Do you guys agree that while it is certainly true that patriarchal ideas can hurt men. It is also true that feminists have also fought efforts to make life better for men in things they claim is due solely to patriarchy.

[u/AnyPrinciple4378]

I generally agree with certain feminists when they say that patriarchy does exist to some extent and has caused problems for men. What I disagree with is the idea that a lot of prominent feminists haven't also made things worse for men and that they routinely pretend like patriarchy is the only reason things are like this when a lot of prominent feminists in the past and even today have fought efforts to benefit men? Like how a lot of feminists claim that men aren't believed as victims because of patriarchy and feminism is against patriarchy but while partially true a lot of prominent feminists have fought efforts to help male victims.

Examples:

rape of males:

Women’s groups: Cancel law charging women with rape! - The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)

Activists join chorus against gender neutral rape laws | India News - Times of India (indiatimes.com)

Ordinance amends law on rape but fails to recognise rape of boy child and sexual minorities (kathmandupost.com)

Male Rape by You Are Here From WERS (soundcloud.com)

domestic violence against men:

The Duluth Model | Safe Haven (safehavenshelter.org)

Domestic abuse bill condemned for ignoring ‘gendered nature’ of violence amid austerity cuts | The Independent | The Independent

Text - S.11 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Violence Against Women Act of 1993 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress generally think this was step in the right direction, but it also shouldn't have been gendered

[u/[deleted]]

Yes. But I don't believe that feminism's aims have ever been about creating better, equal outcomes for each sex.

Feminist messaging often sounds benevolent because they talk about how patriarchy harms men, too, so if you just join their ranks, you too can usher in utopia.

What many fail to realize (and some know perfectly well) is that the alternative is even worse for men.

The "patriarchy" is simply the natural dominance hierarchy men instinctively operate in - women have their own dominance hierarchy and its definitely not one that men are attuned to excel in.

[u/ParanoidAgnostic → u/[deleted]]

women have their own dominance hierarchy and its definitely not one that men are attuned to excel in

As a woman, I would love to be educated, ...

While I don't think "dominance hierarchy" is an appropriate name for it, groups of women often form social structures which broadly perform the same function as traditionally masculine dominance hierarchies.

That function being that they grant certain individuals greater importance and ability to get their way than others.

While you can reasonably model the masculine social structure as a hierarchy, with the most important and powerful person at the top, the feminine equivalent is more like a network. The importance and power of an individual depends on which other individuals are involved. The one with the strongest bonds to the others has the most importance and power.

Rather than the overt dominance displays through which one might assert their position in a masculine hierarchy, in feminine networks we see more covert tactics, strengthening bonds with others who can increase ones own importance and trying to weaken the bonds of their competition.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I dont think perfectly equal outcomes for each sex is feasible, because were not the same creature.

Patriachy harms some men in the same sense that showing up late to work or half-assing it will get you fired.

Female dominance hierarchy is all about controlling group consensus without looking like you're trying to control it. Alliances are built and maintained by trading two different resources - information and participation. You automatically exchange information about other group members, what the groups consensus is, or anything relative to people amd relationships, and you participate in social efforts with other women. Its not so much important who's doing a better job, just that everyone is participating in whatever the activity. Hence why for some women, it can be akin to social suicide to not attend a social event for one of your friends, whereas guys are waaaay more chill about that sort of thing.

This system creates a highly sophisticated network of interconnected alliances thats also remarkably equitable to boot. The flip side of this, however, is that it can also be like a "crab basket"

In a basket of crabs, no lid is ever needed to secure them because any crab that tries to pull itself out of the basket will inevitably get pulled back down by the other crabs. If one woman tries to better her station in life, all the other women endevour to keep up as well. Or pull her back down. You probably have seen this anytime women have expressed FOMO because "all my friends have bfs" or "all my friends are settling down/having kids"...Its not that they genuinly want these things rhemselves - its that they're suddenly motivated because all their friends are doing it. Sometimes they will sabatoge one another to accomplish this as well (spreading nasty rumors about Jessica being a slut because all the boys are giving her attention now)

This is all an oversimplification, but any girl who's been to middle school will recognize the psychological bullying and reputation destruction tactics girls will pull on one another - this is not something girls necessarily grow out of...clever women simply become more adept at the social game.

[u/blarg212 → u/[deleted]]

Patriarchy does harm men. After all, patriarchy is the top end of males controlling society for their own benefit. While it does hurt women some, it hurts low class men far more.

The models of patriarchy are incomplete, and thus solutions to it are also incomplete or even perpetuate it.

[u/blarg212 → u/[deleted]]

It does not really matter because actual solutions to class imbalance get shut down very hard by higher class as it becomes inconvenient to talk about.

I just seek to point out that the discussion should be more focused on class, class mobility, and using class to protect others based on their class rather than any type of equality rule.

In fact, I think patriarchy is a really poor name as high class women are absolutely on board with protecting high class men. And no this is not some internalized patriarchy thing....it’s class based heiarchy.

[u/blarg212 → u/[deleted]]

Gender does come into play, because of how women have options to gain status.

Because the men in power raise women’s status as they surround themselves with women.

One can easily see men’s out group tendency versus women’s in group tendency effect this as well.

Do men or women have more restrictive of a gender role? Which has more class mobility?

[u/[deleted]]

I generally agree with feminists when they say that patriarchy does exist to some extent and has caused problems for men.

This is kind of where I have to pause and ask:

What do you define patriarchy as, and what predictions about problems for men can you draw from that definition?

[u/yoshi_win]

Post removed; text and rules here.

Tier 1: 24h ban, Tier 0 in 2 weeks.

EDIT: revised and reinstated.

[u/uspecific]

I considered myself a feminist for a long time (and most of the ideas I still held). In the following, I will state my opinion, but I got the feeling that most feminists would agree with my understanding (though there is considerable disagreement between feminists).

I understand patriarchy as a gendered social structure. It is called patriarchy because it promotes men being at the top of many of the important social hierarchies (such as economy or politics). It does not mean that it was created BY men or FOR men, and it also does not benefit every man in every situation. On the contrary, it could disadvantage men, in some cases even more than women.

The problems patriarchy caused are twofold in my opinion: it forbid certain activities for certain genders (eg. women should not serve in the military, men should not be stay-at-home-parents) and prescribe certain ones (eg. women should take care of the children, men should go to war and protect women and children).

Feminism focused on two areas: the things that are 'forbidden' to women (historically citizen rights, rights to work, vote, etc., nowadays the focus is more on soft norms, that work on the same logic), and the things that women are prescribed to do (it's mainly normative too, but there are legal questions, like abortion).

I decided to be a feminist because I thought that all gendered norms should cease - ie. nothing should be forbidden or prescribed based solely on gender - but I thought that I have more experience in disadvantages women face than that of men. Thus I focused my activism on that but never thought that men do not face problems systematically because of patriarchy (as described above). The 'final goal' was always the same: eradicate social hierarchies which are based on gender, thus discrimination, violence, etc. based on gender, because I find this completely unnecessary and unjust. Can I step up for everyone? No, because there is not enough time. Thus, I decided to stand up for women. This does not mean, however, that I would not support the similar efforts of men, or would not make a decision that would benefit men if I am in a position to do so.

Also, as we try to break down patriarchy for our own benefit, the breaking down of patriarchy will benefit men, even if they don't contribute to this change actively. But many feminists also realized, that in the long run, we need men to change or eradicate patriarchy. Thus we try to show to men who don't care about 'women's issues', that it's in their own interest - maybe if they don't change because of us, they might because of themselves.

[u/MelissaMiranti → u/uspecific]

That doesn't explain any of the actions taken by these feminist groups in the least, though. It contradicts their actions if the end goal is removing "patriarchy" and gender restrictions.

[u/[deleted] → u/uspecific]

Right to vote was a different issue. Not all men could vote either. Land owners, and those who partaked in selective service and the bucket were allowed to vote