive power was probably equally shared.

And guess what. "Legitimate" power is *downstream* of the other forms of power.

You also seem to think that it has to be a case of one sex holding power over the other, and that if they do hold more power than the other, they are the arbiters of everything in society, as opposed to power being a resource both spend on particular interests and fights.

If women wanted a thing, men had to calculate whether it was worth resisting them on it and spending political capital. Same for if men wanted a thing.

Both men and women shaped society in political coalition with eachother. One being junior in that coalition would not change that dynamic. But it can be disputed who was junior, compared to who was assigned *particular spheres of interest based on the ones they demanded, had interests in, and suited their needs*.

How does any of that undermine the feminist argument about patriarchy? I've never met a single feminist who would deny the basic idea that women throughout history have been able to influence or persuade people who held institutional or legal power into exercising that power in a way the influencer wanted. This is not a novel insight. There's no shortage of Empress-Dowagers in Chinese history or Queen Mothers throughout the history of European monarchies who wielded indirect power behind the throne because of the sway and influence they held over a man who sat on that throne (i.e. their son). And so? What feminist author would disagree with that observation? Does that somehow undermine the claim about legal and institutional discrimination? Does it undermine the basic argument that its unequal and discrimiantory when an entire sexual reproductive class of our society was excluded and locked out of the most powerful institutions and organs in our history, and the only influence they had was second-hand - convincing or persuading men who actually occupied those positions into doing X or Y?

No one is arguing women have never held any power, under any circumstances, over any one, throughout history. If thats what you think the feminist characterisation of patriarchy is, then you're arguing against a strawman. No one thinks that. Literally no one. No one believes that not a single woman throughout history has held any power or influence whatsoever. Especially when we're talking about extremely-wealthy heiresses to the socially-prestigious 'planter elite' like the members of the UDC were. But the very fact that that power or influence was entirely second-hand, the very fact that it came from women having to convince and persuade the powerful men in their lives into wielding that power in a way they wanted, because of the aforesaid legally-sanctioned sexist discrimination that excluded women from directly occupying those positions of power, is the core point. That historical reality can still easily co-exist with the recognition of the simple fact that, yes, women weren't completely 100% powerless throughout history. But again, no one's arguing that. Not even feminists.

The monarch holds all the power in the UK, right? It's just "Advice"?
*rolls eyes*

"Legitimate" power is a very flimsy form of power, as I said, it is *downstream* from other forms of power. Second-hand power is actually one of the strongest forms of it, as we can see through the lobbying of governments by corporations.

Regardless, we've now side-stepped the point I was disputing, the notion that society was built by and for men as opposed to built by and for both sexes and their particular spheres of interest and influence, as well as pointing out that mens hold on legitimate power *does not imply that men held more power than women, as other forms of power exist*, and does not justify absolving women of their role in creating society merely because a modern batch have decided they don't like what their grandmothers left them. The notion that men have decided these norms and so on is highly disputable, and noting how women didn't have particular rights is irrelevant to these observations because *they never demanded them, and when they did, they got them*.

[Purgatio]

How does any of that undermine the feminist argument about patriarchy? I've never met a single feminist who would deny the basic idea that women throughout history have been able to influence or persuade people who held institutional or legal power into exercising that power in a way the influencer wanted. This is not a novel insight. There's no shortage of Empress-Dowagers in Chinese history or Queen Mothers throughout the history of European monarchies who wielded indirect power behind the throne because of the sway and influence they held over a man who sat on that throne (i.e. their son). And so? What feminist author would disagree with that observation? Does that somehow undermine the claim about legal and institutional discrimination? Does it undermine the basic argument that its unequal and discrimiantory when an entire sexual reproductive class of our society was excluded and locked out of the most powerful institutions and organs in our history, and the only influence they had was second-hand - convincing or persuading men who actually occupied those positions into doing X or Y?

No one is arguing women have never held any power, under any circumstances, over any one, throughout history. If thats what you think the feminist characterisation of patriarchy is, then you're arguing against a strawman. No one thinks that. Literally no one. No one believes that not a single woman throughout history has held any power or influence whatsoever. Especially when we're talking about extremely-wealthy heiresses to the socially-prestigious 'planter elite' like the members of the UDC were. But the very fact that that power or influence was entirely second-hand, the very fact that it came from women having to convince and persuade the powerful men in their lives into wielding that power in a way they wanted, because of the aforesaid legally-sanctioned sexist discrimination that excluded women from directly occupying those positions of power, is the core point. That historical reality can still easily co-exist with the recognition of the simple fact that, yes, women weren't completely 100% powerless throughout history. But again, no one's arguing that. Not even feminists.

The monarch holds all the power in the UK, right? It's just "Advice"?
*rolls eyes*

"Legitimate" power is a very flimsy form of power, as I said, it is *downstream* from other forms of power. Second-hand power is actually one of the strongest forms of it, as we can see through the lobbying of governments by corporations.

Regardless, we've now side-stepped the point I was disputing, the notion that society was built by and for men as opposed to built by and for both sexes and their particular spheres of interest and influence, as well as pointing out that mens hold on legitimate power *does not imply that men held more power than women, as other forms of power exist*, and does not justify absolving women of their role in creating society merely because a modern batch have decided they don't like what their grandmothers left them. The notion that men have decided these norms and so on is highly disputable, and noting how women didn't have particular rights is irrelevant to these observations because *they never demanded them, and when they did, they got them*.

Men weren't excluded from exercising second-hand power throughout history. There was nothing, no law, no norm, that prohibited men from lobbying, persuading, and influencing other men who occupied other positions of power, from exercising that power in a way the male influencer wanted (you yourself gave the example of corporate lobbying - and as I'm sure you'll accept, not all lobbyists through history were women, obviously). In contrast, there were laws that specifically excluded women from holding legal and institutional power in society. Even if I accepted that both forms of power are equally robust, the fact of the matter remains that both sexes had access to one form of power, but only one sex held a monopoly on the other.

As for the idea that society just gave women legal rights the moment they demanded them, the national suffragette movement in the UK began in around the 1870s, yet it took until 1928 for men and women to have equal access to the electoral franchise in the UK. The doctrine of coverture in the US persisted even until the 1960s in many states. As did the common law defence of "reasonable chastisement" of your wife, as a defence to assault and battery. Marital rape in the UK wasn't criminalised until 1991. All of these are issues that women's groups campaigned on for many years, and it often took decades if not longer for progress to be made on those fronts. So when you say "they never demanded them, and when they did, they got them", I can't help but wonder if we're living in the same reality and we're looking at the same history.

[Ostroeuropa]

The monarch holds all the power in the UK, right? It's just "Advice"?
*rolls eyes*

"Legitimate" power is a very flimsy form of power, as I said, it is *downstream* from other forms of power. Second-hand power is actually one of the strongest forms of it, as we can see through the lobbying of governments by corporations.

Regardless, we've now side-stepped the point I was disputing, the notion that society was built by and for men as opposed to built by and for both sexes and their particular spheres of interest and influence, as well as pointing out that mens hold on legitimate power *does not imply that men held more power than women, as other forms of power exist*, and does not justify absolving women of their role in creating society merely because a modern batch have decided they don't like what their grandmothers left them. The notion that men have decided these norms and so on is highly disputable, and noting how women didn't have particular rights is irrelevant to these observations because *they never demanded them, and when they did, they got them*.

Men weren't excluded from exercising second-hand power throughout history. There was nothing, no law, no norm, that prohibited men from lobbying, persuading, and influencing other men who occupied other positions of power, from exercising that power in a way the male influencer wanted (you yourself gave the example of corporate lobbying - and as I'm sure you'll accept, not all lobbyists through history were women, obviously). In contrast, there were laws that specifically excluded women from holding legal and institutional power in society. Even if I accepted that both forms of power are equally robust, the fact of the matter remains that both sexes had access to one form of power, but only one sex held a monopoly on the other.

As for the idea that society just gave women legal rights the moment they demanded them, the national suffragette movement in the UK began in around the 1870s, yet it took until 1928 for men and women to have equal access to the electoral franchise in the UK. The doctrine of coverture in the US persisted even until the 1960s in many states. As did the common law defence of "reasonable chastisement" of your wife, as a defence to assault and battery. Marital rape in the UK wasn't criminalised until 1991. All of these are issues that women's groups campaigned on for many years, and it often took decades if not longer for progress to be made on those fronts. So when you say "they never demanded them, and when they did, they got them", I can't help but wonder if we're living in the same reality and we're looking at the same history.

Norms can be as powerful as laws and even have more staying power because they aren't codified and thus cannot be plainly examined, nor can they be eliminated at the stroke of a pen. And there *were* norms preventing men from excercising some forms of secondary power as much as women, specifically the moralistic power granted to women.

Firstly i'd note that women got the vote in 1918 in the UK, 1928 was selected to give them equal access to the vote specifically because millions and millions of men were dead in order to keep the election 50/50 between men and women. So women were being given *An Equal say in election results, even though they do not have the same voting age*, from 1918.

1870 to 1918 is an *incredibly short period of time when discussing history dude*.

Onto Your domestic abuse point, women also abused their husbands. Women also raped their husbands. I'll note that the campaigning women engaged in around those issues is not something I would consider positive for society given how they polluted those topics. It'd be like saying "We need to raise the minimum wage because black people are disgusting and filthy and should buy more soap" and convincing people that was actually true.

Given that kind of *oppositional relationship women developed to men thanks to the feminist movement*, is it any wonder that it took longer to campaign for them (And notably, nonetheless achieve them despite being "Out of power"?).

"Party in opposition struggles to get legislation compared to party in coalition" is not a mind-blowing revelation. The difference being that as feminists obtain more power we now have two blocs of power; one representing men and womens interests, and one representing just women interests.

[Galloism]

I'm coming in late but...

Men weren't excluded from exercising second-hand power throughout history. There was nothing, no law, no norm, that prohibited men from lobbying, persuading, and influencing other men who occupied other positions of power, from exercising that power in a way the male influencer wanted (you yourself gave the example of corporate lobbying - and as I'm sure you'll accept, not all lobbyists through history were women, obviously). In contrast, there were laws that specifically excluded women from holding legal and institutional power in society. Even if I accepted that both forms of power are equally robust, the fact of the matter remains that both sexes had access to one form of power, but only one sex held a monopoly on the other.

Corporations are actually a fairly good comparison here. Not perfect, but fairly good.

Corporations cannot run for office. They, although legal persons, are literally denied both the right to vote and the right to run for office (I'm not arguing we change this for many reasons, but it is true). There is not a single solitary corporation in Congress. Yet, we realize they exercise outsized influence on our laws and processes despite being literally denied first-hand power.

Why?

Because of the power they exercise via persuasion is much more effective than the power exercised via persuasion for the average person. So even though there was no law that prohibited men from lobbying, persuading, and influencing other men, we already know that sexually active men tend to listen to women more than other men (we've studied this - men who have sex often actually have an out-group bias in favor of women as a group), and powerful men tend to be sexually active.

Your assertion that there is "no norm" and "no law" prohibiting men from lobbying is true. It's just that women are better at it than men because of the average biases of men and women.

Your assertion they have both is like saying Donald Trump and I both have access to money, and therefore I'm better off because I have access to brains and he doesn't. It's true sort of, but misleading.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm coming in late but...

Men weren't excluded from exercising second-hand power throughout history. There was nothing, no law, no norm, that prohibited men from lobbying, persuading, and influencing other men who occupied other positions of power, from exercising that power in a way the male influencer wanted (you yourself gave the example of corporate lobbying - and as I'm sure you'll accept, not all lobbyists through history were women, obviously). In contrast, there were laws that specifically excluded women from holding legal and institutional power in society. Even if I accepted that both forms of power are equally robust, the fact of the matter remains that both sexes had access to one form of power, but only one sex held a monopoly on the other.

Corporations are actually a fairly good comparison here. Not perfect, but fairly good.

Corporations cannot run for office. They, although legal persons, are literally denied both the right to vote and the right to run for office (I'm not arguing we change this for many reasons, but it is true). There is not a single solitary corporation in Congress. Yet, we realize they exercise outsized influence on our laws and processes despite being literally denied first-hand power.

Why?

Because of the power they exercise via persuasion is much more effective than the power exercised via persuasion for the average person. So even though there was no law that prohibited men from lobbying, persuading, and influencing other men, we already know that sexually active men tend to listen to women more than other men (we've studied this - men who have sex often actually have an out-group bias in favor of women as a group), and powerful men tend to be sexually active.

Your assertion that there is "no norm" and "no law" prohibiting men from lobbying is true. It's just that women are better at it than men because of the average biases of men and women.

Your assertion they have both is like saying Donald Trump and I both have access to money, and therefore I'm better off because I have access to brains and he doesn't. It's true sort of, but misleading.

They're also a relevant comparison in another way; the incredulity feminists throw out when you note that feminists control gender policy, not "The Patriarchy".

What Feminists Hear:
"Oil companies control our government" -> "But look, most of the funding comes from other sources!"

What Anti-Feminists Are Saying:
"Oil companies lobby the government to control policy within a specific area to advance their interests as a power bloc".

It is entirely consistent, if you don't believe in a childlike view of power as monolithic, to believe that feminists control gender dynamics through their lobbying, but that men control most of the government.

[Cekoviu]

the feminist lobbying organizations controlling the govt are evidently very bad at their jobs

[Ostroeuropa]

the feminist lobbying organizations controlling the govt are evidently very bad at their jobs

Controlling specific spheres of interest. Recently in the US they have come up against a challenge to their authority as a result of their wavering legitimacy and their idiotic decision to crush the MRM, leaving only hardcore traditionalists as a power bloc to oppose them.

Sort of like;

"We're some klansmen fighting a war with the nation of islam. Know what we should do? Shoot MLK and spend all our capital and legitimacy fucking about with people who want equality, because they too are black and oppose us. It'll be fine.".

In other countries, the "hardcore traditionalist" faction is basically dead in the water, so the feminist strategy to maintain a monopoly of control over gender dynamics has worked out better for them. For now. In the US it didn't, because those kind of "We're going to ruthlessly exploit and oppress people and not allow them to redress their grievances" tactics only work where there isn't a rival power structure to immediate snap up those people as supporters.

[Cekoviu]

the feminist lobbying organizations controlling the govt are evidently very bad at their jobs

Controlling specific spheres of interest. Recently in the US they have come up against a challenge to their authority as a result of their wavering legitimacy and their idiotic decision to crush the MRM, leaving only hardcore traditionalists as a power bloc to oppose them.

Sort of like;

"We're some klansmen fighting a war with the nation of islam. Know what we should do? Shoot MLK and spend all our capital and legitimacy fucking about with people who want equality, because they too are black and oppose us. It'll be fine.".

In other countries, the "hardcore traditionalist" faction is basically dead in the water, so the feminist strategy to maintain a monopoly of control over gender dynamics has worked out better for them. For now.

lmao now you're comparing feminists to the ku klux klan, you've lapsed into self-parody at this point

[Cordel One]

the feminist lobbying organizations controlling the govt are evidently very bad at their jobs

Controlling specific spheres of interest. Recently in the US they have come up against a challenge to their authority as a result of their wavering legitimacy and their idiotic decision to crush the MRM, leaving only hardcore traditionalists as a power bloc to oppose them.

Sort of like;

"We're some klansmen fighting a war with the nation of islam. Know what we should do? Shoot MLK and spend all our capital and legitimacy fucking about with people who want equality, because they too are black and oppose us. It'll be fine.".

In other countries, the "hardcore traditionalist" faction is basically dead in the water, so the feminist strategy to maintain a monopoly of control over gender dynamics has worked out better for them. For now. In the US it didn't, because those kind of "We're going to ruthlessly exploit and oppress people and not allow them to redress their grievances" tactics only work where there isn't a rival power structure to immediate snap up those people as supporters.

What?

[Ostroeuropa]

Controlling specific spheres of interest. Recently in the US they have come up against a challenge to their authority as a result of their wavering legitimacy and their idiotic decision to crush the MRM, leaving only hardcore traditionalists as a power bloc to oppose them.

Sort of like;

"We're some klansmen fighting a war with the nation of islam. Know what we should do? Shoot MLK and spend all our capital and legitimacy fucking about with people who want equality, because they too are black and oppose us. It'll be fine.".

In other countries, the "hardcore traditionalist" faction is basically dead in the water, so the feminist strategy to maintain a monopoly of control over gender dynamics has worked out better for them. For now.

lmao now you're comparing feminists to the ku klux klan, you've lapsed into self-parody at this point

They're both hate movements. Additionally, the specific issue i'm thinking is relevant here would be campus kangaroo courts and how all Trump had to do was promise to reform them. May well have swung him the election.

Idk about you, but pushing a rape paranoia campaign to demonize a demographic and deny them due process rights, and one that overwhelmingly harms minority students, does seem a bit like the Klan. But hey, you're inclusive about it, some white boys there too having their due process rights violated.

And you don't hang them, so that's nice. Just deny them an education.

You know.

That universal human right, it's the one under right to life. Adjacent to it, one might say.

So your justification was the same, your rhetoric demonizing the out-group was the same, and your goal was adjacent.

Klan-Adjacent makes it pretty apt to compare them to the Klan, don't you think? If you were exactly like the Klan, you'd just be the Klan.

[Cordel One]

lmao now you're comparing feminists to the ku klux klan, you've lapsed into self-parody at this point

They're both hate movements. Additionally, the specific issue i'm thinking is relevant here would be campus kangaroo courts and how all Trump had to do was promise to reform them. May well have swung him the election.

Idk about you, but pushing a rape paranoia campaign to demonize a demographic and deny them due process rights, and one that overwhelmingly harms minority students, does seem a bit like the Klan. But hey, you're inclusive about it, some white boys there too having their due process rights violated.

And you don't hang them, so that's nice. Just deny them an education.

You know.

That human right, it's the one under right to life.

How is feminism a hate movement? Ending the male domination of society isn't hatred, it's equality.
There are things like trans exclusionism or whatever Cekoviu's doing which definitely stem from hate, but feminism isn't to blame.

[Ostroeuropa]

They're both hate movements. Additionally, the specific issue i'm thinking is relevant here would be campus kangaroo courts and how all Trump had to do was promise to reform them. May well have swung him the election.

Idk about you, but pushing a rape paranoia campaign to demonize a demographic and deny them due process rights, and one that overwhelmingly harms minority students, does seem a bit like the Klan. But hey, you're inclusive about it, some white boys there too having their due process rights violated.

And you don't hang them, so that's nice. Just deny them an education.

You know.

That human right, it's the one under right to life.

How is feminism a hate movement? Ending the male domination of society isn't hatred, it's equality.
There are things like trans exclusionism or whatever Cekoviu's doing which definitely stem from hate, but feminism isn't to blame.

Feminism is historically an anti-male movement and has passed a number of anti-male legislations, opposed and blocked pro-male reforms, and so on. I don't care what you say feminism is, and I don't care how much you waffle about all the good white supremacy does for white people.

Evaluate how it treats and impacts men, don't cherry pick your examples, and then come and tell me it's an equality movement.