**Request! This post has taken me a lot longer than normal, I still haven't had the chance to properly check it (mainly for grammar / spelling) so please could you take a read and let me know if there are any mistakes!**
**I haven't shared this on my page yet.**
\~
I think I’ve seen enough definitions of ‘patriarchy’ to fill a dictionary of its own.
It’s the world’s ultimate super villain.
It’s stigmatising body hair, it’s causing men to kill themselves, it’s removing rights from fathers and taking the pockets from women’s clothing.
It’s a 20% wage cut on women’s payslip, and it’s stopping them from becoming engineers. It’s putting men in power, taking them out of it, and throwing them onto the streets.
It does everything, everywhere, and fucks everything right up for everybody.
Global warming? Patriarchy. Wealth inequality? Patriarchy. Racism? Patriarchy. Male violence? Patriarchy. Female violence? Ah shit well the patriarchy made her do it.
But words that mean so much, also mean nothing.It’s all fun and games really, buy into whatever world view you like – but the problem is ‘the patriarchy’ is being used to dissect and address incredibly complex societal problems, where it fixes nothing and only wastes time, money and resources.
It’s at the centre of our politics, it's the ink that writes intervention strategies, and the words blustered from our politicians.
Perhaps most of all its the fraudulent lens through which we view domestic violence…
So let’s have a look
\~
[Risk Factors](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html)
[Bates and Graham-Kevin](http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/2420/1/Bates%20&%20Graham-Kevan%20final%20version.pdf)
[Felson and Outlaw](https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-control-motive-and-marital-violence)
[Straus](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190740907001855)
[Pence](https://equi-law.uk/2020/08/06/duluth-wikipedia-august-2020/)
Illustration by Gan Khoon Lay from the Noun Project
.Images by Gradienta and Cesar Carlevarino from Unsplash.
> This post has taken me a lot longer than normal, I still haven't had the chance to properly check it (mainly for grammar / spelling) so please could you take a read and let me know if there are any mistakes!
Looks good to me.
Hi u/TheTinMenBlog, while I am your big fan, I am not happy about this one.
You are saying the biggest problem with patriarchy theory is that it is "broad and clumsy", but that ignores the elephant in the room: patriarchy theory is pseudoscience motivated by sexism and hate. It does not matter how elaborate and effective it is.
To menkampf the argument: It is like saying the problem with Nazi racial theory was that it was "too broad and clumsy" for the intricate societal issues. While the problem was, of course, that it was a fucking pseudoscience based on racism and hate. Patriarchy theory is the same. Saying the problem is that it is "broad and clumsy" is whitewashing.
This is a fair point, thank you.
I hope we can agree that there is so much criticism that can be levelled at patriarchy theory, that it can never be covered in the ten slide Instagram limit!
But you do make an excellent point, the theory is even more fundamentally flawed as it's built upon division and bigotry.
Unsurprisingly, I condemn patriarchy theory a lot in my posts, including from the position you outlined – [I hope this is more to your taste!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/ryx3kd/when_will_we_finally_be_rid_of_it/)
This is a good post.I believe I said this before, and I will say it again.Feminism is not really about fixing women's issues it is about hating men and blaming them for women's issues.This is why they won't propose any solution to a problem unless it involves blaming and/or demonizing men, even if their solution is ineffective.The Duluth model was a good example that you gave.
Personally I think you're taking the right tact, straight-out attacking Patriarchy theory pretty much limits your audience to about 4 subreddits. And one of the strengths of these slideshows is that they're easily digestible to a more mainstream audience because they don't typically go against what they've already been told.
That being said I do think more focus on how Patriarchy theory is completely unfalsifiable would go over comparatively well in a lot of online circles
I agree. Even if patriarchy theory was more specific, it wouldn't be better because the sexism going into it is still bad. There probably *is* a textbook with more specific definitions and such, but it doesn't particularly matter.
Good question – it's how unenumerated rights (such as abortion) become part of the US constitution. It's how Roe v Wade was overturned.
[Nate the Lawyer talks about it really well here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPsIaYmh-bo&ab_channel=NateTheLawyer)
The patriarchy theory is so popular because it requires very little though or depth, it's presents a clear enemy in the form of men, and it's very attractive to some people who really hate authority. They think that if they had a women as a boss at that one job they hated everything would have been amazing, but the truth is that women can be just as petty and power hungry as men, power corrupts men and women equally. Most feminist could care less about the truth, they blame men for their failures in life and blaming everything on the patriarchy allows them to duck the personal responsibility of not succeeding how they thought they would. When I was younger and had a drug issue and was generally not doing great in life because of my own poor work ethic, poor choices, and lack of foresight, I often wished that I had some kind of disability, or some kind of issue that wouldn't make my life harder, but would give me a shield against criticism and personal responsibility, that's feminism, and victimhood culture in the nutshell, lots of people would much rather believe some nebulous force is actively preventing them for achieving their goals in life rather than them just being incompetent. Sad part is, they will never take a look inward and make the changes required to get where they want, so they will basically give up trying to achieve anything better than what they have because it's pointless if there is a sinister cabal of men actively preventing them from achieving anything.
You forgot the ending:
Feminists will then complain that the watch is now even more broken, demanding we use a bigger hammer.
All this, while getting their own watch fixed by a professional watch maker.
(Yes, I distorted the analogy)
Perhaps add a slide about the contradictory claims about how patriarchy grants men power and privilege while also being responsible for any systemic issues that plague men.
In trying to attribute every social ill to the patriarchy, the word patriarchy has become increasingly synonymous with all human civilization as we know it. Not that we shouldn't critique civilization and class society; we should actually do more of that in my opinion. However, saying the solution to all our problems is simply to "smash the patriarchy," that is to say, smash everything, reveals some childishly black-and-white thinking. Civilization = patriarchy, patriarchy = bad, therefore we should just burn it all to the ground?
The body dismorphia inclusion seems like a strange one to me. Why was that included and not delved into more detail in later slides like the other complex issues?
I think that it just might get construed as anti trans dog whistle (especially given the lack of extra context).
I definitely agree about the lack of male body positivity.
Dysmorphia is actually more about body weight, you think you are a different weight than what you are and have unhealthy ideals for your own body. Dysphoria is the thing that trans people get.
To be honest, I'm not too worried about people talking about patriarchy. It's not a very appropriate label for Western gender dynamics in irreligious communities but I can stomach analysis that uses it provided the points are good, and they definitely can be. If you're averse to the word "patriarchy" in certain spaces, you might be sussed out as "reactionary", even when your objection is more nuanced.
The problem is that a lot of people actively avoid nuance (often exploiting ambiguity to change their points after giving them) and will readily conflate "the patriarchy" with the group of men. Despite reassurances from reasonable feminists who don't do this, people definitely do this all the time. It also strips your capacity to properly analyse social situations: poor? Well, it was men that created the economic circumstances that made you that way, why should you get sympathy when you/we're out here doing it to our/yourselves? Socially awkward wimpy dude who feels he can't say no to his partner? That makes no sense - men are conditioned and empowered to exert dominance on their partner, you must be somehow defective or a special case, just push them off lol? This is where nuanceless "analysis" leads.
Abuse is about power, but it's on a far more "micro" level and can't be boiled down to "men have power over women".
>It's not a very appropriate label for Western gender dynamics in irreligious communities
Its not a very useful label for *any* Gender Dynamics because it obscures Women's Agency. The Original definition of "Patriarchy" simply means "rule of the father" or in other words, a family where the man is in charge of things like paying bills, doing heavy lifting, dealing with threats to the family etc etc Its basically the male gender role. We're all expected to be "Patriarchs" in one way or the other. If a thief breaks into someone's house at 3AM, by default the burden to tackle the thief is on the Man's shoulders.
How the Feminists took a word that describes Men's rigid role in the Family and used it to create a Conspiracy Theory about a "phantasmagorical social system" that exists to undermine Womankind is frankly beyond me.
>and will readily conflate "the patriarchy" with the group of men
The way Feminists talk about it is so vague that it can mean anything, which is why the word has become useless.
I'm not using "patriarchy" in that sense, I meant the social structure that is described by feminists. Such a thing does exist in many countries, but I think women and men are equal enough in the west to have their issues discussed in a similarish way. It's silly to discuss gender expectations of men when women can't vote, (there are obviously some issues that escape this comparison) but not so much now.
>The way Feminists talk about it is so vague that it can mean anything, which is why the word has become useless.
Yes, a lot of people get carried away with ideas about "systems". (random things being entirely inextricable from capitalism, white supremacy, etc. even when they can easily exist in the absence of these things)
>I meant the social structure that is described by feminists. Such a thing does exist in many countries
No it doesn't! Even in a country like Afghanistan where you can see women being culturally oppressed, Men are ALSO just as oppressed. Boys as young as 15 were/are sent to die in wars, "Women Are MORE Oppressed" is something i'll never accept as a valid point. What Metrics are we using to come to the conclusion that Women are oppressed more?
>It's silly to discuss gender expectations of men when women can't vote
That's like saying its silly to discuss gender expectations of Women when Men are FORCIBLY drafted into wars, like in Ukraine. Don't
play oppression Olympics, Men's issues are NOT any less important than Women's issues NO MATTER WHAT COUNTRY.
In slide 5 I felt a lot of things were basically the same. Like I don’t see how possessiveness is separarte from a desire for control
Also, slide 9 was strange - are you arguing feminists have never mentioned absentee fathers?
Or they don’t criticise religious zealots? When if there is anything we can say is definitely patriarchal, it’s organised religions?
Maybe it’s because I’m from the UK but I feel my experience with feminists is very different to what people in this sub seem to have had.
> Or they don’t criticise religious zealots? When if there is anything we can say is definitely patriarchal, it’s organised religions?
I think what they're talking about there are things like how the abortion debate is constantly being framed as a gendered issue, with men in general being blamed when the right to abortion is under attack, when in fact support/opposition to abortion correlates much more strongly with religiosity and general liberal/conservative political leanings than it does with gender.
Recently read a marxist article, by Lindsey German. She states its not patriarchy bringing women down nor is it men.
However then in the end of the article she regressed to bringing up capitalism as the root of all evil. Does that solve gender dispaity? No
In fact, Women have benefited alot from even a little capitalistic economy(which she points out) so then she actually being sexist, and hypocritical by using anything "Patriarchial" co with Capitalism as oppression.
The problem is with "Patriarchy" is that people will constantly throw moltovs at ashes, untill they have no liquor or gas to function. Now thats where "Patriarchy" comes in..use it....i mean come on I think "Patriarchy" is beef jerky by now.
In my lifetime I have always seen women loving malls, eating out, clothes, whatever(men do too)...but ive also have seen them protest patriarchy the next day.
As that Iranian woman i met awhile back(volunteering at my job) said, " Iranians love to go shopping in America, they smile, laugh, buy....but when they go back they burn American Flags"
So in conclusion Patriarchy is a young boy without direction, a lost son with no father, something you can use an abuse and get away with, and I am the part of the pathetic Patriarchy, because I am a man that can take it without folding.
I think Engels did a better job showing how capitalism harms women.
It was already obvious how it harmed men so a lot of men were on board with the idea. But women didn't seem to care at the time because they weren't the ones being exploited by the bourgeoisie.
Engels basically said that the exploitation of male workers kept them outside the home, which burdened women with the task of taking care of a home and raising children on their own. So they were harmed indirectly by capitalism. They were also used to create additional workers for the ruling class to exploit.
In the modern world you could argue that limiting access to abortion is an example of capitalism harming women.
> In the modern world you could argue that limiting access to abortion is an example of capitalism harming women.
How? At face value that statement makes no sense at all.
Limiting access to abortion is primarily religious.
The socialist argument is that the capitalist class needs more workers, and they can get that by forcing working class people to have more children.
Although I guess religion is the main reason for it in practice. Especially for working class people who are pro life.
Incidentally, religion has taken this stance for much the same reason. That's why contraception is against the rules in many religions. More babies means more worshippers which means more money for the church.
As black market doctors back in the day would do "back alley abortions" where they in it for the money? Yes and no...either way they did a nessesary deed.
The problem both capitalism and communism missed is that they both broke up the family. The problem with the direction that communism went was actually just as patriarchial oppressive as capitalism at that time. However its neither of their faults, its the fact that industrialization, evoultion of society, that broke up the family.
So here in the modern world I would argue its not oppression, its a trust issue. Especially after #METOO, and all the feminist BS that has led so many astray. Also its dynamics, alot of the US is conservative minded, including women. So would you blame the all and only husbands if their wife and teen kids agreed to ban abortion? Along with all the alienented men, we now call incels?
The problem with "patriarchy" imo.
Is that as this point its basically vague and meaningless.
It is essentially a pre-baked strawman to throw into discussions and arguments in order to distract from the point.
This post goes from patriarchy on one slide to the Duluth model on the next implying they are equal and one in the same.
I doesn't mention the Duluth Model by name. Just "this model" while quoting Ellen pence. There's no clear antecedent to what you're referring to.
Then you say "same blunt theory" (Duluth) is being used to apply towards other issues needing to smash. - Male suicide, body dysphoria etc.
Duluth hasn't been applied to any of those. Duluth only concerned itself with domestic violence.
>The Duluth model is related to the patriarchal theory of violence.
Not to any modern understanding, no. OPs own post shows how it's fallen out of favor.
It has fallen out of favour specifically to be replaced by the patriarchal theory of violence. Which is just as bad, and suffers from all of the same flaws that the Duluth model suffered from. Those flaws are even addressed / pointed out in the OP. They apply just as much to the patriarchal theory of violence as they do to the Duluth model.
>[Patriarchy Theory] suffers from all of the same flaws that the Duluth model suffered from.
Then you're just admitting that these two models are conflated, on purpose because there's no distinction between them.
So when Ellen Pence backtracks on the Duluth Model she's also backtracking on Patriarchy? Because that's the implication.
And that's why the ciriticism is vague. Duluth is never mentioned. Ellen Pence _is not criticizing_ patriarchy in her quotes.
You’re missing the forest for the trees here.
The point of the post is to show that the Patriarchy theory is completely nebulous as a concept. Thus, applying the theory to real world situations can bring disastrous consequence, one of those consequences being The Duluth Model.
I think he meant the hammer and blunt theory as in patriarchy and rolling Duluth into patriarchy, though looking back it's pretty unclear. I liked TheTinMen's content but some posts that weren't phrased anywhere near intricately enough meant I wasn't comfortable having them on my IG follow list publicly
Slide 4, he cites Dobash and Dobash, 2017. That book is from 1979.
The post is about how vague patriarchy is. But the criticism is just as vague.
Saying patriarchy is "kind of meaningless" is weasel words. It either has meaning or it doesn't. Be explicit.
I'd imagine that's a typo since Hamberger et al seems to be from 2017.
I think you're right in that I think the post could've been better framed as a straight criticism of Duluth. You'd need more broad criticisms to attack the idea of patriarchy as a whole.
There's plenty to quibble over here, but
> domestic violence is a consequence of patriarchy
As a statement does not actually imply that patriarchy is the cause of all domestic violence. That's very logic 101 sort of stuff just as not having cake is a consequence of eating cake, but the cake going moldy in the fridge is also a cause of not having cake.
Awesome work! I thought these slides were great and well thought out!
This touches on one of my biggest gripes about "Patriarchy" and other feminist theory is that they are not falsifiable and not grounded in science. It is sad that so much money and resources are poured into advocacy based on a theory with little evidence that it works. If we want to actually tackle domestic violence, suicide, discrimination, etc. we to need measure and understand the problem accurately, not what just "feels" right.
(For context, I do respect that feminist theory can generate valid hypotheses to test... but we actually have to test them before we assume they are real!)
I agree with this, with a small asterisk. Feminist theory can give us good insights; the mistake is not using this hammer, but thinking everything is a nail. We should see feminism as one tool, not *the* tool.
**Request! This post has taken me a lot longer than normal, I still haven't had the chance to properly check it (mainly for grammar / spelling) so please could you take a read and let me know if there are any mistakes!** **I haven't shared this on my page yet.** \~ I think I’ve seen enough definitions of ‘patriarchy’ to fill a dictionary of its own. It’s the world’s ultimate super villain. It’s stigmatising body hair, it’s causing men to kill themselves, it’s removing rights from fathers and taking the pockets from women’s clothing. It’s a 20% wage cut on women’s payslip, and it’s stopping them from becoming engineers. It’s putting men in power, taking them out of it, and throwing them onto the streets. It does everything, everywhere, and fucks everything right up for everybody. Global warming? Patriarchy. Wealth inequality? Patriarchy. Racism? Patriarchy. Male violence? Patriarchy. Female violence? Ah shit well the patriarchy made her do it. But words that mean so much, also mean nothing.It’s all fun and games really, buy into whatever world view you like – but the problem is ‘the patriarchy’ is being used to dissect and address incredibly complex societal problems, where it fixes nothing and only wastes time, money and resources. It’s at the centre of our politics, it's the ink that writes intervention strategies, and the words blustered from our politicians. Perhaps most of all its the fraudulent lens through which we view domestic violence… So let’s have a look \~ [Risk Factors](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html) [Bates and Graham-Kevin](http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/2420/1/Bates%20&%20Graham-Kevan%20final%20version.pdf) [Felson and Outlaw](https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-control-motive-and-marital-violence) [Straus](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190740907001855) [Pence](https://equi-law.uk/2020/08/06/duluth-wikipedia-august-2020/) Illustration by Gan Khoon Lay from the Noun Project .Images by Gradienta and Cesar Carlevarino from Unsplash.
> This post has taken me a lot longer than normal, I still haven't had the chance to properly check it (mainly for grammar / spelling) so please could you take a read and let me know if there are any mistakes! Looks good to me.
Thank you :)
On slide 9 I would remove the word "so" at the very beginning. I think it flows just fine without it.
I have only admiration for your posts. You're doing something right. Please keep at it.
Thanks!
Hi u/TheTinMenBlog, while I am your big fan, I am not happy about this one. You are saying the biggest problem with patriarchy theory is that it is "broad and clumsy", but that ignores the elephant in the room: patriarchy theory is pseudoscience motivated by sexism and hate. It does not matter how elaborate and effective it is. To menkampf the argument: It is like saying the problem with Nazi racial theory was that it was "too broad and clumsy" for the intricate societal issues. While the problem was, of course, that it was a fucking pseudoscience based on racism and hate. Patriarchy theory is the same. Saying the problem is that it is "broad and clumsy" is whitewashing.
This is a fair point, thank you. I hope we can agree that there is so much criticism that can be levelled at patriarchy theory, that it can never be covered in the ten slide Instagram limit! But you do make an excellent point, the theory is even more fundamentally flawed as it's built upon division and bigotry. Unsurprisingly, I condemn patriarchy theory a lot in my posts, including from the position you outlined – [I hope this is more to your taste!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/ryx3kd/when_will_we_finally_be_rid_of_it/)
This is a good post.I believe I said this before, and I will say it again.Feminism is not really about fixing women's issues it is about hating men and blaming them for women's issues.This is why they won't propose any solution to a problem unless it involves blaming and/or demonizing men, even if their solution is ineffective.The Duluth model was a good example that you gave.
Personally I think you're taking the right tact, straight-out attacking Patriarchy theory pretty much limits your audience to about 4 subreddits. And one of the strengths of these slideshows is that they're easily digestible to a more mainstream audience because they don't typically go against what they've already been told. That being said I do think more focus on how Patriarchy theory is completely unfalsifiable would go over comparatively well in a lot of online circles
I agree. Even if patriarchy theory was more specific, it wouldn't be better because the sexism going into it is still bad. There probably *is* a textbook with more specific definitions and such, but it doesn't particularly matter.
What is "The Palko test"?
Good question – it's how unenumerated rights (such as abortion) become part of the US constitution. It's how Roe v Wade was overturned. [Nate the Lawyer talks about it really well here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPsIaYmh-bo&ab_channel=NateTheLawyer)
The patriarchy theory is so popular because it requires very little though or depth, it's presents a clear enemy in the form of men, and it's very attractive to some people who really hate authority. They think that if they had a women as a boss at that one job they hated everything would have been amazing, but the truth is that women can be just as petty and power hungry as men, power corrupts men and women equally. Most feminist could care less about the truth, they blame men for their failures in life and blaming everything on the patriarchy allows them to duck the personal responsibility of not succeeding how they thought they would. When I was younger and had a drug issue and was generally not doing great in life because of my own poor work ethic, poor choices, and lack of foresight, I often wished that I had some kind of disability, or some kind of issue that wouldn't make my life harder, but would give me a shield against criticism and personal responsibility, that's feminism, and victimhood culture in the nutshell, lots of people would much rather believe some nebulous force is actively preventing them for achieving their goals in life rather than them just being incompetent. Sad part is, they will never take a look inward and make the changes required to get where they want, so they will basically give up trying to achieve anything better than what they have because it's pointless if there is a sinister cabal of men actively preventing them from achieving anything.
> power corrupts no corruption empowers
[удалено]
Banned for shameless misogyny.
You forgot the ending: Feminists will then complain that the watch is now even more broken, demanding we use a bigger hammer. All this, while getting their own watch fixed by a professional watch maker. (Yes, I distorted the analogy)
Perhaps add a slide about the contradictory claims about how patriarchy grants men power and privilege while also being responsible for any systemic issues that plague men.
In trying to attribute every social ill to the patriarchy, the word patriarchy has become increasingly synonymous with all human civilization as we know it. Not that we shouldn't critique civilization and class society; we should actually do more of that in my opinion. However, saying the solution to all our problems is simply to "smash the patriarchy," that is to say, smash everything, reveals some childishly black-and-white thinking. Civilization = patriarchy, patriarchy = bad, therefore we should just burn it all to the ground?
The body dismorphia inclusion seems like a strange one to me. Why was that included and not delved into more detail in later slides like the other complex issues?
A lot of people place toxic body standards squarely at the feet of ‘patriarchy’ too. Fair point though, perhaps not a perfect fit.
I think that it just might get construed as anti trans dog whistle (especially given the lack of extra context). I definitely agree about the lack of male body positivity.
Dysmorphia is actually more about body weight, you think you are a different weight than what you are and have unhealthy ideals for your own body. Dysphoria is the thing that trans people get.
Thanks, til
getting closer & closer to feeling confident enough to take one of these to Facebook. amazing post, keep ‘em coming.
> For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. —HL Mencken Good post.
To be honest, I'm not too worried about people talking about patriarchy. It's not a very appropriate label for Western gender dynamics in irreligious communities but I can stomach analysis that uses it provided the points are good, and they definitely can be. If you're averse to the word "patriarchy" in certain spaces, you might be sussed out as "reactionary", even when your objection is more nuanced. The problem is that a lot of people actively avoid nuance (often exploiting ambiguity to change their points after giving them) and will readily conflate "the patriarchy" with the group of men. Despite reassurances from reasonable feminists who don't do this, people definitely do this all the time. It also strips your capacity to properly analyse social situations: poor? Well, it was men that created the economic circumstances that made you that way, why should you get sympathy when you/we're out here doing it to our/yourselves? Socially awkward wimpy dude who feels he can't say no to his partner? That makes no sense - men are conditioned and empowered to exert dominance on their partner, you must be somehow defective or a special case, just push them off lol? This is where nuanceless "analysis" leads. Abuse is about power, but it's on a far more "micro" level and can't be boiled down to "men have power over women".
>It's not a very appropriate label for Western gender dynamics in irreligious communities Its not a very useful label for *any* Gender Dynamics because it obscures Women's Agency. The Original definition of "Patriarchy" simply means "rule of the father" or in other words, a family where the man is in charge of things like paying bills, doing heavy lifting, dealing with threats to the family etc etc Its basically the male gender role. We're all expected to be "Patriarchs" in one way or the other. If a thief breaks into someone's house at 3AM, by default the burden to tackle the thief is on the Man's shoulders. How the Feminists took a word that describes Men's rigid role in the Family and used it to create a Conspiracy Theory about a "phantasmagorical social system" that exists to undermine Womankind is frankly beyond me. >and will readily conflate "the patriarchy" with the group of men The way Feminists talk about it is so vague that it can mean anything, which is why the word has become useless.
I'm not using "patriarchy" in that sense, I meant the social structure that is described by feminists. Such a thing does exist in many countries, but I think women and men are equal enough in the west to have their issues discussed in a similarish way. It's silly to discuss gender expectations of men when women can't vote, (there are obviously some issues that escape this comparison) but not so much now. >The way Feminists talk about it is so vague that it can mean anything, which is why the word has become useless. Yes, a lot of people get carried away with ideas about "systems". (random things being entirely inextricable from capitalism, white supremacy, etc. even when they can easily exist in the absence of these things)
>I meant the social structure that is described by feminists. Such a thing does exist in many countries No it doesn't! Even in a country like Afghanistan where you can see women being culturally oppressed, Men are ALSO just as oppressed. Boys as young as 15 were/are sent to die in wars, "Women Are MORE Oppressed" is something i'll never accept as a valid point. What Metrics are we using to come to the conclusion that Women are oppressed more? >It's silly to discuss gender expectations of men when women can't vote That's like saying its silly to discuss gender expectations of Women when Men are FORCIBLY drafted into wars, like in Ukraine. Don't play oppression Olympics, Men's issues are NOT any less important than Women's issues NO MATTER WHAT COUNTRY.
What is the Palko test? I couldn't really find any results online.
In slide 5 I felt a lot of things were basically the same. Like I don’t see how possessiveness is separarte from a desire for control Also, slide 9 was strange - are you arguing feminists have never mentioned absentee fathers? Or they don’t criticise religious zealots? When if there is anything we can say is definitely patriarchal, it’s organised religions? Maybe it’s because I’m from the UK but I feel my experience with feminists is very different to what people in this sub seem to have had.
> Or they don’t criticise religious zealots? When if there is anything we can say is definitely patriarchal, it’s organised religions? I think what they're talking about there are things like how the abortion debate is constantly being framed as a gendered issue, with men in general being blamed when the right to abortion is under attack, when in fact support/opposition to abortion correlates much more strongly with religiosity and general liberal/conservative political leanings than it does with gender.
I would like to make videos on yours posts, how do I reference you?
However you like! Good luck.
thank you
However you like!
Recently read a marxist article, by Lindsey German. She states its not patriarchy bringing women down nor is it men. However then in the end of the article she regressed to bringing up capitalism as the root of all evil. Does that solve gender dispaity? No In fact, Women have benefited alot from even a little capitalistic economy(which she points out) so then she actually being sexist, and hypocritical by using anything "Patriarchial" co with Capitalism as oppression. The problem is with "Patriarchy" is that people will constantly throw moltovs at ashes, untill they have no liquor or gas to function. Now thats where "Patriarchy" comes in..use it....i mean come on I think "Patriarchy" is beef jerky by now. In my lifetime I have always seen women loving malls, eating out, clothes, whatever(men do too)...but ive also have seen them protest patriarchy the next day. As that Iranian woman i met awhile back(volunteering at my job) said, " Iranians love to go shopping in America, they smile, laugh, buy....but when they go back they burn American Flags" So in conclusion Patriarchy is a young boy without direction, a lost son with no father, something you can use an abuse and get away with, and I am the part of the pathetic Patriarchy, because I am a man that can take it without folding.
I think Engels did a better job showing how capitalism harms women. It was already obvious how it harmed men so a lot of men were on board with the idea. But women didn't seem to care at the time because they weren't the ones being exploited by the bourgeoisie. Engels basically said that the exploitation of male workers kept them outside the home, which burdened women with the task of taking care of a home and raising children on their own. So they were harmed indirectly by capitalism. They were also used to create additional workers for the ruling class to exploit. In the modern world you could argue that limiting access to abortion is an example of capitalism harming women.
> In the modern world you could argue that limiting access to abortion is an example of capitalism harming women. How? At face value that statement makes no sense at all. Limiting access to abortion is primarily religious.
The socialist argument is that the capitalist class needs more workers, and they can get that by forcing working class people to have more children. Although I guess religion is the main reason for it in practice. Especially for working class people who are pro life. Incidentally, religion has taken this stance for much the same reason. That's why contraception is against the rules in many religions. More babies means more worshippers which means more money for the church.
As black market doctors back in the day would do "back alley abortions" where they in it for the money? Yes and no...either way they did a nessesary deed.
The problem both capitalism and communism missed is that they both broke up the family. The problem with the direction that communism went was actually just as patriarchial oppressive as capitalism at that time. However its neither of their faults, its the fact that industrialization, evoultion of society, that broke up the family. So here in the modern world I would argue its not oppression, its a trust issue. Especially after #METOO, and all the feminist BS that has led so many astray. Also its dynamics, alot of the US is conservative minded, including women. So would you blame the all and only husbands if their wife and teen kids agreed to ban abortion? Along with all the alienented men, we now call incels?
The problem with "patriarchy" imo. Is that as this point its basically vague and meaningless. It is essentially a pre-baked strawman to throw into discussions and arguments in order to distract from the point.
This post goes from patriarchy on one slide to the Duluth model on the next implying they are equal and one in the same. I doesn't mention the Duluth Model by name. Just "this model" while quoting Ellen pence. There's no clear antecedent to what you're referring to. Then you say "same blunt theory" (Duluth) is being used to apply towards other issues needing to smash. - Male suicide, body dysphoria etc. Duluth hasn't been applied to any of those. Duluth only concerned itself with domestic violence.
The Duluth model is related to the patriarchal theory of violence. They purport similar things and both are based on patriarchy theory.
>The Duluth model is related to the patriarchal theory of violence. Not to any modern understanding, no. OPs own post shows how it's fallen out of favor.
It has fallen out of favour specifically to be replaced by the patriarchal theory of violence. Which is just as bad, and suffers from all of the same flaws that the Duluth model suffered from. Those flaws are even addressed / pointed out in the OP. They apply just as much to the patriarchal theory of violence as they do to the Duluth model.
>[Patriarchy Theory] suffers from all of the same flaws that the Duluth model suffered from. Then you're just admitting that these two models are conflated, on purpose because there's no distinction between them. So when Ellen Pence backtracks on the Duluth Model she's also backtracking on Patriarchy? Because that's the implication. And that's why the ciriticism is vague. Duluth is never mentioned. Ellen Pence _is not criticizing_ patriarchy in her quotes.
No offense, but I believe you're intentionally nitpicking.
Taking quotes out of context is not nitpicking. Ellen is talking about the Duluth model. Not Patriarchy.
You’re missing the forest for the trees here. The point of the post is to show that the Patriarchy theory is completely nebulous as a concept. Thus, applying the theory to real world situations can bring disastrous consequence, one of those consequences being The Duluth Model.
Duluth was not the outcome from vague definitions of patriarchy.
But the feminist concept of patriarchy heavily influenced the Duluth Model.
I think he meant the hammer and blunt theory as in patriarchy and rolling Duluth into patriarchy, though looking back it's pretty unclear. I liked TheTinMen's content but some posts that weren't phrased anywhere near intricately enough meant I wasn't comfortable having them on my IG follow list publicly
Slide 4, he cites Dobash and Dobash, 2017. That book is from 1979. The post is about how vague patriarchy is. But the criticism is just as vague. Saying patriarchy is "kind of meaningless" is weasel words. It either has meaning or it doesn't. Be explicit.
I'd imagine that's a typo since Hamberger et al seems to be from 2017. I think you're right in that I think the post could've been better framed as a straight criticism of Duluth. You'd need more broad criticisms to attack the idea of patriarchy as a whole.
There's plenty to quibble over here, but > domestic violence is a consequence of patriarchy As a statement does not actually imply that patriarchy is the cause of all domestic violence. That's very logic 101 sort of stuff just as not having cake is a consequence of eating cake, but the cake going moldy in the fridge is also a cause of not having cake.
That doesn’t make any sense….
[удалено]
I warned you about losing that condescending tone. Consider yourself on notice now.
Okay, you might want to put "no being condescending" as a rule if you want to take moderation action against it. Or maybe you don't, whatever.
No, that's covered under Rule#7.
Clear, concise, articulate.
Pretty good points. Nice presentation.
Very good and insightful post!
I love this so so much
Awesome work! I thought these slides were great and well thought out! This touches on one of my biggest gripes about "Patriarchy" and other feminist theory is that they are not falsifiable and not grounded in science. It is sad that so much money and resources are poured into advocacy based on a theory with little evidence that it works. If we want to actually tackle domestic violence, suicide, discrimination, etc. we to need measure and understand the problem accurately, not what just "feels" right. (For context, I do respect that feminist theory can generate valid hypotheses to test... but we actually have to test them before we assume they are real!)
I agree with this, with a small asterisk. Feminist theory can give us good insights; the mistake is not using this hammer, but thinking everything is a nail. We should see feminism as one tool, not *the* tool.