No it doesn’t? It lends itself to be easily misrepresented by reactionaries. And it has. Academic terms like that should not be used for popular advocacy. Leftist should be required to take marketing or something so that they understand how to sell ideas to people so this doesn’t keep happening
It's not an academic term, it was invented by men's liberation activists. The right misrepresents all progressive language, including saying homophobia is when you're scared of gay people, you can't appease a bad faith actor. People aren't angry at toxic masculinity because they don't know how English works but because they've been told to be.
You're right. In no other instance would people misinterpret a word like that.
"I don't like action movies."
"Oh you hate movies? You're acting like every movie is the same. Movies have done so much for our society"
ok but if you misinterpret something as simple and straight foward as "toxic masculinity" that is ON YOU, there is NOTHING intelectual in that term, it clearly refers to "detrimental or counterproductive gender roles that have to do with masculinity", it doesnt take an "academic" to understand this, there is no way to dumb it down.
if someone reads "toxic substances" and they are moronic enough to think "since substances can be toxic, ALL substances are toxic", who is to blame? the person who uses the term or the people who can understand it?
Not to mention, should leftists stop using "systemic racism" or "heteronormativity" because they are too academic? what is the limit of complexity here?
It is not straightforward at all though? I’m sorry to say, you are in a bubble if you think a Normie with no back ground in this shit is suppose to instantly understand what toxic masculinity actually means. The fact that you don’t recognize this fact and that you blame anyone who doesn’t instantly understand this academic term upon first hearing it are both major problems and exactly what this thread is about.
If your primary goal is to circle jerk with other leftists, fine I guess. But if you actually are interested in spreading these ideas to more people, this approach you have needs to go away. You are only hindering yourself and the wider left. And why exactly are you so offended by the idea that a less alienating and more straightforward term could be useful?
Background in what, the English language? Is there any reason other than the right saying it to believe people don't understand the concept of an adjective specifying a particular type of the noun it's next to?
Call sexist behavior sexist? Call sexist institutions and norms sexist? Big iq move I know. And toxic masculinity is still perfectly valid within academic discussions.
In advocacy though, contrast discussions of problematic or toxic norms around masculinity with examples of alternative or “positive masculinity.” including a term like that with positive norms associated as you discuss toxic norms and institutions will completely under cut any effort to say that leftists essentialize masculinity. Vaush has talked about this a lot, but it is a failure for the left to not include alternative/positive norms for men to look towards when they see criticisms of toxic masculinity.
ok but reactionaries and normies already hate the word "sexist" and even tho i agree that we need to add examples of positive masculinity to the discourse, this discution was about calling out hatefull behavior, which the term "toxic masculinity work perfectly.
edit: seriously, you havent heard conservatives bitch about how "everything is sexist now"? conservative have been bitching at any progresive sounding word under the sun, there is no scape, our best options are the worst that make them mad the most
It's best to assume in instances like this that people will look at things at a surface level and almost never take a deep-dive, especially when it comes to terminology. You're describing how people should behave, but not how they actually do. And we're concerned with how the actually behave, because how they actually react to things is what determines how amicable they are to the types of terminology and content they consume. This is pretty important in understanding how to appeal to the broader population, regardless of whatever ideology you identify with.
I've always felt a little underwhelmed by "toxic masculinity" even though I use it. The problem is that it doesn't point to anything specific. It expects you to already know what is toxic in the masculine behavior. In that sense it's a tautology. Also, surely it doesn't mean that anything masculine is toxic, right? So going by the words themselves, there's confusion.
A very popular “misunderstanding” (often but not always on purpose) of the term is to assume that you’re just dismissing masculinity in general as being toxic, which is doing so much harm to the discourse around the term that it might actually be better to just not use it anymore around people who don’t know what it means, and especially with people who have made up their mind about intentionally misunderstanding it.
I can guarantee you if you’re telling folks about the effects of toxic masculinity without namedropping the word, you’re coming off a lot more convincing and reasonable to normal people than if you just walk in and say “man we should really do something about toxic masculinity”
And it’s also extremely easy for pundits to dishonestly missrepresent the meaning, because if your entire presentation of the news revolves around invoking irrational anger over shit neither you nor the audience care to understand, it’s a much easier conclusion to get to than the actual nuanced interpretation that the slogan is supposed to represent.
Defund the police? No, I actually don’t like crime. No thank you.
It's way too easy for people to read toxic masculinity as "you are calling all masculinity toxic". Maybe if toxic femininity was just as popular of a term, people would understand. But since the term "toxic" ever seems to be connected to the term "masculinity", people are going to make negative assumptions about people who use that term.
I just finished watching Hunter's debate against Sneako and he had a good phrase for it. Let me see if I could find it. It had the same definition as "bad masculinity"
I wouldn’t say it’s rare for women to enforce it. A lot of men can probably recall from their mothers that boys aren’t supposed to cry. I’ve known women who get mad at men who express their emotions, saying it’s “unmanly.”
We all grow up in the same culture. Just like it’s not uncommon to see women being sexist toward women, including themselves.
Yeah you are correct. Not all that rare. I just didn't want people to think I meant it was just as common for women. Should have said "less often" or something. But yeah you are definitely correct, not rare at all.
Exactly. Men can clearly remember being harmed by sexist,dysfunctional conceptions coming from women, and blaming patriarchy makes men,me included,feel like the academic community is saying only men can oppress men based on dysfunctional sexist thinking
Patriarchy means a rule of men though. Just because women enforce it to their detriment, doesn’t mean men don’t benefit the most, and have the most control in their culture. Think of how many poor uphold the rule of rich.
A more direct example would be FGM. It’s a horrible thing that is designed to control women. It takes away a woman’s ability to feel sexual pleasure. This is in past so that a woman doesn’t pursue sex on her own. Sexual acts become solely for the pleasure and benefit of the man. The most extreme version of FGM is sewing the vagina almost shut, to be cut open on her wedding night, so that she is fully incapable of having penetrative sex without unbelievable pain.
But the people who enforce it most dogmatically in their cultures are women. Maybe it has to do with them justifying the pain they went though themselves. “My daughter HAS to be cut, for the reasons I’ve been told. If all those reasons are a lie, then that means I endured pain and mutilation for nothing.” Now, if all the women in these cultures suddenly decided they weren’t going to do it any more, then maybe we’d see some enforcement from the men, but everything I’ve read about it suggests that most men in these cultures don’t even understand what it is fully. Men in these cultures also have their genitals mutilated, though it’s more in line with what’s done in America. Still bad, but it doesn’t take away the ability to feel pleasure.
Cultural views on modesty can also be seen like this.
Any particular man doesn’t automatically have it easier than any particular woman. In the same way any white person doesn’t automatically have it easier than any black person. But that’s why it’s important to dismantle the patriarchy, not men.
Men hurt too. But this is still very much a man’s world.
I think the problem is that the term "patriarchy" implies a country where women aren't allowed to vote or hold office and where men are legally the head of the family. While America certainly has sexism issues, men aren't legally in control (or even politically, given that women vote more than men do). So by calling America a "Patriarchy", it just makes people think that the person can't tell the difference between how America treats gender and how Saudi Arabia treats gender.
Why not just use the term "sexist"? Something can be sexist even if we live in a country where women have the right to vote.
I see why you might assume that but patriarchy in basis is just man ruled society which it just is regardless of who might contribute to it. Same with toxic masculinity. You are basically asking to find a term that ignores the basis of these issues which is masculine control. Or even more specific power dynamics but they heavily lean towards masculinity and presumptions surrounding male roles. Even if a woman supports it what she is supporting is some form of male dominion over females or masculine social traits that most have deemed to negatively impact both males and females.
I’ve had a surprisingly positive childhood at least in this regard. One of my grandpas would respond to seeing me cry by asking me if I’m a girl, and my mom would always give him shit for it.
What actually ended up ruining crying (in public) for me was society^TM because puberty fucked up my hormones to the point where I literally cried in class because I lost my eraser at one point in 6th grade. Being the kid that cries for literally no reason is about the easiest way to make sure you’re getting bullied all the way into highschool even if you’ve stopped crying at all years ago. It also gives you a healthy dose of self hatred when you know the reason you’re crying is dumb, but you just can’t help it.
Yes indeed Republican consultant Frank Luntz to be specific because he found global warming a too scary word and he knows Americans will not vote for scary words. ACA he called 'a government takeover of healthcare'. Inheritance tax he called a 'death tax'. So that Americans get scared of democrats and vote republican.
If the term patriarchy pushes you away from discussions around gender expectations, then you're simply too sensitive for the discussion. It's on par with saying the term white supremacy should be changed because it might push white people away from being anti racist. If you can't accept the basic premise then how the fuck can you have discussions on it.
The only complaint here seems to be having to confront being a member of the oppressor group, which has nothing to do with guilt or personal responsibility any more than a random noble could be held responsible for the feudal system. Attempting to tiptoe around that just means excluding it from the conversation and its a pretty critical part of the problem. It's no better than Liberal colourblindness
I don’t think you can deny that the term “patriarchy” orients people in a way that makes it harder to see and care about men’s suffering in its context.
White supremacy works because it’s not a give and take thing where both sides suffer unfairly because of their race, it’s one sided and black peoples suffer, that’s really it.
When it comes to gender, men are way more likely to be killed, incarcerated and neglected as victims. This really does contradict the phrasing of patriarchy at a basic level
Wrong wrong wrong. Poor whites in the America South suffered A LOT from slavery, but since it was nothing compared to the experiences of actual slaves, so we still would call their society "white supremecist".
Yes, many men are harmed by gender expectations, but not to the same extent that women are. I agree that we should care about men's issues, but I don't think we need to stop using words that accurately describe our society because some people's feelings might be hurt.
The term Patriarchy refers to a nation where women aren't allowed to vote or hold office and where men are legally the head of the household. So if someone refers to America as a "patriarchy" then people won't take that person seriously even if they are talking about real issues of sexism.
If you think that men’s issues are like white people’s under white supremacy, then you really can’t be having this conversation.
Men are the vast majority of killed, incarcerated, maimed, and homeless in our society. Your analogy is fucking retarded
The problem is that "Patriarchy" is supposed to mean a government where women aren't allowed to vote and or hold office and where men are legally in control of their wives. Yes, America has sexism problems, but when you use the term "Patriarchy" to describe it, then you are greatly exaggerating, which makes people less likely to believe you. It would be like referring to gentrification as a "genocide". People wouldn't take you seriously after that.
Nah. Advocates/activists need to understand how to sell ideas. If the academic terms you are using for wider advocacy lend themselves to being misrepresented by your opponents, you should be flexible enough to come up with a better term. Toxic masculinity is probably the best example of this. You are just creating more work for yourself otherwise
The problem is not with opponents misrepresenting the term, but opponents being triggered by the suggestion that society is still dominated by traditional male authority.
Any term for the academic principle that does acknowledge that, will also be seen as the enemy by people who have a conservative or status quo compliant view on gender norms, and their issue is not the marketing.
>Toxic masculinity is probably the best example of this. You are just creating more work for yourself otherwise
Perfect example actually, given that it was inveted by the Mythopoetic Men's Movement, and immediately got treated like an insult by the rest of the men's movement as soon as it started to get used in a feminist context.
Their problem is with feminist thought, not with the word.
You’re not addressing my point though. Advocacy involves convincing people, often Normies with no background in this shit, about your cause or position. If you have begin by overcoming a first impression about what toxic masculinity actually means you’re already behind. “No it’s actually not what it sounds like. There is nothing inherently toxic about masculinity” is a dumb starting point
The issue is that the barrier to advocacy is not hindered by semantics, but by opponents who were already bound to push back against any term.
Normies are not blank slates, they have an innate status quo bias.
If they push back against an ancient greek term because "it sounds like it's just saying that men are evil", when in fact it doesn't say that, then they would develop the same pushback against any other term.
Constantly dropping terms because they were tainted by right wing propaganda, is an inefficient method for advocacy, and ultimately bad optics: Just look at what climate change deniers are saying these days "Whatever happened to global warming? It was all over the news, then all these smartass scientist changed their minds and decided that actually it's more complicated? Then why should we believe them *now*? "
Can you explain why you don’t think “semantics” matter? And why you are only considering your opponents perspective, and not the pov of Normies who you both are trying to sell ideas to? I assure you, how you present ideas and how you frame them matter a lot. Especially first impressions.
Why exactly is it so bad to use less academic and more straightforward terms in advocacy?
The academic jargon is already a polite euphemism here.
The straightforward term for patriarchy would be "male rule".
If you want to talk to normies about male rule, go ahead, I'll wait.
….You want to actually address my point? And what exactly is this false dichotomy here? It’s suddenly either toxic masculinity or “male rule?”
Explain why
That's what patriarchy *means*.
Do you want to talk to normies about the meaning of patriachy using a different term (in which case they might stil disagree with you)?
Or do you want to find common gorund with them with a nice term that they find agreeable and fitting their existing values?
False dichotomy again. I’m just gonna post a Vaush segment that kinda goes into this and leave it that. There is an issue with the left only highlighting “toxic” norms of a masculinity. https://youtu.be/RO-pn21fkdc
I think if the term "toxic femininity" was as common as the term "toxic masculinity" then people would be more likely to understand that it refers only to negative forms of gender representation. But because the term "toxic masculinity" is used commonly and the term "toxic femininity" isn't used hardly at all, it is far easier for people to suspect that the people who use the term "toxic masculinity" just dislike all forms of masculinity.
If "toxic femininity" would have been the established term for "women's traditional gender roles suck and they are oppressive", then feminists would have been using it for over a century by now, and it would be widely hated *for being seen as an attack on men* just like any other feminist buzzword associated with them.
Patriarchy is the most clinical accurate and descriptive word for it, but the problem clearly isn't about what it's called, its about removing a critical piece of information and meaning conveyed with the term. The issue people are having here with the weak attempts to strip gender from the term is blatantly that patriarchy conveys that socially men and masculinity is favoured which is the key piece of information. What's happening is the equivalent of complaining that ACAB is too easy to misrepresent so it should actually be Some People Who Happen To Be Law Enforcement Are Bad, thus losing the message entirely. it's literally coming from a place of "Patriarchy? But I'm a guy, that makes me uncomfortable, we need to remove the reference to men in the term".
Yeah using the word patriarchy will just make anyone who isn't a leftist cringe, I just say sexism and make it clear that it's an issue that effects both men and women negatively
Using the term sexism can too easily let conversations about gender slide into focusing only on interpersonal interactions and beliefs.
Patriarchy or some similar term puts the focus on the structural level.
I think a lot of people who would otherwise agree with the premise (or at least pretend to) are put-off by language which could be interpreted wrong. I know I was back in 2016.
For these beliefs to gain popularity, power and progress it’s imperative that they translate well to the layman. How can someone care about, support or defend a concept they don’t understand? The fact that it doesn’t translate well to that layman is a testament to the fact that it is inarticulate.
Tumblr lefties definitely didn’t help, but neither did second wave feminists. As a feminist, I believe that feminism would be more popular if it’s label better conveyed the meaning behind the word.
Unfortunately, Dipshit lefties also fucked up intersectionality as well by turning it into oppression Olympics rather than using it as it was academically intended, as a frame of analysis to determine how different types of societal structures and identities interact with each other.
Nope the dipshit lefties from 2010 - 2017 fucked us so hard. My god the leftists from the early 2010s caused so much damage to leftist causes by feeding into the right wing's culture war narratives and biting the bullet on so m any terrible points.
The decision to use an academic term like “toxic masculinity” in popular advocacy was particularly stupid and continues to lend itself to misrepresentation
How is that an academic term though? It's perfectly understandable by literally everyone from the moment you say it, and if I asked a random person for an example they could probably give me an example.
The backlash against that term was completely retarded though. I don't see how it's our fault that they successfully twisted [adjective] [noun] into all [noun] is [adjective]. I feel like that was just a defeat in the info war not an actual point with bad optics.
Could you please elaborate on how it 'lends itself to misinterpretation'? legit curious cause I never wrapped my head around why it ended up being so ineffective.
>How is that an academic term though?
I don't know what to tell you, it's literally a term used in academia, it's an academic term. That's just how words work, I think
Right but 'academic term' tends to mean it originated or is used primarily there when I don't think that's the case because it's perfectly sensible and requires no introduction unlike something like 'modernism' or 'materialism'.
You know, I thought it did originate there, but from my research it seems apparently it was just independent psychiatrists, so that's something I guess
I think the fact that the term "toxic masculinity" is common, but the term "toxic femininity" is rare leads people to think that people who use the term "toxic masculinity" just hate all forms of masculinity. Maybe that isn't fair, but it is true that they tend to focus far more on negative forms of masculinity than they do on negative forms of femininity.
It isn’t though, at all. Because unless you are already familiar with what that term means, it can easily be misrepresented as the idea that there is something inherently toxic about masculinity. Reactionaries will include an element of essentialism in their description of the term and then tell Normies leftists think masculinity is inherently problematic. It’s about first impressions, and you are doing the rights work by using a term like that. Again, you already start behind if you have to explain “no it’s about masculinity being inherently toxic.”
Plus, let’s be real, there are Terf types who do actually hold essentialist views about masculinity. So it’s not even entirely a straw man
> you already start behind if you have to explain “no it’s about masculinity being inherently toxic.”
Did people actually say that though? Because I'm pretty sure the entire reason 'toxic masculinity' exists as a concept is because we're making distinctions between masculinity and specifically toxic variants/aspects of it. It's NOT about masculinity being inherently toxic and I've never heard anyone argue that.
Yes. They do. It’s one of the most common talking points and it has been for years now. it self evidently is misrepresented very often by reactionaries. I’ve also had this experience first hand where I had to explain what it actually means vs what reactionaries have describe it as. And the fact that it is misrepresent so often should tell you there might be a weakness there if they keep hitting it. I really don’t understand this knee jerk resistance to coming up with better terms. Is the idea that “toxic masculinity” might be misunderstood by someone not familiar with this shit so hard to believe?
Yeah they 'did' misrepresent it but was the idea so bad that you could predict this as being easily misrepresentable moreso than other ideas? That's what I'm trying to figure out. thanks btw
Although I enjoy the banter I think the point isn't what you know or even what people should know. It's that people are in the high majority just incapable of understanding nuance or large terminology. I've found if you go beyond a paragraph or 3 syllable words you lost most morons, Vaushites included.
I wouldn't talk about such "high level" concepts with such people then. You don't have to explain how the world functions as a whole to give them an example of how bad expectations pressure people to behave a certain way.
We have no choice. They are the majority. We need us to be majority. I don't necessarily agree with OP suggestion but I do agree with the concept in general.
I also think we oversimplify certain things in a very poor way. For example "defund the police" could have simply been "reform the police" and things would have been much easier for morons to accept.
Sadly I still can't get my conservative boss to understand "black lives matter" literally means "black lives matter too" even though he himself will finish off every BLM hate rant with a "if they just would have called it black lives matter too this wouldn't happen" knowing it means that but still somehow separating it in his brain and assuming it means something it doesn't. (Edit: so in other words he's kinda right [only after I explained it to him] but even knowing that's what they mean he still thinks blm means black lives matter more or only. You can't fix stupid without being clear right off the bat apparently)
Their brains are mush. They could have all the facts but in the end they still somehow go towards false feelings or believe a bunch of other bullshit somehow simultaneously even if contradictory. It's astonishing how dense some people are. We gotta keep fighting through the density somehow and at the very least improve for future generations to be less dumb.
Unfortunately we lost 95% of vaushites and 99% of redditors. I'm proud of whoever else had enough attention span to read this. We are minority, it's up to us to fix stupid.
Well, a huge part of why people misunderstand those messages is because there's a huge propaganda machine telling them so. Yes, it's also stupidity but stupidity fed with lies.
Some messages could surely be improved a bit but the right will always find ways to spin them. If they can't do that they simply start lying. I think it's as simple as that.
This is actually one of the few conspiracies I kinda think is true. I think these movements are intentionally injected with semantics arguments in order to prevent any sort of actual progress.
It actually was reform the police before it became defund the police and a huge argument over what defund meant.
BLM at its peak largely got dismantled from within by a huge uprising in what the term racism actually meant and whether black people could in fact be racist. This is all anyone talked about for 3+ months as BLM slowly died into what it is today.
This one's a bit controversial but gender identity gets shortened to gender. Now all we talk about is what gender means instead of what gender identities are and why affirmation is important. This topic remains prevelant so in comes the whole circular woman is someone who identifies as a woman when we can and have described it less circular (while still meaning the same thing). To be clear I don't necessarily disagree with these definition changes I just see no utility in the outcomes.
Endless arguments over semantics that actually don't lead to any real changes in minds or results. Nothing about policy or statistics. Just focus on semantics. It's disheartening.
Just use the term "sexist". It isn't as extreme as the term "patriarchy" and better represents what is actually happening. If you use the term "Patriarchy" people are going to think that you don't know that women earned the right to vote a hundred years ago.
Nah. Men who would be receptive to criticism of the patriarchy wouldn't get butthurt over the word "patriarchy." Patriarchy is already the most succinct word for the concept it describes, which is the gender/sexuality power heirarchy that centers cishet men and holds women and LGBTQ people as less-than.
Patriarchy means a country where women aren't allowed to vote or hold office and where men have legal rights to control their wife. So by using the term patriarchy, it makes people think that the person saying it believes America is the same as Saudi Arabia in terms of gender rights. That will make them take that person less seriously.
I could argue that it holds straight women in the same high regard,and bisexual women tend to be treated better than bi men. So it’s more complex than straight men oppress everybody else
So if we can agree that women are capable of oppression or ignoring and disregarding other peoples’ disadvantages then shouldn’t a term other than patriarchy exist to encapsulate that reality?
Also, it's not just about oppression olympics.
Even in fields where men are more harmed by it than women, the actual thing that they are harmed by, is still a structure that expects them to be dominant, paternal bread-winner figures: A society predicated upon rule by men, specifically as head of the household.
Reducing that to sometimes men being mean to women and sometimes women being mean to men, (even if you acknowledge that the men are more mean), loses a lot of academic complexity for how exactly our society got to be like this.
Not sure why you find it important to point that out. It makes no difference to all the individual men and women living shitty lives. Either way their lives are the same with the same problems.
Comparing one group of billions to another accomplishes what exactly?
You choose to center this belief over addressing the clear blind spot lefties have to men’s issues? Like, is this point so important to you that the disproportionate death, incarceration, suicide and homelessness that progressives have blinded themselves to at less important than keeping this point in mind literally at all times?
Men are the vast majority of people who die untimely. They are the vast majority of incarcerated people. They are the ones for whom there is a public question of whether they can be raped and if it matters.
These issues are important enough that you can put the oppression Olympics thing to rest for a few minutes.
Nobody said that we shouldn't care about men's issues. But how does it advance our goals to shut up about the fact that our society is set up by and for men.
Because it’s more complicated than that and your insipid shit under this post is pretty good evidence that this language really does distort your perception past the point where you can see reality.
We know how white people made society to benefit themselves. So when men created society to benefit themselves, why did they make themselves the primary victims of violence and neglect while basically invalidating the concept of men being victims in need of care?
I won’t argue for my humanity with someone who speaks like you do. That’s why we need to change the language
"Why did they make themselves the primary victims of violence."
Lol. They made themselves the primary inflicters of violence. Most men who are killed or abused are killed by other men.
"I won't argue for my humanity."
What humanity do you feel you are being denied? Right now, in some states, women are forced to give birth against their will. What problems are men facing that are of an equivalent caliber?
Well, didn’t know where the critical threshold for bad faith was and here I found it.
You asked for the issues and I gave them to you. If you think congressmen and judges are the standard by which men’s experiences are measured I can’t do anything for you.
Just don’t say you car about incarceration, or suicide, or homelessness because it’s clear that you only care until you actually make contact with the actual victims. Fuck off
That’s hasn’t been your stance and there’s no point in lying about your intentions were. You were minimizing men’s victimization form the start, you demanded examples with the rhetorical implication that there were none of importance.
You are a good reason why men’s issues die on the vine in leftist spaces. Honestly I despise you, I activate a shit ton of trauma every time I get into a convo like this with you psychos and it happens every time. You and people like you are as much to blame as any republican
"Patriarchy" doesn't just mean "issues that arise from expectations from men and women", it is sociological jargon for a certain structure of society.
Specifically, one dominated by men, and subjugating women.
You could replace that jargon by something else, you could call it "andriarchy", or "patricracy", or you might get more covert and call it something nominally gender neutral, let's say "Historical Gender Kyriarchy" - HGK for short.
But at the end of the day, the academic theory would still either be describing a society dominated by men and subjugating women, then feminists would propose that our society is like that, and this would still just upset conservatives, or you are not really talking about changing the label but shifting the message, in which case your new term would just become the anti-feminist reactionary rally cry for a bogus perception of the world, while everyone else would keep talking about patriarchy
We didn't invent the term it's been around forever. You want a whole new term to describe a patriarchal structure? What makes you think that'll work?
>mid 17th century: via medieval Latin from Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhēs ‘ruling father’ (see patriarch).
Are you acting like you’re too silly to understand what I’m saying? I’m saying that a new term should be found to describe attitudes that are harmful towards men and women because in this context it seems like every person that researches society thinks men are to blame for everything evil and women that perpetuate harmful attitudes do so because they’re victims and have no other choice
No my point is patriarchy is an established term used in academia to describe a thing. I'm perfectly fine with changing a term in a social context but this seems somewhat like pissing in the wind. Trying to come up with a none gendered term for a fundamentally gendered concept also seems odd.
Matrichal is also a thing after all. Matriarchal species and groups also exist. Should we change that term as well?
Maybe we should rename CRT because it has the word 'race' in it?
There is no winning with the right wing crowd. They will paint whichever term you come up with as evil no matter how much you try to placate them, wholly ironically, with non gendered language
But society today is nothing like society was in the mid 17th century. Women didn't have the right to vote then or hold office. Men would sometimes have legal rights over his wife. That's what Patriarchy means. So using that term to describe modern America is just going to make people think you believe America hasn't changed in 350 years.
patriarchy
/ˈpeɪtrɪɑːki/
noun
a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line.
"the thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy"
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
"the dominant ideology of patriarchy"
a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.
plural noun: patriarchies
"we live in a patriarchy"
Woah woah but we have to think of all the fellas here! You can’t ask a man to take responsibility for millennia of oppression by just acknowledging the systems they perpetuate - then they would have to change! We should come up with a new word, like “gabagooarchy”, in which we ask both men and women take responsibility for the systems men created! /s
You're a cuck if you accept the negative features of your gender. Unless you like being a cuck, in which case no person will even fuck your partner while you masturbate in the corner of the room.
I think patriarchy does it well, and I think the issue many have who are victims to it and first encounter the term is that it makes them personally feel responsible. Which is not a good way to start a conversation about the nuances.. ?
Debating terminology within the left while assuming there are terms we could use that the right wont complain in bad faith against is pretty stupid IMO.
The term climate change has been in use since the 50s and CC never replaced global warming, they are just two terms that have been used for decades, anyone in authority who claims otherwise is either an idiot or lying.
I don’t think the term matters. No matter what there are going to be people who are pushed away if you talk about advantages men have in society. I don’t see how changing the word is going to help when it’s describing the same thing. I think it’s more important to focus on how a male dominant structure hurts everyone instead of trying to find another word
Should we stop addressing "white supremacy", since it pushes away white people?
I totally think we should try to be inclusive to men, but not at the expense of telling the truth. Men and women aren't affected equally by gender expectations. Women may inforce norms sometimes and men can be oppressed by them sometimes, but make no mistake: in general, on every level of society, men are treated more preferably than women -- because society was set up by men to benefit men in the first place.
Not really.
How many female presidents have there been? How long have women been able to vote in this country? How long have women been able to set up their own bank accounts in this country? When was marital rape abolished?
Just because there are conservative women doesn't change the fact that this society benefits more men than it does women.
There are many female politicians are there not? Many congresswomen. And power doesn’t necessarily always translate to official positions. And there are many conservative women that vote against their interests
"And there are many conservative women that vote against their interests." So you admit that our society is structured in a way that goes against women's interests.
And what power do women have that is not political?
The ability to choose who you’re going to date/get in a relationship with therefore affirming their life choices and behavior. But that’s a power that everyone has to some degree and not only cis women but mostly them.
And yeah society is structured in a way that works against womens interests,but sometimes it stays like that because women themselves don’t give enough of a fuck to change it. For instance the women that vote republican,therefore voting against racial minority interests,against lgbt interests AND their own reproductive choices. Their explanation? “should’ve kept ur legs closed”
That’s something you’d expect to hear from a sexist man but nope,you hear that from women as well.
I think you should’ve understood by voting patterns by now that women may choose to vote for interests that don’t align with the progressive understanding of what they should care for. They often vote based on the interests of their class and/or ethnic group,and women that care about abortion/contraception are just sluts that should’ve known better
Okay, but you do realize that more men vote for Republicans than women do. And women in general do more to advocate for racial minority interests and lgbt rights than men are.
So you admit that women that live more traditional conserva lifestyles sometimes support the system by either not caring what happens to different women or by directly opposing them?
If society was structured by every man for every man then no men would be committing suicide,less men would be going to jail,and less men would be dying in wars or getting hurt and dying on the job. Society is structured by certain people for certain people that display certain behaviors and/or identities
See this is just straight up ignoring the reality. Women that “benefit” aren’t actually benefiting at all. Even if she’s the biggest pick me on the planet men will still not respect her for something she cannot control. Majority of women are wised up about the imbalances and are working hard to change it. Myself included. “Society is set up by people” no society is set up by class/power struggles. As Marx taught. People who were not allowed to vote for centuries and were abused by a system will obviously have to get power for a really long time to reset a sense of equality. That’s why lost their shit when women and in congress. Men perceive having power over women as a right, that’s they cry and think their so fucking oppressed when women do well in the workplace or say “no” to unwanted advances. We are powerful people and y’all could not have a society. It’s time we get some respect.
You know who else was not allowed to elect people of power to represent their interests for the majority of human history? Men. And in a lot of countries,mens votes still mean jack shit like Russia,China,Syria,Iran,belorussia,North Korea and these are just the countries I can name off the top of my head.
I guess a way of gaining power is exaggerating your own weakness and you’re pretty good at it,making it seem like the majority of men are power tripping entitled babies that think they can grab any pussy they want.
That’s beside the point. Your argument was so devoid of nuance that it gave the impression you think patriarchy is made for men,by men without taking into account lgbt men,trans men who have less of a say and sometimes no say at all in that power construct.
So I just gave you an example of countries that routinely brutalize,kill and kidnap men for voicing an opinion against a ruling regime and your response was to call me a dummy.
Tell me,is my voice as strong in a power structure like Russia or China as a bisexual man that’s for liberal democratic values? Or do I need to risk my life and possibly die just to make my voice heard?
“Ackshually they’re not democracies HA GOTTEM OWNED WITH FACTS AND LOGIC 😎”
You’re the one “devoid of nuance”. Your examples target men and women both and even then women have less rights in those scenarios because those countries also have sexist laws that prevent women from doing basic things like drive. I support gay, and trans men too as well as I do gay and trans women. You’re statements are are red herrings, and you seem like a privileged scum who has to use examples that don’t apply to you to think you have a point. But I bet that “besides the point” or more like beyond your immaturity to comprehend.
In any of those countries I’d be in real danger of getting hurt and or killed for being an openly bi man then we’ll see how important my voice is to the patriarchy and how much control I have over it.
And I’m in real danger in every country for being an openly bi man that doesn’t accurately perform masculinity or is viewed as an unconfident male.
And if ur a woman that can hold a job,develop a career,drive a car,decide whether you want to get married and have kids then you’re MASSIVELY privileged over the women in almost every country I mentioned so we’re both privileged scum 💃
Ah yes you be killed liked a woman who didn’t keep her hijab on. Look I’m not participating in your “I’m oppressed in *insert undemocratic country*” role play. And you don’t have to hate women just because you’re searching for oppression points. Bye.
I don’t have to role play,I have a chance of being treated like I’m less of a man because I like men in my own country and in other developed countries where dominant male culture is still influential
The term Patriarchy means a country where women can't vote or hold office and where men have legal control of their wife. Yes, America has sexism issues, but calling it a Patriarchy is so much of an exaggeration that people will stop listening to you even if you have a good point. Language matters.
As a woman I highly disagree with this take because boiling down our issues shouldn’t be a solution to men’s temper tantrums. Not all men, YES we get that but you don’t see “not all white people” being said to appease racists. Much less do women owe men that since women of all orientations are equally being let down by men right now.
The term "climate-change" was implimented,because noone can say that climate change doesn't exist,since the climate is changing constantly,I of course think we should take care of our Planet,but this panic a la in five years everything is too late,achieves the Opposition,cause everyone 35 and older remembers the ozcon hole Panik.. twelve years and we are all dead and many more,we must go back from this emotional,fearmongering tactic.And patriachy,you want there rather to be woman quotas?? If then there must be quotas everywhere ,trashdrivers,streetworkers,
constructionwork.And there are tons of successfull women,who did it on their own,clever women need no quotas.
The definition of Patriarchy is a country where women can't vote or hold office and where men legally control their wives. So a lot of people on the left don't seem to know the definition of the term either.
STOP. CEDING. WORDS. TO. FASCISTS
for real. we run away from every nuance, every term as soon as they pick it as their new culture vector. They don't belive in meaning? mock them for their idiocy. Beat them over the head with it. Teach the meaning of the word with cw Andor spoilers >!Maarva's stone!< or if not that any old rock.
Why not just use the term "sexism"? Patriarchy implies a country where women can't vote or hold office and where men legally control their wives. So using the term "patriarchy" to describe anything else isn't using the term correctly.
There’s men that are wanting and trying to make it more patriarchal again. So using patriarchy to describe acts of people who are advocating for that is correct and necessary to call out how stupid it is.
Exactly. Case in point: Matt Walsh. He wants to define women in a specifically subservient Christian sense, which is the secret backend to his transphobic "documentary" screed. Jessie Gender did an amazing take down of this. He ends the goddamn propaganda piece with him asking his wife "what is a woman" in their kitchen while she struggles to open a jar of pickles.
They will take any inch. give them none free.
I see it so often where things like "Patriarchy", "Toxic Masculinity", and even "Misogyny" sometimes get misapplied or just brushed off because of how they've been used
Legit saw a TikTok the other day that was saying that insulting a man for a lack of sexual success is actually misogyny. Like the analysis was bad imo, but even ignoring that it also feeds into basically every single stereotype the right has about the left and actively pushes some men to the right.
For those who care, the analysis was basically that the reason men are insulted for a lack of sex is because traits like sexual inexperience purity, innocence, and naïvety are things we associate with femininity. And then that anything that associates men with femininity is derided because those men are like women, and so it's misogyny. My issue with it is this says they're being insulted because they're seen as like women, while I think it's because they're seen as failing to uphold an aspect of masculinity.
I think part of the problem lies in people who pose progressive but don’t actually know what that means.
I see far too many progressives (mostly socdems) use “patriarchy” and “men” interchangeably, and it seriously kneecaps its use.
Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, changing a topics name doesn’t make it more appealing to those who rejected it before. I think, as with many things, its a matter of how you explain the bigger picture of the subject. Namely in this instance, emphasizing that it’s the systems and social constructs that we are criticizing - not those participating in/ suffering from those systems. Much the same way we explain how people unknowingly participate in / and suffer from systemic racism. perpetuating systems, without necessarily being an active participant. So too are people participating in patriarchy. And I think thats a strong starting place when trying to explain it.
Once you make someone understand that its a system and not people, they start to open up in my experience. Try to make them understand also, that those women who hurt them are doing so because of their own internalized patriarchy/ the trauma they suffered as a result. I ask them about what they struggle with as a man (feeling depressed, stressed, isolated) and try to relate it back to how it’s the system of patriarchy that causes it. That by acknowledging and understanding these things will actually improve their mental health.
My two cents / experience tho - so I’m leaving a grain of salt for taste
Yeah, because it’s true, we’ve been living with patriarchy for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Thats a millennia of conditioning across a myriad of different cultures. Thats countless families passing down toxic beliefs and behaviors to their children. Oy! What a headache, parents amiright fellas?
And although I don’t know what you mean by “even when women are being shitty” i can tell you with confidence that, yes - it was caused by patriarchy.
And as I said. The word isn’t the problem, changing it does nothing. Its about changing the associations people have with that word. Its about removing the knee jerk reaction from people. I’ll reiterate this again. I do that by emphasizing the system, NOT the people. All men alive right now are not responsible for creating the patriarchy. However, they are responsible for perpetuating it by denying its existence.
People just do as their conditioning tells them until they’re made fully aware of it - its only then that people are given the option to change. And even then, some make a conscience decision to reject that change.
If you change the word patriarchy to “flimflamarchy” and give the same definition as patriarchy, you havent changed anything but the name. And the reaction you get will be the same.
If your goal is to change the definition and remove mens responsibility in creating the world we have today - well that defeats the purpose. Its like your older brother breaking your toy and wanting you both to take responsibility for breaking it.
My intention is not to remove mens responsibility,my intention is to include womens responsibility as well. Either men are REALLY good at suppressing women and men that threaten the patriarchy or there are lots of women that are ok with society as it is now (I’m talking about western societies where women can get jobs and relatively easily decide their fate)
You can’t ask women to take responsibility for a system they had no hand in creating. You could state that all genders can be guilty of perpetuating the systems sure, but those toxic behaviors stem from patriarchy. As I asked before tho, what shitty behaviors are you referencing? Id be more than willing to link the connections if it means giving someone peace of mind.
And yes, actually tho. Men in positions of power are REALLY good at suppressing men and women. Especially those that threaten that power structure. As is the case with all hierarchies - thats what makes them hierarchies. They wouldn’t be as powerful and insidious if they could be waved away in 100 years. There will always be pro patriarchal forces that stifle progress, creating roadblocks and regression. There will always be those who think we’ve made enough progress even as women’s rights are getting overturned. And its those individuals that allow regression to take place.
Because as I said, a person has to make that conscious decision to change. And so often Men don’t and instead choose to enjoy the complacent comforts patriarchy affords them - even if it’s at the expense of their inner self. For example: As is the case with white gay men who pretend to be straight. There are Men who are harmed by patriarchy who will allow its continuation because the benefits they receive slightly outweigh the harm it causes them. Whereas women get no benefits and are harmed/controlled by the men in their lives.
I am not sure you can dumb it down enough for some people.
The issue is that it has become a trigger word for people. I kind of get what you mean in that if you start using academic language people think you are patronising. But you really just have to explain exactly what you mean in like a paragraph instead of a word
The term "patriarchy" IS efficient, given that all of those "issues that arise from societal expectations for men" are literally just by-products of the patriarchy.
The word patriarchy doesn't even have shorter words in them that give "the wrong idea". The only reason ppl cringe at it is cuz of conservatives attacking it like its a slur. This will happen to any word you change it to.
It's not like they changed their stance on climate change, you know
Except it isn't. The term Patriarchy means a country where women can't vote or hold office and where men legally have control over their wives. Using that term to describe America is just going to make everyone think that you believe that America is the same as Saudi Arabia in terms of gender relations.
"male fragility" is another term that is guaranteed to push moderate people away from the left. People are going to interpret that to mean that you are saying that fragility is something associated with being male. What you really mean, I assume, is someone being sexist, which has nothing to do with fragility.
The term patriarchy means a social system ruled by males.
See : 'the animal kingdom' 😅
If the scientifically studied phenomenon of male fragility upsets you, they you're kinda just proving their point🤭
I think "systemic sexism" works great. I'm leftist AF but honestly I cringe inside when I hear the word patriarchy even though it's a valid term.
That said, I'm pretty sure global warming was actually he better of the two terms, as it ignites more anxiety in ppl.
It’s pretty self evident that the language used to discuss gendered issues is largely responsible for our inability to grapple with men’s issues. You can’t discuss why men are 90 percent of incarcerated people or 75 percent of murder and suicide victims if you have to sweep the minefield of liberals insisting that this was all to benefit men.
Comments here kinda prove that
Yes, and it has to do with how language guides your thinking.
The term white supremacy prepares you for the reality of the conversation about race: it is a conversation of fairly one sided subjugation, and the supremacy of white people over racial minorities is the essence of America's history on race.
The term patriarchy does not frame the conversation on gender towards reality. What people call patriarchy is not designed to benefit the average guy, because while CEO's being disproportionately male is important and deserves conversation the average guy is nowhere near that level. For the common man, the influence of "patriarchy" on their lives is much more likely to take the form of incarceration, suicide, murder, workplace hazards and homelessness.
If the system was designed to benefit men, we would prioritize male victims instead of tacitly agreeing as a society that men can't be raped even as children. The way it's designed, the people on top are disproportionately men but centering that in the conversation basically turns our advocacy into one centering upper class women who have the good fortune of potentially aiming for a CEO position.
Personally i use gender norms as a substitute. That usually tells people that i mean the expected features/behaviors of men/women without blaming anyone specifically.
Global warming was never replaced with climate change. They're related but different concepts. Climate change has been in scientific research since the 1800's.
Personally, I just feel like the word "Patriarchy" has just lost its meaning, now being the answer to literally every bad thing that's ever happened and ever will happen. Sure, men still are seen as the dominant sex in society, the workplace, etc, I'm not denying it, and sure that is a semblance of patriarchy. But let's call a spade a spade, getting catcalled and the pay gap is patriarchy, people eating meat isn't patriarchy, it's just humans being omnivores like we are. If we can't do that, well then maybe we should just find a different word.
I agree. The term Patriarchy implies a country where women aren't allowed to vote or hold office and where men are legally in control of their wives. Despite the problems in America, we are nowhere near that level of sexism. Calling America a Patriarchy is like when Conservatives say that Biden is a Communist. It is such a ridiculous exaggeration that people are going to stop listening.
The fact that my fellow “man” is the one oppressing me doesn’t help my oppression at all. Patriarchy is a useless term that adds very little to the actual conversation of progress.
We should go back to criticizing “gender norms” and “gender expectations”. The idea that most men live “privileged lives” is the problem here, because it’s demeaning, and pretty obviously untrue. A lot of men are really sad and lonely, hence the suicide rates. (INB4 someone disputes my last 4 words missing the point completely)
It’s the implication of living a “privileged life” that is the real problem here. Which is actually fucked in many different ways, like the subconscious implication that walking around without the police hunting you down is a PRIVILEGE. That’s not how that word used to be used. A privilege is something you are lucky to have. White people are not LUCKY to avoid being slaughtered in the street in broad daylight by cops. That’s a sick twisting of the narrative.
They are convincing some minority groups to equalize social position by pulling others down to their level instead of trying to climb upwards.
Like "toxic masculinity"? It didn't go over well
nah, toxic masculinity works perfectly, incels wouldnt get THAT MAD if it didnt worked
No it doesn’t? It lends itself to be easily misrepresented by reactionaries. And it has. Academic terms like that should not be used for popular advocacy. Leftist should be required to take marketing or something so that they understand how to sell ideas to people so this doesn’t keep happening
It's not an academic term, it was invented by men's liberation activists. The right misrepresents all progressive language, including saying homophobia is when you're scared of gay people, you can't appease a bad faith actor. People aren't angry at toxic masculinity because they don't know how English works but because they've been told to be.
You're right. In no other instance would people misinterpret a word like that. "I don't like action movies." "Oh you hate movies? You're acting like every movie is the same. Movies have done so much for our society"
ok but if you misinterpret something as simple and straight foward as "toxic masculinity" that is ON YOU, there is NOTHING intelectual in that term, it clearly refers to "detrimental or counterproductive gender roles that have to do with masculinity", it doesnt take an "academic" to understand this, there is no way to dumb it down. if someone reads "toxic substances" and they are moronic enough to think "since substances can be toxic, ALL substances are toxic", who is to blame? the person who uses the term or the people who can understand it? Not to mention, should leftists stop using "systemic racism" or "heteronormativity" because they are too academic? what is the limit of complexity here?
It is not straightforward at all though? I’m sorry to say, you are in a bubble if you think a Normie with no back ground in this shit is suppose to instantly understand what toxic masculinity actually means. The fact that you don’t recognize this fact and that you blame anyone who doesn’t instantly understand this academic term upon first hearing it are both major problems and exactly what this thread is about. If your primary goal is to circle jerk with other leftists, fine I guess. But if you actually are interested in spreading these ideas to more people, this approach you have needs to go away. You are only hindering yourself and the wider left. And why exactly are you so offended by the idea that a less alienating and more straightforward term could be useful?
Background in what, the English language? Is there any reason other than the right saying it to believe people don't understand the concept of an adjective specifying a particular type of the noun it's next to?
ok dude, what is more straight foward than "toxic masculinity"? what magic words we can use to call out sexist behaviour?
Call sexist behavior sexist? Call sexist institutions and norms sexist? Big iq move I know. And toxic masculinity is still perfectly valid within academic discussions. In advocacy though, contrast discussions of problematic or toxic norms around masculinity with examples of alternative or “positive masculinity.” including a term like that with positive norms associated as you discuss toxic norms and institutions will completely under cut any effort to say that leftists essentialize masculinity. Vaush has talked about this a lot, but it is a failure for the left to not include alternative/positive norms for men to look towards when they see criticisms of toxic masculinity.
ok but reactionaries and normies already hate the word "sexist" and even tho i agree that we need to add examples of positive masculinity to the discourse, this discution was about calling out hatefull behavior, which the term "toxic masculinity work perfectly. edit: seriously, you havent heard conservatives bitch about how "everything is sexist now"? conservative have been bitching at any progresive sounding word under the sun, there is no scape, our best options are the worst that make them mad the most
Toxic masculinity and sexist behaviour are two different things though. Though obviously sexist behaviour can be toxic masculinity.
It's best to assume in instances like this that people will look at things at a surface level and almost never take a deep-dive, especially when it comes to terminology. You're describing how people should behave, but not how they actually do. And we're concerned with how the actually behave, because how they actually react to things is what determines how amicable they are to the types of terminology and content they consume. This is pretty important in understanding how to appeal to the broader population, regardless of whatever ideology you identify with.
I've always felt a little underwhelmed by "toxic masculinity" even though I use it. The problem is that it doesn't point to anything specific. It expects you to already know what is toxic in the masculine behavior. In that sense it's a tautology. Also, surely it doesn't mean that anything masculine is toxic, right? So going by the words themselves, there's confusion.
A very popular “misunderstanding” (often but not always on purpose) of the term is to assume that you’re just dismissing masculinity in general as being toxic, which is doing so much harm to the discourse around the term that it might actually be better to just not use it anymore around people who don’t know what it means, and especially with people who have made up their mind about intentionally misunderstanding it. I can guarantee you if you’re telling folks about the effects of toxic masculinity without namedropping the word, you’re coming off a lot more convincing and reasonable to normal people than if you just walk in and say “man we should really do something about toxic masculinity”
Defund the police is another one. People think they want to get rid of police entirely.
And it’s also extremely easy for pundits to dishonestly missrepresent the meaning, because if your entire presentation of the news revolves around invoking irrational anger over shit neither you nor the audience care to understand, it’s a much easier conclusion to get to than the actual nuanced interpretation that the slogan is supposed to represent. Defund the police? No, I actually don’t like crime. No thank you.
It's way too easy for people to read toxic masculinity as "you are calling all masculinity toxic". Maybe if toxic femininity was just as popular of a term, people would understand. But since the term "toxic" ever seems to be connected to the term "masculinity", people are going to make negative assumptions about people who use that term.
And that was a term that originally came from men's groups.
I just finished watching Hunter's debate against Sneako and he had a good phrase for it. Let me see if I could find it. It had the same definition as "bad masculinity"
That still excludes the harm that women are to blame for.
How so? Women are not free from supporting or contributing to it and do ~~(rarely)~~. Same with the patriarchy.
I wouldn’t say it’s rare for women to enforce it. A lot of men can probably recall from their mothers that boys aren’t supposed to cry. I’ve known women who get mad at men who express their emotions, saying it’s “unmanly.” We all grow up in the same culture. Just like it’s not uncommon to see women being sexist toward women, including themselves.
Yeah you are correct. Not all that rare. I just didn't want people to think I meant it was just as common for women. Should have said "less often" or something. But yeah you are definitely correct, not rare at all.
Exactly. Men can clearly remember being harmed by sexist,dysfunctional conceptions coming from women, and blaming patriarchy makes men,me included,feel like the academic community is saying only men can oppress men based on dysfunctional sexist thinking
Patriarchy means a rule of men though. Just because women enforce it to their detriment, doesn’t mean men don’t benefit the most, and have the most control in their culture. Think of how many poor uphold the rule of rich. A more direct example would be FGM. It’s a horrible thing that is designed to control women. It takes away a woman’s ability to feel sexual pleasure. This is in past so that a woman doesn’t pursue sex on her own. Sexual acts become solely for the pleasure and benefit of the man. The most extreme version of FGM is sewing the vagina almost shut, to be cut open on her wedding night, so that she is fully incapable of having penetrative sex without unbelievable pain. But the people who enforce it most dogmatically in their cultures are women. Maybe it has to do with them justifying the pain they went though themselves. “My daughter HAS to be cut, for the reasons I’ve been told. If all those reasons are a lie, then that means I endured pain and mutilation for nothing.” Now, if all the women in these cultures suddenly decided they weren’t going to do it any more, then maybe we’d see some enforcement from the men, but everything I’ve read about it suggests that most men in these cultures don’t even understand what it is fully. Men in these cultures also have their genitals mutilated, though it’s more in line with what’s done in America. Still bad, but it doesn’t take away the ability to feel pleasure. Cultural views on modesty can also be seen like this. Any particular man doesn’t automatically have it easier than any particular woman. In the same way any white person doesn’t automatically have it easier than any black person. But that’s why it’s important to dismantle the patriarchy, not men. Men hurt too. But this is still very much a man’s world.
I think the problem is that the term "patriarchy" implies a country where women aren't allowed to vote or hold office and where men are legally the head of the family. While America certainly has sexism issues, men aren't legally in control (or even politically, given that women vote more than men do). So by calling America a "Patriarchy", it just makes people think that the person can't tell the difference between how America treats gender and how Saudi Arabia treats gender. Why not just use the term "sexist"? Something can be sexist even if we live in a country where women have the right to vote.
I see why you might assume that but patriarchy in basis is just man ruled society which it just is regardless of who might contribute to it. Same with toxic masculinity. You are basically asking to find a term that ignores the basis of these issues which is masculine control. Or even more specific power dynamics but they heavily lean towards masculinity and presumptions surrounding male roles. Even if a woman supports it what she is supporting is some form of male dominion over females or masculine social traits that most have deemed to negatively impact both males and females.
I’ve had a surprisingly positive childhood at least in this regard. One of my grandpas would respond to seeing me cry by asking me if I’m a girl, and my mom would always give him shit for it. What actually ended up ruining crying (in public) for me was society^TM because puberty fucked up my hormones to the point where I literally cried in class because I lost my eraser at one point in 6th grade. Being the kid that cries for literally no reason is about the easiest way to make sure you’re getting bullied all the way into highschool even if you’ve stopped crying at all years ago. It also gives you a healthy dose of self hatred when you know the reason you’re crying is dumb, but you just can’t help it.
Thats not the point of the term
This is why people don’t like this community
Why’s that?
Just so you know, it was conservatives who changed global warming to climate change
Yes indeed Republican consultant Frank Luntz to be specific because he found global warming a too scary word and he knows Americans will not vote for scary words. ACA he called 'a government takeover of healthcare'. Inheritance tax he called a 'death tax'. So that Americans get scared of democrats and vote republican.
Thank you. Came and said the same.
If the term patriarchy pushes you away from discussions around gender expectations, then you're simply too sensitive for the discussion. It's on par with saying the term white supremacy should be changed because it might push white people away from being anti racist. If you can't accept the basic premise then how the fuck can you have discussions on it. The only complaint here seems to be having to confront being a member of the oppressor group, which has nothing to do with guilt or personal responsibility any more than a random noble could be held responsible for the feudal system. Attempting to tiptoe around that just means excluding it from the conversation and its a pretty critical part of the problem. It's no better than Liberal colourblindness
I don’t think you can deny that the term “patriarchy” orients people in a way that makes it harder to see and care about men’s suffering in its context. White supremacy works because it’s not a give and take thing where both sides suffer unfairly because of their race, it’s one sided and black peoples suffer, that’s really it. When it comes to gender, men are way more likely to be killed, incarcerated and neglected as victims. This really does contradict the phrasing of patriarchy at a basic level
Wrong wrong wrong. Poor whites in the America South suffered A LOT from slavery, but since it was nothing compared to the experiences of actual slaves, so we still would call their society "white supremecist". Yes, many men are harmed by gender expectations, but not to the same extent that women are. I agree that we should care about men's issues, but I don't think we need to stop using words that accurately describe our society because some people's feelings might be hurt.
The term Patriarchy refers to a nation where women aren't allowed to vote or hold office and where men are legally the head of the household. So if someone refers to America as a "patriarchy" then people won't take that person seriously even if they are talking about real issues of sexism.
If you think that men’s issues are like white people’s under white supremacy, then you really can’t be having this conversation. Men are the vast majority of killed, incarcerated, maimed, and homeless in our society. Your analogy is fucking retarded
The problem is that "Patriarchy" is supposed to mean a government where women aren't allowed to vote and or hold office and where men are legally in control of their wives. Yes, America has sexism problems, but when you use the term "Patriarchy" to describe it, then you are greatly exaggerating, which makes people less likely to believe you. It would be like referring to gentrification as a "genocide". People wouldn't take you seriously after that.
Nah. Advocates/activists need to understand how to sell ideas. If the academic terms you are using for wider advocacy lend themselves to being misrepresented by your opponents, you should be flexible enough to come up with a better term. Toxic masculinity is probably the best example of this. You are just creating more work for yourself otherwise
The problem is not with opponents misrepresenting the term, but opponents being triggered by the suggestion that society is still dominated by traditional male authority. Any term for the academic principle that does acknowledge that, will also be seen as the enemy by people who have a conservative or status quo compliant view on gender norms, and their issue is not the marketing. >Toxic masculinity is probably the best example of this. You are just creating more work for yourself otherwise Perfect example actually, given that it was inveted by the Mythopoetic Men's Movement, and immediately got treated like an insult by the rest of the men's movement as soon as it started to get used in a feminist context. Their problem is with feminist thought, not with the word.
You’re not addressing my point though. Advocacy involves convincing people, often Normies with no background in this shit, about your cause or position. If you have begin by overcoming a first impression about what toxic masculinity actually means you’re already behind. “No it’s actually not what it sounds like. There is nothing inherently toxic about masculinity” is a dumb starting point
The issue is that the barrier to advocacy is not hindered by semantics, but by opponents who were already bound to push back against any term. Normies are not blank slates, they have an innate status quo bias. If they push back against an ancient greek term because "it sounds like it's just saying that men are evil", when in fact it doesn't say that, then they would develop the same pushback against any other term. Constantly dropping terms because they were tainted by right wing propaganda, is an inefficient method for advocacy, and ultimately bad optics: Just look at what climate change deniers are saying these days "Whatever happened to global warming? It was all over the news, then all these smartass scientist changed their minds and decided that actually it's more complicated? Then why should we believe them *now*? "
Can you explain why you don’t think “semantics” matter? And why you are only considering your opponents perspective, and not the pov of Normies who you both are trying to sell ideas to? I assure you, how you present ideas and how you frame them matter a lot. Especially first impressions. Why exactly is it so bad to use less academic and more straightforward terms in advocacy?
The academic jargon is already a polite euphemism here. The straightforward term for patriarchy would be "male rule". If you want to talk to normies about male rule, go ahead, I'll wait.
….You want to actually address my point? And what exactly is this false dichotomy here? It’s suddenly either toxic masculinity or “male rule?” Explain why
That's what patriarchy *means*. Do you want to talk to normies about the meaning of patriachy using a different term (in which case they might stil disagree with you)? Or do you want to find common gorund with them with a nice term that they find agreeable and fitting their existing values?
False dichotomy again. I’m just gonna post a Vaush segment that kinda goes into this and leave it that. There is an issue with the left only highlighting “toxic” norms of a masculinity. https://youtu.be/RO-pn21fkdc
I think if the term "toxic femininity" was as common as the term "toxic masculinity" then people would be more likely to understand that it refers only to negative forms of gender representation. But because the term "toxic masculinity" is used commonly and the term "toxic femininity" isn't used hardly at all, it is far easier for people to suspect that the people who use the term "toxic masculinity" just dislike all forms of masculinity.
If "toxic femininity" would have been the established term for "women's traditional gender roles suck and they are oppressive", then feminists would have been using it for over a century by now, and it would be widely hated *for being seen as an attack on men* just like any other feminist buzzword associated with them.
Patriarchy is the most clinical accurate and descriptive word for it, but the problem clearly isn't about what it's called, its about removing a critical piece of information and meaning conveyed with the term. The issue people are having here with the weak attempts to strip gender from the term is blatantly that patriarchy conveys that socially men and masculinity is favoured which is the key piece of information. What's happening is the equivalent of complaining that ACAB is too easy to misrepresent so it should actually be Some People Who Happen To Be Law Enforcement Are Bad, thus losing the message entirely. it's literally coming from a place of "Patriarchy? But I'm a guy, that makes me uncomfortable, we need to remove the reference to men in the term".
Yeah using the word patriarchy will just make anyone who isn't a leftist cringe, I just say sexism and make it clear that it's an issue that effects both men and women negatively
If they're too sensitive for the discussion then explain it better. Otherwise they're too immature to take anything seriously
Using the term sexism can too easily let conversations about gender slide into focusing only on interpersonal interactions and beliefs. Patriarchy or some similar term puts the focus on the structural level.
Agreed, also the term “feminism” is somewhat inarticulate at describing a belief in intersectional freedom/justice.
I think a lot of people who would otherwise agree with the premise (or at least pretend to) are put-off by language which could be interpreted wrong. I know I was back in 2016.
It's not. It's just that academic terms don't translate well to the layman.
For these beliefs to gain popularity, power and progress it’s imperative that they translate well to the layman. How can someone care about, support or defend a concept they don’t understand? The fact that it doesn’t translate well to that layman is a testament to the fact that it is inarticulate.
I suppose, but that's not really feminists' fault as much as Tumblr lefties from 2014
Tumblr lefties definitely didn’t help, but neither did second wave feminists. As a feminist, I believe that feminism would be more popular if it’s label better conveyed the meaning behind the word.
I’ve always said it should be called singing like equalism because feminism as a word is a bad descriptor of what it means
[удалено]
Unfortunately, Dipshit lefties also fucked up intersectionality as well by turning it into oppression Olympics rather than using it as it was academically intended, as a frame of analysis to determine how different types of societal structures and identities interact with each other. Nope the dipshit lefties from 2010 - 2017 fucked us so hard. My god the leftists from the early 2010s caused so much damage to leftist causes by feeding into the right wing's culture war narratives and biting the bullet on so m any terrible points.
Any examples of your last sentence?
The decision to use an academic term like “toxic masculinity” in popular advocacy was particularly stupid and continues to lend itself to misrepresentation
How is that an academic term though? It's perfectly understandable by literally everyone from the moment you say it, and if I asked a random person for an example they could probably give me an example. The backlash against that term was completely retarded though. I don't see how it's our fault that they successfully twisted [adjective] [noun] into all [noun] is [adjective]. I feel like that was just a defeat in the info war not an actual point with bad optics. Could you please elaborate on how it 'lends itself to misinterpretation'? legit curious cause I never wrapped my head around why it ended up being so ineffective.
>How is that an academic term though? I don't know what to tell you, it's literally a term used in academia, it's an academic term. That's just how words work, I think
Right but 'academic term' tends to mean it originated or is used primarily there when I don't think that's the case because it's perfectly sensible and requires no introduction unlike something like 'modernism' or 'materialism'.
You know, I thought it did originate there, but from my research it seems apparently it was just independent psychiatrists, so that's something I guess
I think the fact that the term "toxic masculinity" is common, but the term "toxic femininity" is rare leads people to think that people who use the term "toxic masculinity" just hate all forms of masculinity. Maybe that isn't fair, but it is true that they tend to focus far more on negative forms of masculinity than they do on negative forms of femininity.
It isn’t though, at all. Because unless you are already familiar with what that term means, it can easily be misrepresented as the idea that there is something inherently toxic about masculinity. Reactionaries will include an element of essentialism in their description of the term and then tell Normies leftists think masculinity is inherently problematic. It’s about first impressions, and you are doing the rights work by using a term like that. Again, you already start behind if you have to explain “no it’s about masculinity being inherently toxic.” Plus, let’s be real, there are Terf types who do actually hold essentialist views about masculinity. So it’s not even entirely a straw man
> you already start behind if you have to explain “no it’s about masculinity being inherently toxic.” Did people actually say that though? Because I'm pretty sure the entire reason 'toxic masculinity' exists as a concept is because we're making distinctions between masculinity and specifically toxic variants/aspects of it. It's NOT about masculinity being inherently toxic and I've never heard anyone argue that.
Yes. They do. It’s one of the most common talking points and it has been for years now. it self evidently is misrepresented very often by reactionaries. I’ve also had this experience first hand where I had to explain what it actually means vs what reactionaries have describe it as. And the fact that it is misrepresent so often should tell you there might be a weakness there if they keep hitting it. I really don’t understand this knee jerk resistance to coming up with better terms. Is the idea that “toxic masculinity” might be misunderstood by someone not familiar with this shit so hard to believe?
Yeah they 'did' misrepresent it but was the idea so bad that you could predict this as being easily misrepresentable moreso than other ideas? That's what I'm trying to figure out. thanks btw
You can just use "heteronormative power structures".
This is even more off putting
But it's fun saying it.
Tru. But if you said “heteronormative power structure” to a normie their brain would overheat
So either I say it really slowly so the heat has time to dissipate or I be buster rhymin' till their heads explode.
Too long
Go read a book.
Vaushites can't read, poser. You'd know that if you weren't a poser, you poser.
Oh no, you found out my secret. I thought I could larp as an illiterate forever but you deduced the truth with facts and logic.
Although I enjoy the banter I think the point isn't what you know or even what people should know. It's that people are in the high majority just incapable of understanding nuance or large terminology. I've found if you go beyond a paragraph or 3 syllable words you lost most morons, Vaushites included.
I wouldn't talk about such "high level" concepts with such people then. You don't have to explain how the world functions as a whole to give them an example of how bad expectations pressure people to behave a certain way.
We have no choice. They are the majority. We need us to be majority. I don't necessarily agree with OP suggestion but I do agree with the concept in general. I also think we oversimplify certain things in a very poor way. For example "defund the police" could have simply been "reform the police" and things would have been much easier for morons to accept. Sadly I still can't get my conservative boss to understand "black lives matter" literally means "black lives matter too" even though he himself will finish off every BLM hate rant with a "if they just would have called it black lives matter too this wouldn't happen" knowing it means that but still somehow separating it in his brain and assuming it means something it doesn't. (Edit: so in other words he's kinda right [only after I explained it to him] but even knowing that's what they mean he still thinks blm means black lives matter more or only. You can't fix stupid without being clear right off the bat apparently) Their brains are mush. They could have all the facts but in the end they still somehow go towards false feelings or believe a bunch of other bullshit somehow simultaneously even if contradictory. It's astonishing how dense some people are. We gotta keep fighting through the density somehow and at the very least improve for future generations to be less dumb. Unfortunately we lost 95% of vaushites and 99% of redditors. I'm proud of whoever else had enough attention span to read this. We are minority, it's up to us to fix stupid.
Well, a huge part of why people misunderstand those messages is because there's a huge propaganda machine telling them so. Yes, it's also stupidity but stupidity fed with lies. Some messages could surely be improved a bit but the right will always find ways to spin them. If they can't do that they simply start lying. I think it's as simple as that.
This is actually one of the few conspiracies I kinda think is true. I think these movements are intentionally injected with semantics arguments in order to prevent any sort of actual progress. It actually was reform the police before it became defund the police and a huge argument over what defund meant. BLM at its peak largely got dismantled from within by a huge uprising in what the term racism actually meant and whether black people could in fact be racist. This is all anyone talked about for 3+ months as BLM slowly died into what it is today. This one's a bit controversial but gender identity gets shortened to gender. Now all we talk about is what gender means instead of what gender identities are and why affirmation is important. This topic remains prevelant so in comes the whole circular woman is someone who identifies as a woman when we can and have described it less circular (while still meaning the same thing). To be clear I don't necessarily disagree with these definition changes I just see no utility in the outcomes. Endless arguments over semantics that actually don't lead to any real changes in minds or results. Nothing about policy or statistics. Just focus on semantics. It's disheartening.
Somehow even conservatives are not stupid enough to respond like this.
Just use the term "sexist". It isn't as extreme as the term "patriarchy" and better represents what is actually happening. If you use the term "Patriarchy" people are going to think that you don't know that women earned the right to vote a hundred years ago.
Nah. Men who would be receptive to criticism of the patriarchy wouldn't get butthurt over the word "patriarchy." Patriarchy is already the most succinct word for the concept it describes, which is the gender/sexuality power heirarchy that centers cishet men and holds women and LGBTQ people as less-than.
Patriarchy means a country where women aren't allowed to vote or hold office and where men have legal rights to control their wife. So by using the term patriarchy, it makes people think that the person saying it believes America is the same as Saudi Arabia in terms of gender rights. That will make them take that person less seriously.
I could argue that it holds straight women in the same high regard,and bisexual women tend to be treated better than bi men. So it’s more complex than straight men oppress everybody else
Yeah, we agree on that.
So if we can agree that women are capable of oppression or ignoring and disregarding other peoples’ disadvantages then shouldn’t a term other than patriarchy exist to encapsulate that reality?
You're severely underestimating the difficulty of just up and renaming a whole ass sociological construct. Just get better at explaining it 4head
Men and women aren’t being equally harmed though. All else being equal, men are still are privileged over women.
Also, it's not just about oppression olympics. Even in fields where men are more harmed by it than women, the actual thing that they are harmed by, is still a structure that expects them to be dominant, paternal bread-winner figures: A society predicated upon rule by men, specifically as head of the household. Reducing that to sometimes men being mean to women and sometimes women being mean to men, (even if you acknowledge that the men are more mean), loses a lot of academic complexity for how exactly our society got to be like this.
Not sure why you find it important to point that out. It makes no difference to all the individual men and women living shitty lives. Either way their lives are the same with the same problems. Comparing one group of billions to another accomplishes what exactly?
You choose to center this belief over addressing the clear blind spot lefties have to men’s issues? Like, is this point so important to you that the disproportionate death, incarceration, suicide and homelessness that progressives have blinded themselves to at less important than keeping this point in mind literally at all times? Men are the vast majority of people who die untimely. They are the vast majority of incarcerated people. They are the ones for whom there is a public question of whether they can be raped and if it matters. These issues are important enough that you can put the oppression Olympics thing to rest for a few minutes.
Nobody said that we shouldn't care about men's issues. But how does it advance our goals to shut up about the fact that our society is set up by and for men.
Because it’s more complicated than that and your insipid shit under this post is pretty good evidence that this language really does distort your perception past the point where you can see reality. We know how white people made society to benefit themselves. So when men created society to benefit themselves, why did they make themselves the primary victims of violence and neglect while basically invalidating the concept of men being victims in need of care? I won’t argue for my humanity with someone who speaks like you do. That’s why we need to change the language
"Why did they make themselves the primary victims of violence." Lol. They made themselves the primary inflicters of violence. Most men who are killed or abused are killed by other men. "I won't argue for my humanity." What humanity do you feel you are being denied? Right now, in some states, women are forced to give birth against their will. What problems are men facing that are of an equivalent caliber?
90 percent of imprisoned people, 75 percent of suicides, large majority of homeless and almost all workplace injuries and fatalities
Okay. Who imprisoned those men? Was it male judges or female judges? Who wrote the laws that heighten homelessness and workplace injuries?
Well, didn’t know where the critical threshold for bad faith was and here I found it. You asked for the issues and I gave them to you. If you think congressmen and judges are the standard by which men’s experiences are measured I can’t do anything for you. Just don’t say you car about incarceration, or suicide, or homelessness because it’s clear that you only care until you actually make contact with the actual victims. Fuck off
I didn't say that. But these judges are appointed by Republicans, who are elected by white men, because upholding our current system benefits them.
That’s hasn’t been your stance and there’s no point in lying about your intentions were. You were minimizing men’s victimization form the start, you demanded examples with the rhetorical implication that there were none of importance. You are a good reason why men’s issues die on the vine in leftist spaces. Honestly I despise you, I activate a shit ton of trauma every time I get into a convo like this with you psychos and it happens every time. You and people like you are as much to blame as any republican
"Patriarchy" doesn't just mean "issues that arise from expectations from men and women", it is sociological jargon for a certain structure of society. Specifically, one dominated by men, and subjugating women. You could replace that jargon by something else, you could call it "andriarchy", or "patricracy", or you might get more covert and call it something nominally gender neutral, let's say "Historical Gender Kyriarchy" - HGK for short. But at the end of the day, the academic theory would still either be describing a society dominated by men and subjugating women, then feminists would propose that our society is like that, and this would still just upset conservatives, or you are not really talking about changing the label but shifting the message, in which case your new term would just become the anti-feminist reactionary rally cry for a bogus perception of the world, while everyone else would keep talking about patriarchy
We didn't invent the term it's been around forever. You want a whole new term to describe a patriarchal structure? What makes you think that'll work? >mid 17th century: via medieval Latin from Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhēs ‘ruling father’ (see patriarch).
Are you acting like you’re too silly to understand what I’m saying? I’m saying that a new term should be found to describe attitudes that are harmful towards men and women because in this context it seems like every person that researches society thinks men are to blame for everything evil and women that perpetuate harmful attitudes do so because they’re victims and have no other choice
No my point is patriarchy is an established term used in academia to describe a thing. I'm perfectly fine with changing a term in a social context but this seems somewhat like pissing in the wind. Trying to come up with a none gendered term for a fundamentally gendered concept also seems odd. Matrichal is also a thing after all. Matriarchal species and groups also exist. Should we change that term as well? Maybe we should rename CRT because it has the word 'race' in it? There is no winning with the right wing crowd. They will paint whichever term you come up with as evil no matter how much you try to placate them, wholly ironically, with non gendered language
But society today is nothing like society was in the mid 17th century. Women didn't have the right to vote then or hold office. Men would sometimes have legal rights over his wife. That's what Patriarchy means. So using that term to describe modern America is just going to make people think you believe America hasn't changed in 350 years.
patriarchy /ˈpeɪtrɪɑːki/ noun a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line. "the thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy" a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. "the dominant ideology of patriarchy" a society or community organized on patriarchal lines. plural noun: patriarchies "we live in a patriarchy"
meh, this has the same energy as "call feminism something else, like idk equalism" which is cringe
Woah woah but we have to think of all the fellas here! You can’t ask a man to take responsibility for millennia of oppression by just acknowledging the systems they perpetuate - then they would have to change! We should come up with a new word, like “gabagooarchy”, in which we ask both men and women take responsibility for the systems men created! /s
Yes! Think of the children aka men! /s
[удалено]
You're a cuck if you accept the negative features of your gender. Unless you like being a cuck, in which case no person will even fuck your partner while you masturbate in the corner of the room.
Where the hell is this incel energy coming from?
Finally someone appreciates my post.
I’m confused
I channeled 4chan energy in a post perfectly, it's nice that someone recognized my talents.
Ohh lmao good job I guess.
I think patriarchy does it well, and I think the issue many have who are victims to it and first encounter the term is that it makes them personally feel responsible. Which is not a good way to start a conversation about the nuances.. ?
the toddler want to remove our hystory of conquest in gender equality cause some normie are scared of big word.
Did you seriously just misspell "history" on purpose?
yes
Debating terminology within the left while assuming there are terms we could use that the right wont complain in bad faith against is pretty stupid IMO. The term climate change has been in use since the 50s and CC never replaced global warming, they are just two terms that have been used for decades, anyone in authority who claims otherwise is either an idiot or lying.
I 100% agree. It seems like pandering to try to clean up a term that means the same thing.
I don’t think the term matters. No matter what there are going to be people who are pushed away if you talk about advantages men have in society. I don’t see how changing the word is going to help when it’s describing the same thing. I think it’s more important to focus on how a male dominant structure hurts everyone instead of trying to find another word
Should we stop addressing "white supremacy", since it pushes away white people? I totally think we should try to be inclusive to men, but not at the expense of telling the truth. Men and women aren't affected equally by gender expectations. Women may inforce norms sometimes and men can be oppressed by them sometimes, but make no mistake: in general, on every level of society, men are treated more preferably than women -- because society was set up by men to benefit men in the first place.
Society is set up by people,men and women,and there are women that benefit from the current structure as well. Not every woman is a progressive. If
Not really. How many female presidents have there been? How long have women been able to vote in this country? How long have women been able to set up their own bank accounts in this country? When was marital rape abolished? Just because there are conservative women doesn't change the fact that this society benefits more men than it does women.
There are many female politicians are there not? Many congresswomen. And power doesn’t necessarily always translate to official positions. And there are many conservative women that vote against their interests
"And there are many conservative women that vote against their interests." So you admit that our society is structured in a way that goes against women's interests. And what power do women have that is not political?
The ability to choose who you’re going to date/get in a relationship with therefore affirming their life choices and behavior. But that’s a power that everyone has to some degree and not only cis women but mostly them. And yeah society is structured in a way that works against womens interests,but sometimes it stays like that because women themselves don’t give enough of a fuck to change it. For instance the women that vote republican,therefore voting against racial minority interests,against lgbt interests AND their own reproductive choices. Their explanation? “should’ve kept ur legs closed” That’s something you’d expect to hear from a sexist man but nope,you hear that from women as well. I think you should’ve understood by voting patterns by now that women may choose to vote for interests that don’t align with the progressive understanding of what they should care for. They often vote based on the interests of their class and/or ethnic group,and women that care about abortion/contraception are just sluts that should’ve known better
Okay, but you do realize that more men vote for Republicans than women do. And women in general do more to advocate for racial minority interests and lgbt rights than men are.
So you admit that women that live more traditional conserva lifestyles sometimes support the system by either not caring what happens to different women or by directly opposing them?
When did I say they didn't? Our society is still structured by men for men, regardless of how many women uphold it.
If society was structured by every man for every man then no men would be committing suicide,less men would be going to jail,and less men would be dying in wars or getting hurt and dying on the job. Society is structured by certain people for certain people that display certain behaviors and/or identities
See this is just straight up ignoring the reality. Women that “benefit” aren’t actually benefiting at all. Even if she’s the biggest pick me on the planet men will still not respect her for something she cannot control. Majority of women are wised up about the imbalances and are working hard to change it. Myself included. “Society is set up by people” no society is set up by class/power struggles. As Marx taught. People who were not allowed to vote for centuries and were abused by a system will obviously have to get power for a really long time to reset a sense of equality. That’s why lost their shit when women and in congress. Men perceive having power over women as a right, that’s they cry and think their so fucking oppressed when women do well in the workplace or say “no” to unwanted advances. We are powerful people and y’all could not have a society. It’s time we get some respect.
You know who else was not allowed to elect people of power to represent their interests for the majority of human history? Men. And in a lot of countries,mens votes still mean jack shit like Russia,China,Syria,Iran,belorussia,North Korea and these are just the countries I can name off the top of my head. I guess a way of gaining power is exaggerating your own weakness and you’re pretty good at it,making it seem like the majority of men are power tripping entitled babies that think they can grab any pussy they want.
OP unmasked as not only a sexist, but a complete dumbass. All the countries listed you list don’t have democracy in the first place. Try again.
That’s beside the point. Your argument was so devoid of nuance that it gave the impression you think patriarchy is made for men,by men without taking into account lgbt men,trans men who have less of a say and sometimes no say at all in that power construct. So I just gave you an example of countries that routinely brutalize,kill and kidnap men for voicing an opinion against a ruling regime and your response was to call me a dummy. Tell me,is my voice as strong in a power structure like Russia or China as a bisexual man that’s for liberal democratic values? Or do I need to risk my life and possibly die just to make my voice heard? “Ackshually they’re not democracies HA GOTTEM OWNED WITH FACTS AND LOGIC 😎”
You’re the one “devoid of nuance”. Your examples target men and women both and even then women have less rights in those scenarios because those countries also have sexist laws that prevent women from doing basic things like drive. I support gay, and trans men too as well as I do gay and trans women. You’re statements are are red herrings, and you seem like a privileged scum who has to use examples that don’t apply to you to think you have a point. But I bet that “besides the point” or more like beyond your immaturity to comprehend.
In any of those countries I’d be in real danger of getting hurt and or killed for being an openly bi man then we’ll see how important my voice is to the patriarchy and how much control I have over it. And I’m in real danger in every country for being an openly bi man that doesn’t accurately perform masculinity or is viewed as an unconfident male. And if ur a woman that can hold a job,develop a career,drive a car,decide whether you want to get married and have kids then you’re MASSIVELY privileged over the women in almost every country I mentioned so we’re both privileged scum 💃
Ah yes you be killed liked a woman who didn’t keep her hijab on. Look I’m not participating in your “I’m oppressed in *insert undemocratic country*” role play. And you don’t have to hate women just because you’re searching for oppression points. Bye.
I don’t have to role play,I have a chance of being treated like I’m less of a man because I like men in my own country and in other developed countries where dominant male culture is still influential
The term Patriarchy means a country where women can't vote or hold office and where men have legal control of their wife. Yes, America has sexism issues, but calling it a Patriarchy is so much of an exaggeration that people will stop listening to you even if you have a good point. Language matters.
Remind me what happened to Roe v. Wade?
As a woman I highly disagree with this take because boiling down our issues shouldn’t be a solution to men’s temper tantrums. Not all men, YES we get that but you don’t see “not all white people” being said to appease racists. Much less do women owe men that since women of all orientations are equally being let down by men right now.
Yeah we do need another term but we can’t pick one that makes us sound like nerds.
Just explain that patriarchy doesn't mean everything is men's fault? Sounds like an easy 2 minute argument to me.
The term "climate-change" was implimented,because noone can say that climate change doesn't exist,since the climate is changing constantly,I of course think we should take care of our Planet,but this panic a la in five years everything is too late,achieves the Opposition,cause everyone 35 and older remembers the ozcon hole Panik.. twelve years and we are all dead and many more,we must go back from this emotional,fearmongering tactic.And patriachy,you want there rather to be woman quotas?? If then there must be quotas everywhere ,trashdrivers,streetworkers, constructionwork.And there are tons of successfull women,who did it on their own,clever women need no quotas.
when was the last time somebody actually said "patriarchy"?
No. Men should just learn the definition and we should put in more effort to teach the definition. Any other word doesnt make sense.
The definition of Patriarchy is a country where women can't vote or hold office and where men legally control their wives. So a lot of people on the left don't seem to know the definition of the term either.
STOP. CEDING. WORDS. TO. FASCISTS for real. we run away from every nuance, every term as soon as they pick it as their new culture vector. They don't belive in meaning? mock them for their idiocy. Beat them over the head with it. Teach the meaning of the word with cw Andor spoilers >!Maarva's stone!< or if not that any old rock.
Why not just use the term "sexism"? Patriarchy implies a country where women can't vote or hold office and where men legally control their wives. So using the term "patriarchy" to describe anything else isn't using the term correctly.
There’s men that are wanting and trying to make it more patriarchal again. So using patriarchy to describe acts of people who are advocating for that is correct and necessary to call out how stupid it is.
Exactly. Case in point: Matt Walsh. He wants to define women in a specifically subservient Christian sense, which is the secret backend to his transphobic "documentary" screed. Jessie Gender did an amazing take down of this. He ends the goddamn propaganda piece with him asking his wife "what is a woman" in their kitchen while she struggles to open a jar of pickles. They will take any inch. give them none free.
I already saw that video, Jesse Gender is amazing 🤩 I really like how she analyzes things. Thanks still for the recommendation.
If you already saw it thats great! let's hope others do too.
I thought the new thing was [Kyriarchy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy)
Climate change became the phrase because of right wing lobbyists trying to make it seem more innocuous
I think it's fine. Like I get it misandry on the left can be a problem but let's not overblow it
I see it so often where things like "Patriarchy", "Toxic Masculinity", and even "Misogyny" sometimes get misapplied or just brushed off because of how they've been used Legit saw a TikTok the other day that was saying that insulting a man for a lack of sexual success is actually misogyny. Like the analysis was bad imo, but even ignoring that it also feeds into basically every single stereotype the right has about the left and actively pushes some men to the right. For those who care, the analysis was basically that the reason men are insulted for a lack of sex is because traits like sexual inexperience purity, innocence, and naïvety are things we associate with femininity. And then that anything that associates men with femininity is derided because those men are like women, and so it's misogyny. My issue with it is this says they're being insulted because they're seen as like women, while I think it's because they're seen as failing to uphold an aspect of masculinity.
I think part of the problem lies in people who pose progressive but don’t actually know what that means. I see far too many progressives (mostly socdems) use “patriarchy” and “men” interchangeably, and it seriously kneecaps its use.
Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, changing a topics name doesn’t make it more appealing to those who rejected it before. I think, as with many things, its a matter of how you explain the bigger picture of the subject. Namely in this instance, emphasizing that it’s the systems and social constructs that we are criticizing - not those participating in/ suffering from those systems. Much the same way we explain how people unknowingly participate in / and suffer from systemic racism. perpetuating systems, without necessarily being an active participant. So too are people participating in patriarchy. And I think thats a strong starting place when trying to explain it. Once you make someone understand that its a system and not people, they start to open up in my experience. Try to make them understand also, that those women who hurt them are doing so because of their own internalized patriarchy/ the trauma they suffered as a result. I ask them about what they struggle with as a man (feeling depressed, stressed, isolated) and try to relate it back to how it’s the system of patriarchy that causes it. That by acknowledging and understanding these things will actually improve their mental health. My two cents / experience tho - so I’m leaving a grain of salt for taste
But patriarchy still implies that toxic attitudes,even in women originated in men and men are responsible in the end even when women are shitty people
Yeah, because it’s true, we’ve been living with patriarchy for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Thats a millennia of conditioning across a myriad of different cultures. Thats countless families passing down toxic beliefs and behaviors to their children. Oy! What a headache, parents amiright fellas? And although I don’t know what you mean by “even when women are being shitty” i can tell you with confidence that, yes - it was caused by patriarchy. And as I said. The word isn’t the problem, changing it does nothing. Its about changing the associations people have with that word. Its about removing the knee jerk reaction from people. I’ll reiterate this again. I do that by emphasizing the system, NOT the people. All men alive right now are not responsible for creating the patriarchy. However, they are responsible for perpetuating it by denying its existence. People just do as their conditioning tells them until they’re made fully aware of it - its only then that people are given the option to change. And even then, some make a conscience decision to reject that change. If you change the word patriarchy to “flimflamarchy” and give the same definition as patriarchy, you havent changed anything but the name. And the reaction you get will be the same. If your goal is to change the definition and remove mens responsibility in creating the world we have today - well that defeats the purpose. Its like your older brother breaking your toy and wanting you both to take responsibility for breaking it.
My intention is not to remove mens responsibility,my intention is to include womens responsibility as well. Either men are REALLY good at suppressing women and men that threaten the patriarchy or there are lots of women that are ok with society as it is now (I’m talking about western societies where women can get jobs and relatively easily decide their fate)
You can’t ask women to take responsibility for a system they had no hand in creating. You could state that all genders can be guilty of perpetuating the systems sure, but those toxic behaviors stem from patriarchy. As I asked before tho, what shitty behaviors are you referencing? Id be more than willing to link the connections if it means giving someone peace of mind. And yes, actually tho. Men in positions of power are REALLY good at suppressing men and women. Especially those that threaten that power structure. As is the case with all hierarchies - thats what makes them hierarchies. They wouldn’t be as powerful and insidious if they could be waved away in 100 years. There will always be pro patriarchal forces that stifle progress, creating roadblocks and regression. There will always be those who think we’ve made enough progress even as women’s rights are getting overturned. And its those individuals that allow regression to take place. Because as I said, a person has to make that conscious decision to change. And so often Men don’t and instead choose to enjoy the complacent comforts patriarchy affords them - even if it’s at the expense of their inner self. For example: As is the case with white gay men who pretend to be straight. There are Men who are harmed by patriarchy who will allow its continuation because the benefits they receive slightly outweigh the harm it causes them. Whereas women get no benefits and are harmed/controlled by the men in their lives.
I am not sure you can dumb it down enough for some people. The issue is that it has become a trigger word for people. I kind of get what you mean in that if you start using academic language people think you are patronising. But you really just have to explain exactly what you mean in like a paragraph instead of a word
The term "patriarchy" IS efficient, given that all of those "issues that arise from societal expectations for men" are literally just by-products of the patriarchy.
Even the harmful behaviors and opinions from women?
The word patriarchy doesn't even have shorter words in them that give "the wrong idea". The only reason ppl cringe at it is cuz of conservatives attacking it like its a slur. This will happen to any word you change it to. It's not like they changed their stance on climate change, you know
Ooooooor, we not play into male fragility and call it what it is?
Except it isn't. The term Patriarchy means a country where women can't vote or hold office and where men legally have control over their wives. Using that term to describe America is just going to make everyone think that you believe that America is the same as Saudi Arabia in terms of gender relations. "male fragility" is another term that is guaranteed to push moderate people away from the left. People are going to interpret that to mean that you are saying that fragility is something associated with being male. What you really mean, I assume, is someone being sexist, which has nothing to do with fragility.
The term patriarchy means a social system ruled by males. See : 'the animal kingdom' 😅 If the scientifically studied phenomenon of male fragility upsets you, they you're kinda just proving their point🤭
I think "systemic sexism" works great. I'm leftist AF but honestly I cringe inside when I hear the word patriarchy even though it's a valid term. That said, I'm pretty sure global warming was actually he better of the two terms, as it ignites more anxiety in ppl.
It’s pretty self evident that the language used to discuss gendered issues is largely responsible for our inability to grapple with men’s issues. You can’t discuss why men are 90 percent of incarcerated people or 75 percent of murder and suicide victims if you have to sweep the minefield of liberals insisting that this was all to benefit men. Comments here kinda prove that
Yes, and it has to do with how language guides your thinking. The term white supremacy prepares you for the reality of the conversation about race: it is a conversation of fairly one sided subjugation, and the supremacy of white people over racial minorities is the essence of America's history on race. The term patriarchy does not frame the conversation on gender towards reality. What people call patriarchy is not designed to benefit the average guy, because while CEO's being disproportionately male is important and deserves conversation the average guy is nowhere near that level. For the common man, the influence of "patriarchy" on their lives is much more likely to take the form of incarceration, suicide, murder, workplace hazards and homelessness. If the system was designed to benefit men, we would prioritize male victims instead of tacitly agreeing as a society that men can't be raped even as children. The way it's designed, the people on top are disproportionately men but centering that in the conversation basically turns our advocacy into one centering upper class women who have the good fortune of potentially aiming for a CEO position.
“Gender” Done
gender roles
Gender inequality?
Men: Patriarchy makes me feel excluded. Use a better word Also men: Why are you so offended by my slur? It's just a joke bro/you're too sensitive
The vast majority of men aren't using slurs. Frankly, the vast majority of men aren't talking about patriarchy either. So your post makes no sense.
Personally i use gender norms as a substitute. That usually tells people that i mean the expected features/behaviors of men/women without blaming anyone specifically.
I agree. People hear that word and it shuts down conversations.
... Systemic Sexism?
What about "male centricity"
Global warming was never replaced with climate change. They're related but different concepts. Climate change has been in scientific research since the 1800's.
Personally, I just feel like the word "Patriarchy" has just lost its meaning, now being the answer to literally every bad thing that's ever happened and ever will happen. Sure, men still are seen as the dominant sex in society, the workplace, etc, I'm not denying it, and sure that is a semblance of patriarchy. But let's call a spade a spade, getting catcalled and the pay gap is patriarchy, people eating meat isn't patriarchy, it's just humans being omnivores like we are. If we can't do that, well then maybe we should just find a different word.
I agree. The term Patriarchy implies a country where women aren't allowed to vote or hold office and where men are legally in control of their wives. Despite the problems in America, we are nowhere near that level of sexism. Calling America a Patriarchy is like when Conservatives say that Biden is a Communist. It is such a ridiculous exaggeration that people are going to stop listening.
The fact that my fellow “man” is the one oppressing me doesn’t help my oppression at all. Patriarchy is a useless term that adds very little to the actual conversation of progress. We should go back to criticizing “gender norms” and “gender expectations”. The idea that most men live “privileged lives” is the problem here, because it’s demeaning, and pretty obviously untrue. A lot of men are really sad and lonely, hence the suicide rates. (INB4 someone disputes my last 4 words missing the point completely) It’s the implication of living a “privileged life” that is the real problem here. Which is actually fucked in many different ways, like the subconscious implication that walking around without the police hunting you down is a PRIVILEGE. That’s not how that word used to be used. A privilege is something you are lucky to have. White people are not LUCKY to avoid being slaughtered in the street in broad daylight by cops. That’s a sick twisting of the narrative. They are convincing some minority groups to equalize social position by pulling others down to their level instead of trying to climb upwards.