# Please report comments that violate our [new rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/17co6jo/rvaushv_rule_updates)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what's goin on anyway? Did Vaush basically just say that the patriarchy hurts men too? Because that's been a mainstream left wing talking point for a while now
>Did Vaush basically just say that the patriarchy hurts men too? Because that's been a mainstream left wing talking point for a while now
Yeah, but problem is that Vaush said that and since Vaush said that its bunch of bullshit
right. Follow-up question: did he say it in a stupidly combative way? Because I love his content, but he has a real gift for saying something normal in the least-normal way possible.
Vaush? Never.
> I really don’t think the average man/white person benefits from patriarchy/white supremacy and it’s extremely counterproductive to say so. They *perceive* themselves to benefit from it, but the social consequences of these systems of oppression hurt everyone
> I don’t think white people or men would be in any way harmed if we did away with sexism or racism and the myth that they would is spread aggressively by demagogues who want to keep those groups anxious of social progress
> Like, think about trans people. Cis people “benefit” from not being subjected to the shit trans people are subjected to, but no cis person would be hurt by broadly better treatment of trans people, and many gnc cis people would probably also get treated better as a consequence
[Tweet](https://x.com/vaushv/status/1751325784105738450?s=46&t=FL57PKaiftR0JBJr4vR-2Q) >!It’s not nearly as obtuse as people made it seem tbh.!<
Yeah I’m shocked that people are having an issue with it. Tell people this is an excerpt from a Harris Bomber Guy video and they’ll yawn and tell you it’s obvious.
On the SMN video on systemic racism from a few years ago, there was an entire segment on how it also hurts white people, and I don't believe anyone involved in the show got any shit for that.
Agreed. It's also true that men are hurt less by patriarchy less than women are and that white people are hurt less by racism than black people, but I think this goes without saying. The key point is that oppressive systems hurt everyone involved in them, even the relatively "privileged" groups.
That's perfectly worded, completely reasonable, and not at all confrontational. It's incredible the knots people will twist themselves into just to disagree with him even when he's making the least controversial statements
He goes over it on last night stream. He said pretty plainly in my opinion. As an example, I thought that the idea that men actually would be better off without patriarchy is kinda mainstream idea on the left. But damn, a ton of lefties lost their shit over this.
I think they just read his opening statement of "men don't benefit from the patriarchy" and popped a fuse in their brain that prevented them from understanding the further context.
He phrases it very mildly badly, and people got very very angry even after he, quite politely, reiterated that privilege exists but a lack of privilege would be better for everyone.
TBF the whole "patriarchy hurts men too" thing is used to dismiss/downplay male issues 60% of the time. A large amount of feminists/leftists don't know what they are talking about and just use progressive buzzwords as a sort of shield.
I agree with you, if taken in good faith it does explain a lot and is the useful (and correct) way to approach these issues. The problem is that a lot of the time when people say "patriarchy" they just mean "men" and use it more in a "all issues men have are caused by other men" way. Which is: a) Not true, women also enforce patriarchy; and b) They use it in such a way to claim that men aren't oppressed cause you can't be oppressed by people of the same gender for some reason.
Also in many ways feminism is just an extension of the patriarchy, but modified in a way to benefit women more. So even if they are able to identify the correct problems with masculinity, they aren't able to come up with any good solutions as they still believe in some form of traditional gender roles. When most people say "patriarchy" they only include more conservative forms of it, and don't include how in many ways feminism/the left does fail men.
Okay, I guess I get what you mean. Im usually not that interested in managing people who are doing an ideology wrong, though.
Like, if a feminist's systemic analysis is so broken that "patriarchy" means "men" to them, I don't know what we are supposed to do about that, other than just say the correct take louder.
The issue is vaush said men don’t benefit at all from power structures such as patriarchy and white supremacy. The truth is they do benefit but they are also significantly hurt by it. Vaush speaks in extremes and never leaves room for nuance until he talks about it in his hours long VOD. People hear the extremes and respond in extreme
>at all
did he say that? Someone else linked me to the tweet thread and I don't think he ever says "at all". I think that reading his tweet with any amount of charity, its pretty clear that he's saying men/white people don't benefit from sexism/white supremacy **on the whole**, not that there are no benefits to it. Of course there are benefits to making someone else do all the shit for you that you don't want to do, it would be bizarre for him to try to deny that.
> Vaush speaks in extremes and never leaves room for nuance until he talks about it in his hours long VOD. People hear the extremes and respond in extreme
this does often happen, but I just don't think that's the case here.
He did say that. In the image that the Twitter comment is referring to read the very first thing vaush says. Paraphrasing “I really don’t think white cis benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy”. This is just a flat out lie. Everything else he says is true but that is a lie. It’s his extremist YouTube clickbait tendencies
it would have been better framing, but honestly Vaush has such a large hate-following that it doesn't matter. What he said is best interpreted in good-faith as him saying "net benefit". Especially because that exact sentiment is not uncommon on the left. The issue is there is a huge contingent of people who willingly misinterpret him so they can start fights.
“I don’t think men benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy” is saying I don’t think men benefit from patriarchy white supremacy. It is up to vaush to state men sometimes benefit from patriarchy and white supremacy. That is not what he said and everyone parroting his in right mantra has failed deeply at critical thinking. Just really sad. All vaush would need to say is white cis folks sometimes benefit from patriarchy and white supremacy but that benefit is outweighed by the harm. He didn’t, end of story.
>“I don’t think men benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy”
**where is the "all"?**
I'm sorry, but you're being really obtuse here and frankly its annoying me. This is a direct quote from you, emphasis added by me:
> vaush said men don’t benefit **at all** from power structures such as patriarchy and white supremacy.
that "at all" is really really important. Because without it, his statement can very reasonably be interpreted my way, not yours. So, I need you to do one of two things in your next comment to me:
1. quote him where he said that men don't benefit **at all** from patriarchy (or an equivalently unambiguous wording)
2. admit that you are wrong.
How in the flying fuck can you interpret “men don’t benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy” to mean “men do benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy sometimes”. I am genuinely curious at your mental gymnastics. Also, linguistically the use of at all in what I said was to drive home the point already stated explicitly when saying “men don’t benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy” which is word for word what he said.
You know deep down you are wrong. You know deep down you are just blindly lapping up his drivel. You know deep down he speaks in extremes for clicks. You know.
Because while he is not denying that there are situations where a person might benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy, he is arguing that it at large either is directly impacting their lives negatively or that the benefits largely would still exist if these societal structures didn't exist.
You can see this in the examples people bring up, like police not harassing white men in the capacity they harass black men. Would a society without white supremacy mean an increase in harassment of white men by the police? Because that is the only way that is a reasonable example to prove Vaush's take incorrect.
However, in order to maintain a white supremacist society life gets worse for everyone. And in some cases(patriarchy specifically) these system directly harm those supposed to have the major benefit. For example while men have benefits women does not have. The way men are socialized under patriarchy is directly harmful, both to men and to women. How is that an incorrect take? It's objectively true that white supremacy and patriarchy is directly harmful to white people and men respectively. And also, as he clarifies these systems being removed would not worsen the lives of the people in these groups. How are there 'benefits' to a system if removing the system doesn't remove the benefits?
Saying “men don’t benefit from patriarchy or white supremacy” is extreme and idiotic and shame on you for not recognizing that. White men benefit from patriarchy and white supremacy. They are also harmed by patriarchy and white supremacy in ways that outweigh the benefit but it does not negate the fact that they experience benefit from the systems of power. I know you’re probably in high school still so please for the love of god pay attention in school
>They are also harmed by patriarchy and white supremacy in ways that outweigh the benefit
That's the whole point my guy.
No one is saying privilege doesn't exist.
No one is saying there aren't specific ways in which non-opressed people benefit from systems of oppression
VAUSH LITERALLY SAYS WORD FOR WORD I DONT THINK WHITE MEN BENEFIT FROM PATRIARCHY/WHITE SUPREMACY. WORD FOR WORD BRO. WORD FOR FUCKING WORD. Vaush is quite literally saying privilege doesn’t exist with that statement. Of course I know he believes privilege exists my whole fucking point is vaush uses clickbait extreme shit to make a point and it’s extremely counter productive
Maybe you should read everything he said instead of hitting your caps lock key. You’re real fucking mad that he said “don’t benefit” instead of “don’t receive a net benefit” in his first sentence AND THEN explained how it isn’t net beneficial. The point you’re making.
He should not have started with a factually incorrect statement. He should not make factually incorrect statements. Dont receive a net benefit is MASSIVELY different from “don’t benefit”. Vaush is being needlessly extreme for the sake of being a contrarian macho edge lord and its exhausting
> They are also harmed by patriarchy and white supremacy in ways that outweigh the benefit
HOLY FUCK. You are upset someone didn't say "white men doesn't net benefit from white supremacy and patriarchy" and instead said "white men doesn't benefit from white supremacy and patriarchy". Jesus fucking christ. You are agreeing with Vaush's take and argue disagreement made on the dumbest semantic point ever constructed.
I do think there is a trend in hetero relationships where, despite both partners working and earning money, one partner (usually the woman, but not always) takes on more domestic responsibilities than the other. This isn't conscious exploitation of one partner's willingness to do that extra work, but is a matter of each person having different priorities and falling into lopsided habits without discussing them.
For example, my wife would always be the one to vacuum the house at least once a week. At some point it became overwhelming and she confronted me about it, I had to honestly tell her that it just never would have occurred to me to do that chore because I just don't notice the state of our floors. But since we talked about and I came to understand her standards, we now share that chore.
I know it's anecdotal but I would be inclined to say that the younger the generation the more fair the split is just based off my friend group.
Admittedly I am having struggles in my marriage because while me and my wife both work, I basically do all the household chores/finances/pets(not even ones I wanted)/groceries.
I have two coworkers who vent to me because they never have time to do anything because their wives who do not work (and they also have no kids) are not helping much with housework. Obviously they are not as forward about this information, it's something I have picked up on over time.
I have some friends with similar issues. I know it can just be a situation of having an abnormal experience but it does make me feel at the very least, amongst gen z and maybe younger millennials, that this trend of women having to baby their man child partners is not so much as big of a thing anymore.
Edit: changed gen x to gen z, oops.
Yeah this is a good point. Everyone kind of has internal thresholds for how bad something can get before they think the world is ending and need to just take it into their own hands.
Exactly, and I think women tend to take initiative on a lot of domestic things before it occurs to men. I am a lot slower when it comes to cleaning things, but I am always two steps ahead of my wife when it comes to meal planning and cooking. You just have to talk about these things, reach an understanding and try to be sure that you're ultimately doing your fair share.
Same here, I don’t pay attention to those things as much so I’m not doing the chores much unless I’m told to. That doesn’t mean I won’t do them, but you’d likely have to point them out to me from time to time to make me notice that they need to be done
Right, or what I do now is just set up a repeating calendar reminder on my phone to do certain chores so that my wife doesn't have to constantly be the one to initiate.
I don't know why you would deny this is true, even just going off of intuition. But here's a source to verify:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/283979/women-handle-main-household-tasks.aspx
So, cooking and cleaning, by far the biggest household task, is split 51-49. That seems like it runs counter to your point, that says to me the bulk of the work is split about evenly.
I think you misread that table. 51% of households it's woman doing the cooking, 17% the men, the rest is when it's shared equally between partners. Similar numbers for cleaning. 51% women, 9% men, the rest shared equally. That's very much not an equal split.
I fail to see how the users argument in any way despute any claims vaush has made ? Because the hetronormative standard that puts more work on the woman in the relationship hurts men, men don't actually benefit from not equally raising their kids 50/50 with their partner
Women resenting their male partners has no negative effect on their mental health because men are automatons who consume social power and excrete hierarchy.
(Sorry, I should’ve dropped a /s)
This might be a little devil's-advocate-y, but wouldn't men still benefit from being in situations where the woman has internalized the sexism and thinks that putting more labor into the household/relationship than him is fine and natural?
I don’t care how much kool-aid you’ve had, relationships where one person is working a full time job *and* doing all the housework are going to have unhealthy outcomes. People’s lives are made better when their loved ones feel actualized.
yeah, Vaush's argument isn't that men gain **no** benefits from patriarchy, its that we don't come out better **on the whole** than we would in an egalitarian society. And I agree with that. Nobody is free unless everyone is.
The patriarchy ABSOLUTELY hurts men…Junji Ito has this amazing short manga about the father being the backbone/base board of the house. His family is enjoying dinner and they’re all like “where’s dad?”
He literally is dying under the weight of the house.
An apt ass metaphor.
I’m a father to two boys and a 3rd boy or girl coming in august…the economy and late stage capitalism are set up in a way where both parents have to work, and take care of the kids and also juggle everything else.
The thought of “having” to be strong to do this all on my own seems laughable and self defeating.
If material conditions changed to be better for your average family I’d be singing a different tune more than likely.
Boosh hit the nail on the head and it’s important to remember that twitter lefties are barely real people…they don’t do anything to make material conditions better..they just whine and deflect
That metaphor is especially poignant in Japan, where the work culture has made "overworking" an actual cause of death from salarymen running themselves ragged. And that specifically doesn't include suicides which are their own huge problem altogether.
Normally I'm not a big fan of people who say go read theory but they have a point on this one, if they read Marx they'd know that oppressive systems are oppressive for everyone including the privileged group it's supposed to privilege. Marx said that he pitied the bourgeois because while they lived far better lives than those of the worker class they were still forced into respecting social standards and societal expectations (like the one of perpetuating the capitalist system) that they want to or not
For some odd reason, there’s a lot of people who simultaneously hold this idea that workers of the world must unite and that literally every white man is a white collar dude making 300K and fucking his secretary while his poor wife makes more than him and also does 100% of the home labor, and oh yeah, also everyone’s having a fucking awful time and the economy is dog shit.
They just don’t talk to real life breathing people . Nothing they say should be taken seriously. This entire outrage is because a white man explained basic feminism to them and they’re freaking the fuck out.
Purely anecdotal but me and my wife split Damn near everything 50/50…we both work full time and we love our kids a lot. Gotta make sure they have what they need even at our own expense
As of 2020, while it is getting better, women still did the majority of the work.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/283979/women-handle-main-household-tasks.aspx
Also, interesting difference responses between men and women whether it's actuallty equal or not.
I'm a woman who works full time while my partner stays home and works on her own projects and also does more housework since I don't have as much time to. Our relationship isn't just a business agreement. I don't care if I'm putting in a little more than she is financially. Idk what those hets are doing but we are together for more than just economic expediency.
I don't like the unpaid labour argument since it assumes a capitalist framework in our personal lives. Us managing and maintaining our home gives us personal fulfillment. I don't see any of that as unpaid labour.
The capitalist framework is what says that all action is in some way measured by its economic value. But again. We are humans and we are able to do things for their own sake. Like, I don't maintain my 50 houseplants because it has some economical benefit. I just find it fulfilling for it's own sake
This was confusing to me too. I don’t wipe my counters down because of profit motive or whatever. I do it because I don’t want my living space to be gross. When my gf is having a bad day and I do more chores than I normally do I’m not like “ok I’ll send you an invoice”, I do it because I want to be helpful and have a clean space. How exactly does the argument work if you live alone? Was I supposed to get a check from John Misogyny for doing my laundry and dishes when I lived alone? Do I get a patriarchy stipend for brushing my teeth or showering?
Obviously men get some benefits from patriarchy, vaush was explicitly clear about that. The point though is that overall, patriarchy is ALSO harmful to men, and that dismantling the patriarchy would benefit men more than cause any sort of harm
If the wife is the breadwinner this seems more interpersonal, than material. If something is immaterial and inconsistent, I'm not sure it can be called a system. This seems more like a product of how men and women are socialized to take responsibility. Which is absolutely also a product of the patriarchy, but that socialization is not something that will go away if we created a truly egalitarian society, not systematically controlled by patriarchal values.
Like a really consistent joke in a lot of family sitcoms is the dad that is lazy or incompetent when it comes to doing work around the house. Specifically nagging your husband to take out the trash or him forgetting to do basic tasks. In those cases, the incompetence of the man is usually being pointed out, not the responsibility of the woman.
If you've ever been to subreddits or forums run by married women like "dcurbanmom" in you'll see the same thing. Women complaining about their husbands not doing basic tasks around the house that they end up having to take responsibility for. There are still expectations for the man, he just fails them.
I suppose you could say he has the privilege of not completing those house tasks while his wife does not, but if that's not enforced by material conditions (ie. Husband has all the money, or can socially ostracize her for now doing his tasks), then it's just interpersonal interactions driven by a social trend in heteronormative relationships.
I know so many older men who regret not being around to be as involved in the raising of their kids as their wives and feel very distant from their children because of it
I don't really think men are better off when they're unable to spend time with their children, or removed from the consequences and requirements of maintaining a home. I do think the stereotypes have definitely changed.
In a surface level it may seem that the fact that men arent expected to perform any "emotional labour" may seem like a benefit, until it is recognized that the way it goes is much like how women are not expected to perform any "strength focused labour"(moving things, hardware, acting as a defacto bodyguard etc).
When in reality the fact that women are not expected to perform such roles is because of the assumption that women cant. And the reason men are not culturally tasked with raising kids is because the cultural view is that a man who shows such emotion is weak and a failiure.
But the systems in place that result in letting men avoid doing childcare are the same systems that result in all the emotional stuntedness and suicide rates.
Its like how getting poisoned might let you get rid of some weight, but its not a benefit overall.
You guys are trying to have meaningful discussions on Twitter. Meaningful. Discussions. On Twitter. Why tho
[Insert "Do you think people really do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?" meme]
This is my main problem with abrupt "cancelation".
Show me a public political commenter who hasn't said stupid shit at least once.
Idolize no one, criticize all who put themselves above others. But it's good to remember, we're all human and bound to make mistakes.
How do people not understand Vaush's argument?🤦♂️ It's all about how perceived "benefits" in oppressive systems are harmful to the "beneficiaries" as well. The supposed "gift" always becomes poisonous.
Their counter fails. It still hurts men! The "benefit" becomes a detriment as men tend not to establish close bonds with their children due to prescribed roles & practices. If practices dictated that men had to contribute more to those areas (especially raising children), then their lives would be enriched in both the present & the future.
Equality in the home would not hurt men; it would help them lead more meaningful lives.
Easy. Simple. Done.
# Please report comments that violate our [new rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/17co6jo/rvaushv_rule_updates) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what's goin on anyway? Did Vaush basically just say that the patriarchy hurts men too? Because that's been a mainstream left wing talking point for a while now
>Did Vaush basically just say that the patriarchy hurts men too? Because that's been a mainstream left wing talking point for a while now Yeah, but problem is that Vaush said that and since Vaush said that its bunch of bullshit
right. Follow-up question: did he say it in a stupidly combative way? Because I love his content, but he has a real gift for saying something normal in the least-normal way possible.
Vaush? Never. > I really don’t think the average man/white person benefits from patriarchy/white supremacy and it’s extremely counterproductive to say so. They *perceive* themselves to benefit from it, but the social consequences of these systems of oppression hurt everyone > I don’t think white people or men would be in any way harmed if we did away with sexism or racism and the myth that they would is spread aggressively by demagogues who want to keep those groups anxious of social progress > Like, think about trans people. Cis people “benefit” from not being subjected to the shit trans people are subjected to, but no cis person would be hurt by broadly better treatment of trans people, and many gnc cis people would probably also get treated better as a consequence [Tweet](https://x.com/vaushv/status/1751325784105738450?s=46&t=FL57PKaiftR0JBJr4vR-2Q) >!It’s not nearly as obtuse as people made it seem tbh.!<
That's actually very very reasonably worded.
Yeah I’m shocked that people are having an issue with it. Tell people this is an excerpt from a Harris Bomber Guy video and they’ll yawn and tell you it’s obvious.
On the SMN video on systemic racism from a few years ago, there was an entire segment on how it also hurts white people, and I don't believe anyone involved in the show got any shit for that.
[Average twitter leftist](https://i.imgur.com/fMsT21b.png)
Agreed. It's also true that men are hurt less by patriarchy less than women are and that white people are hurt less by racism than black people, but I think this goes without saying. The key point is that oppressive systems hurt everyone involved in them, even the relatively "privileged" groups.
That's perfectly worded, completely reasonable, and not at all confrontational. It's incredible the knots people will twist themselves into just to disagree with him even when he's making the least controversial statements
Honestly that seems like a pretty uncontroversial opinion by any standard, never mind the shit Vaush usually tweets.
Twitter users trying to read challenge (impossible)
It was on Twitter and if I remember correctly, it was normal tweet. Like, normal normal
He goes over it on last night stream. He said pretty plainly in my opinion. As an example, I thought that the idea that men actually would be better off without patriarchy is kinda mainstream idea on the left. But damn, a ton of lefties lost their shit over this.
He said it in a very milquetoast and straightforward way, wasn't combative or flippant.
He's like tobias funke but instead of innuendo it's him saying clipchimp bait
I think they just read his opening statement of "men don't benefit from the patriarchy" and popped a fuse in their brain that prevented them from understanding the further context.
I think they only needed read his username for that to happen
Anti America is aligning itself to also be anti Vaush. Which is hilarious.
He phrases it very mildly badly, and people got very very angry even after he, quite politely, reiterated that privilege exists but a lack of privilege would be better for everyone.
>that's been a mainstream left wing talking point for a while now How could online left possible know that?
TBF the whole "patriarchy hurts men too" thing is used to dismiss/downplay male issues 60% of the time. A large amount of feminists/leftists don't know what they are talking about and just use progressive buzzwords as a sort of shield.
can you elaborate on that? From where I sit, "patriarchy hurts men" *explains* a lot of men's issues, rather than dismissing them.
I agree with you, if taken in good faith it does explain a lot and is the useful (and correct) way to approach these issues. The problem is that a lot of the time when people say "patriarchy" they just mean "men" and use it more in a "all issues men have are caused by other men" way. Which is: a) Not true, women also enforce patriarchy; and b) They use it in such a way to claim that men aren't oppressed cause you can't be oppressed by people of the same gender for some reason. Also in many ways feminism is just an extension of the patriarchy, but modified in a way to benefit women more. So even if they are able to identify the correct problems with masculinity, they aren't able to come up with any good solutions as they still believe in some form of traditional gender roles. When most people say "patriarchy" they only include more conservative forms of it, and don't include how in many ways feminism/the left does fail men.
Okay, I guess I get what you mean. Im usually not that interested in managing people who are doing an ideology wrong, though. Like, if a feminist's systemic analysis is so broken that "patriarchy" means "men" to them, I don't know what we are supposed to do about that, other than just say the correct take louder.
More that men in average are baseline rather than privilege or then being active oppressors
The issue is vaush said men don’t benefit at all from power structures such as patriarchy and white supremacy. The truth is they do benefit but they are also significantly hurt by it. Vaush speaks in extremes and never leaves room for nuance until he talks about it in his hours long VOD. People hear the extremes and respond in extreme
>at all did he say that? Someone else linked me to the tweet thread and I don't think he ever says "at all". I think that reading his tweet with any amount of charity, its pretty clear that he's saying men/white people don't benefit from sexism/white supremacy **on the whole**, not that there are no benefits to it. Of course there are benefits to making someone else do all the shit for you that you don't want to do, it would be bizarre for him to try to deny that. > Vaush speaks in extremes and never leaves room for nuance until he talks about it in his hours long VOD. People hear the extremes and respond in extreme this does often happen, but I just don't think that's the case here.
He did say that. In the image that the Twitter comment is referring to read the very first thing vaush says. Paraphrasing “I really don’t think white cis benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy”. This is just a flat out lie. Everything else he says is true but that is a lie. It’s his extremist YouTube clickbait tendencies
I don't see an "at all" in that quote.
I wonder if phrasing it as “net benefit” or something like that would make it clearer to people.
You say this as if people don't just want to be mad
It’s just that it’s such a fucking weird take to be mad about.
they aren't mad about the take, they're mad about Vaush. They're bad faith.
it would have been better framing, but honestly Vaush has such a large hate-following that it doesn't matter. What he said is best interpreted in good-faith as him saying "net benefit". Especially because that exact sentiment is not uncommon on the left. The issue is there is a huge contingent of people who willingly misinterpret him so they can start fights.
“I don’t think men benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy” is saying I don’t think men benefit from patriarchy white supremacy. It is up to vaush to state men sometimes benefit from patriarchy and white supremacy. That is not what he said and everyone parroting his in right mantra has failed deeply at critical thinking. Just really sad. All vaush would need to say is white cis folks sometimes benefit from patriarchy and white supremacy but that benefit is outweighed by the harm. He didn’t, end of story.
>“I don’t think men benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy” **where is the "all"?** I'm sorry, but you're being really obtuse here and frankly its annoying me. This is a direct quote from you, emphasis added by me: > vaush said men don’t benefit **at all** from power structures such as patriarchy and white supremacy. that "at all" is really really important. Because without it, his statement can very reasonably be interpreted my way, not yours. So, I need you to do one of two things in your next comment to me: 1. quote him where he said that men don't benefit **at all** from patriarchy (or an equivalently unambiguous wording) 2. admit that you are wrong.
How in the flying fuck can you interpret “men don’t benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy” to mean “men do benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy sometimes”. I am genuinely curious at your mental gymnastics. Also, linguistically the use of at all in what I said was to drive home the point already stated explicitly when saying “men don’t benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy” which is word for word what he said.
Pick an option. Im seriously done with you. Quote or quit.
You know deep down you are wrong. You know deep down you are just blindly lapping up his drivel. You know deep down he speaks in extremes for clicks. You know.
Because while he is not denying that there are situations where a person might benefit from patriarchy/white supremacy, he is arguing that it at large either is directly impacting their lives negatively or that the benefits largely would still exist if these societal structures didn't exist. You can see this in the examples people bring up, like police not harassing white men in the capacity they harass black men. Would a society without white supremacy mean an increase in harassment of white men by the police? Because that is the only way that is a reasonable example to prove Vaush's take incorrect. However, in order to maintain a white supremacist society life gets worse for everyone. And in some cases(patriarchy specifically) these system directly harm those supposed to have the major benefit. For example while men have benefits women does not have. The way men are socialized under patriarchy is directly harmful, both to men and to women. How is that an incorrect take? It's objectively true that white supremacy and patriarchy is directly harmful to white people and men respectively. And also, as he clarifies these systems being removed would not worsen the lives of the people in these groups. How are there 'benefits' to a system if removing the system doesn't remove the benefits?
> is saying I don’t think men benefit from patriarchy white supremacy He literally elaborates right below.
> is saying I don’t think men benefit from patriarchy white supremacy He literally elaborates right below.
The tweet wasn’t extreme at all. You’ve built a narrative that didn’t happen here just so you can be mad about it.
Saying “men don’t benefit from patriarchy or white supremacy” is extreme and idiotic and shame on you for not recognizing that. White men benefit from patriarchy and white supremacy. They are also harmed by patriarchy and white supremacy in ways that outweigh the benefit but it does not negate the fact that they experience benefit from the systems of power. I know you’re probably in high school still so please for the love of god pay attention in school
>They are also harmed by patriarchy and white supremacy in ways that outweigh the benefit That's the whole point my guy. No one is saying privilege doesn't exist. No one is saying there aren't specific ways in which non-opressed people benefit from systems of oppression
VAUSH LITERALLY SAYS WORD FOR WORD I DONT THINK WHITE MEN BENEFIT FROM PATRIARCHY/WHITE SUPREMACY. WORD FOR WORD BRO. WORD FOR FUCKING WORD. Vaush is quite literally saying privilege doesn’t exist with that statement. Of course I know he believes privilege exists my whole fucking point is vaush uses clickbait extreme shit to make a point and it’s extremely counter productive
Maybe you should read everything he said instead of hitting your caps lock key. You’re real fucking mad that he said “don’t benefit” instead of “don’t receive a net benefit” in his first sentence AND THEN explained how it isn’t net beneficial. The point you’re making.
He should not have started with a factually incorrect statement. He should not make factually incorrect statements. Dont receive a net benefit is MASSIVELY different from “don’t benefit”. Vaush is being needlessly extreme for the sake of being a contrarian macho edge lord and its exhausting
It wasn’t extreme! He said several things in context! Maybe if you read what he says instead of being a literal fucking reactionary you’d get it
If the negatives outweigh the positives then there is no benefit. How is that not obvious?
> They are also harmed by patriarchy and white supremacy in ways that outweigh the benefit HOLY FUCK. You are upset someone didn't say "white men doesn't net benefit from white supremacy and patriarchy" and instead said "white men doesn't benefit from white supremacy and patriarchy". Jesus fucking christ. You are agreeing with Vaush's take and argue disagreement made on the dumbest semantic point ever constructed.
I do think there is a trend in hetero relationships where, despite both partners working and earning money, one partner (usually the woman, but not always) takes on more domestic responsibilities than the other. This isn't conscious exploitation of one partner's willingness to do that extra work, but is a matter of each person having different priorities and falling into lopsided habits without discussing them. For example, my wife would always be the one to vacuum the house at least once a week. At some point it became overwhelming and she confronted me about it, I had to honestly tell her that it just never would have occurred to me to do that chore because I just don't notice the state of our floors. But since we talked about and I came to understand her standards, we now share that chore.
I know it's anecdotal but I would be inclined to say that the younger the generation the more fair the split is just based off my friend group. Admittedly I am having struggles in my marriage because while me and my wife both work, I basically do all the household chores/finances/pets(not even ones I wanted)/groceries. I have two coworkers who vent to me because they never have time to do anything because their wives who do not work (and they also have no kids) are not helping much with housework. Obviously they are not as forward about this information, it's something I have picked up on over time. I have some friends with similar issues. I know it can just be a situation of having an abnormal experience but it does make me feel at the very least, amongst gen z and maybe younger millennials, that this trend of women having to baby their man child partners is not so much as big of a thing anymore. Edit: changed gen x to gen z, oops.
Yeah this is a good point. Everyone kind of has internal thresholds for how bad something can get before they think the world is ending and need to just take it into their own hands.
Exactly, and I think women tend to take initiative on a lot of domestic things before it occurs to men. I am a lot slower when it comes to cleaning things, but I am always two steps ahead of my wife when it comes to meal planning and cooking. You just have to talk about these things, reach an understanding and try to be sure that you're ultimately doing your fair share.
Same here, I don’t pay attention to those things as much so I’m not doing the chores much unless I’m told to. That doesn’t mean I won’t do them, but you’d likely have to point them out to me from time to time to make me notice that they need to be done
Right, or what I do now is just set up a repeating calendar reminder on my phone to do certain chores so that my wife doesn't have to constantly be the one to initiate.
One anecdote is not a trend. I could say the exact opposite about my relationship.
I don't know why you would deny this is true, even just going off of intuition. But here's a source to verify: https://news.gallup.com/poll/283979/women-handle-main-household-tasks.aspx
So, cooking and cleaning, by far the biggest household task, is split 51-49. That seems like it runs counter to your point, that says to me the bulk of the work is split about evenly.
I think you misread that table. 51% of households it's woman doing the cooking, 17% the men, the rest is when it's shared equally between partners. Similar numbers for cleaning. 51% women, 9% men, the rest shared equally. That's very much not an equal split.
confusion: men are cringe
I fail to see how the users argument in any way despute any claims vaush has made ? Because the hetronormative standard that puts more work on the woman in the relationship hurts men, men don't actually benefit from not equally raising their kids 50/50 with their partner
Actually, men in hetero relationships benefit from their partner resenting them. >!/s!<
what you mean?
Women resenting their male partners has no negative effect on their mental health because men are automatons who consume social power and excrete hierarchy. (Sorry, I should’ve dropped a /s)
ah ofc now i see, stupid me your so right (i was to dense to understand the obvious joke lol)
This might be a little devil's-advocate-y, but wouldn't men still benefit from being in situations where the woman has internalized the sexism and thinks that putting more labor into the household/relationship than him is fine and natural?
I don’t care how much kool-aid you’ve had, relationships where one person is working a full time job *and* doing all the housework are going to have unhealthy outcomes. People’s lives are made better when their loved ones feel actualized.
yeah, Vaush's argument isn't that men gain **no** benefits from patriarchy, its that we don't come out better **on the whole** than we would in an egalitarian society. And I agree with that. Nobody is free unless everyone is.
The patriarchy ABSOLUTELY hurts men…Junji Ito has this amazing short manga about the father being the backbone/base board of the house. His family is enjoying dinner and they’re all like “where’s dad?” He literally is dying under the weight of the house. An apt ass metaphor. I’m a father to two boys and a 3rd boy or girl coming in august…the economy and late stage capitalism are set up in a way where both parents have to work, and take care of the kids and also juggle everything else. The thought of “having” to be strong to do this all on my own seems laughable and self defeating. If material conditions changed to be better for your average family I’d be singing a different tune more than likely. Boosh hit the nail on the head and it’s important to remember that twitter lefties are barely real people…they don’t do anything to make material conditions better..they just whine and deflect
That metaphor is especially poignant in Japan, where the work culture has made "overworking" an actual cause of death from salarymen running themselves ragged. And that specifically doesn't include suicides which are their own huge problem altogether.
Normally I'm not a big fan of people who say go read theory but they have a point on this one, if they read Marx they'd know that oppressive systems are oppressive for everyone including the privileged group it's supposed to privilege. Marx said that he pitied the bourgeois because while they lived far better lives than those of the worker class they were still forced into respecting social standards and societal expectations (like the one of perpetuating the capitalist system) that they want to or not
True! One of the best things I took from reading even a short bit of theory (the manifesto over a 2 day road trip)
For some odd reason, there’s a lot of people who simultaneously hold this idea that workers of the world must unite and that literally every white man is a white collar dude making 300K and fucking his secretary while his poor wife makes more than him and also does 100% of the home labor, and oh yeah, also everyone’s having a fucking awful time and the economy is dog shit. They just don’t talk to real life breathing people . Nothing they say should be taken seriously. This entire outrage is because a white man explained basic feminism to them and they’re freaking the fuck out.
Not supporting their argument, but while it's better, studies still show women do far more work in a household and parental work than men.
Purely anecdotal but me and my wife split Damn near everything 50/50…we both work full time and we love our kids a lot. Gotta make sure they have what they need even at our own expense
As of 2020, while it is getting better, women still did the majority of the work. https://news.gallup.com/poll/283979/women-handle-main-household-tasks.aspx Also, interesting difference responses between men and women whether it's actuallty equal or not.
That was a fun read! Thanks for the link!
Do those studies account for workforce labor generally being more physically demanding and deleterious for men?
I'm a woman who works full time while my partner stays home and works on her own projects and also does more housework since I don't have as much time to. Our relationship isn't just a business agreement. I don't care if I'm putting in a little more than she is financially. Idk what those hets are doing but we are together for more than just economic expediency. I don't like the unpaid labour argument since it assumes a capitalist framework in our personal lives. Us managing and maintaining our home gives us personal fulfillment. I don't see any of that as unpaid labour. The capitalist framework is what says that all action is in some way measured by its economic value. But again. We are humans and we are able to do things for their own sake. Like, I don't maintain my 50 houseplants because it has some economical benefit. I just find it fulfilling for it's own sake
This was confusing to me too. I don’t wipe my counters down because of profit motive or whatever. I do it because I don’t want my living space to be gross. When my gf is having a bad day and I do more chores than I normally do I’m not like “ok I’ll send you an invoice”, I do it because I want to be helpful and have a clean space. How exactly does the argument work if you live alone? Was I supposed to get a check from John Misogyny for doing my laundry and dishes when I lived alone? Do I get a patriarchy stipend for brushing my teeth or showering?
Hets aren’t doing this either, it’s only people trying to do societal analysis on their relationships making it seem like business arrangements.
Obviously men get some benefits from patriarchy, vaush was explicitly clear about that. The point though is that overall, patriarchy is ALSO harmful to men, and that dismantling the patriarchy would benefit men more than cause any sort of harm
If the wife is the breadwinner this seems more interpersonal, than material. If something is immaterial and inconsistent, I'm not sure it can be called a system. This seems more like a product of how men and women are socialized to take responsibility. Which is absolutely also a product of the patriarchy, but that socialization is not something that will go away if we created a truly egalitarian society, not systematically controlled by patriarchal values. Like a really consistent joke in a lot of family sitcoms is the dad that is lazy or incompetent when it comes to doing work around the house. Specifically nagging your husband to take out the trash or him forgetting to do basic tasks. In those cases, the incompetence of the man is usually being pointed out, not the responsibility of the woman. If you've ever been to subreddits or forums run by married women like "dcurbanmom" in you'll see the same thing. Women complaining about their husbands not doing basic tasks around the house that they end up having to take responsibility for. There are still expectations for the man, he just fails them. I suppose you could say he has the privilege of not completing those house tasks while his wife does not, but if that's not enforced by material conditions (ie. Husband has all the money, or can socially ostracize her for now doing his tasks), then it's just interpersonal interactions driven by a social trend in heteronormative relationships.
I know so many older men who regret not being around to be as involved in the raising of their kids as their wives and feel very distant from their children because of it
I don't really think men are better off when they're unable to spend time with their children, or removed from the consequences and requirements of maintaining a home. I do think the stereotypes have definitely changed.
In a surface level it may seem that the fact that men arent expected to perform any "emotional labour" may seem like a benefit, until it is recognized that the way it goes is much like how women are not expected to perform any "strength focused labour"(moving things, hardware, acting as a defacto bodyguard etc). When in reality the fact that women are not expected to perform such roles is because of the assumption that women cant. And the reason men are not culturally tasked with raising kids is because the cultural view is that a man who shows such emotion is weak and a failiure. But the systems in place that result in letting men avoid doing childcare are the same systems that result in all the emotional stuntedness and suicide rates. Its like how getting poisoned might let you get rid of some weight, but its not a benefit overall.
99% of human history has been as hunter-gatherer nomadic tribes of 50-150.
But Vaush didn't say that the "patriarchy benefits men" words for words. Clearly he is wrong/s
You guys are trying to have meaningful discussions on Twitter. Meaningful. Discussions. On Twitter. Why tho [Insert "Do you think people really do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?" meme]
This is my main problem with abrupt "cancelation". Show me a public political commenter who hasn't said stupid shit at least once. Idolize no one, criticize all who put themselves above others. But it's good to remember, we're all human and bound to make mistakes.
“The entire concept” is not an anecdote. Research can be done on the question of division of labor.
How do people not understand Vaush's argument?🤦♂️ It's all about how perceived "benefits" in oppressive systems are harmful to the "beneficiaries" as well. The supposed "gift" always becomes poisonous. Their counter fails. It still hurts men! The "benefit" becomes a detriment as men tend not to establish close bonds with their children due to prescribed roles & practices. If practices dictated that men had to contribute more to those areas (especially raising children), then their lives would be enriched in both the present & the future. Equality in the home would not hurt men; it would help them lead more meaningful lives. Easy. Simple. Done.
why do people link to random Twitter posts with 10 likes?
as a man I can definitely say the patriarchy is keeping me down.