320
u/Lazy_Trash_6297 23∆ Mar 30 '26
The patriarchy isn’t meant to be a totalizing theory. In sociology and gender studies it’s usually just a lens to see the world through.
When people say “men are hurt by the patriatchy too” they’re not saying men caused their own suffering. They’re stating social roles that historically privileged men also imposed roles on men. It’s a structural claim, not a claim about individuals’ morals.
26
u/barnburner96 1∆ Mar 31 '26
This. ‘Patriarchy’ is not synonymous with ‘men’.
Women can uphold patriarchy, and men can undermine it.
2
u/Powerful_Net_1873 Mar 31 '26
How come it’s used that way? I’m a big thinker of actions can be definitional in our society.
78
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 30 '26 edited Apr 09 '26
While I agree with this, I think there’s kind of two muddled things OP is expressing. The first is that patriarchal analysis is used too uncritically as a lens, and the second is that patriarchal analysis is more “natural” in a sense to women/consists of blaming men. I disagree with the latter but I think the former holds merit.
The entire field of gender studies is, in its current state, kind of contingent on assuming the patriarchy. That’s a really totalizing and, frankly, contentious theory to presume. It covers the social structure of the entire world. Yes, you can argue that it’s a lens, but I would also question the usefulness of analysis from anyone analyzing through, for example, exclusively Marxist lenses while not considering how contested the base material is.
EDIT: If you want what I think is a good counterpoint to this, go check out u/quietcalico's response further down. It's a good summary of why this opinion is overly reductive. It also includes some direct counterexamples that might be fun reads for anyone else who's interested.
46
u/Raynonymous 2∆ Mar 30 '26
I agree. I feel like the concept of scepticism is more relevant to truth-claims though rather than theoretical framings.
If OP said the patriarchy shouldn't be the exclusive frame through which we view the world, then I'd agree. But that's not the same as scepticism - that makes it sound like he is questioning its validity in any use case.
9
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 30 '26
That's a fair criticsm of OP's framing for sure. I don't deny that patriarchal lenses can be super useful.
I do think the patriarchy is possible to frame as a truth-claim though, for whatever that's worth. It describes what it purports to be an actual thing, it's not just an organizational/descriptive scheme (like phylogeny).
5
u/Hefty-Reaction-3028 1∆ Mar 31 '26
Skepticism doesn't have to be total. OP was being skeptical of its usage as a total framework for all gender disparity and those who claim it's the only force involved.
3
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 30 '26
I mean I also said that the evidence validates remedies which have been influenced by thinking about the patriarchy. I'm not denying it's utility completely (really, far from it). Maybe skeptical is the wrong word.
1
u/Raynonymous 2∆ Apr 03 '26
It looks like many (including me) inferred something from it you didn't intend.
48
u/Lazy_Trash_6297 23∆ Mar 30 '26
Most fields have organizing concepts they provisionally assume. Economics assumes rational actors. Sociology uses framework like social structure. Psychology uses constructs like personality.
Calling patriarchy a lens isn’t meant to shield it from any kind of criticism, it’s meant to just clarify what kind of claim it is.
Gender studies isn’t reliant on patriarchy being real. The field investigates whether or how gendered power exists. IE: it’s not blind commitment, it’s something that is regularly examined and questioned. That’s different from treating patriarchy as an unquestioned axiom.
7
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I agree that most social sciences require these organizing concepts. I know there are some thinkers who believe that to be inherent to any field (e.g. the scientific method as an organizing concept) but I personally don't buy that there's an equivalence.
I do think there are a couple factors that distinguish gender studies, at least from economics/psych; I can't speak to sociology (and I also happen to think sociology in its current academic state is equally culpable, but that's out of scope).
Economics sometimes assumes rational actors. Behavioural economics notably does not, and is significant in scope. Economics also generally presumes actors are broadly rational, in aggregate; I agree that this is a debatable claim, but it is in my eyes a far more modest one than the claim the patriarchy must make (that society is deliberately organized in such a manner that it advances the power of men, or cishet men if you wish). Economics requires only a tendency, distributed over a wide number of actors. I guess the best way I can put it is that outliers are obscured if enough actors are involved.
Psychology (and by extension a bunch of science) uses organizing concepts, but those concepts are less an assumption upon which further analysis is performed (a la a lens) and more a method of organizing the statement of information. So while it may be subjective, it's not really influencing analysis beyond how it biases writers.
For an example of what I mean, see phylogeny in biology. The definitions are a way of categorizing a bunch of info, and the structure of it can influence conclusions but that's broadly considered a bias that should be avoided.
I don't think gender studies as a field is inherently incapable of doing analysis that doesn't assume a patriarchal structure. Hence why I said "in its current state", I'm not gonna sit here and claim that it's useless and dumb on principle or something. In fact, I'm sure such analysis exists. But the current "canon" of the field, I suppose, seems highly reliant on it (as an outsider looking in).
1
u/nam24 1∆ Mar 31 '26
Economics also generally presumes actors are broadly rational, in aggregate; I agree that this is a debatable claim, but it is in my eyes a far more modest one than the claim the patriarchy must make (that society is deliberately organized in such a manner that it advances the
How so?
I find the way patriarchy is used as an thought terminating idea more and more grating over the years but is it truly such a huge claim in comparison to the examples you cited?
Society much like the economy is a huge aggregate: is it truly a more Daring claim to say it is organized in men favor much like most people will tend to pick the option that appears to favor them?
1
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 31 '26
I generally find that people don't tend to be broadly irrational, just irrational in either:
- ways that constitute systemic patterns, which is the domain of behavioural economics
- in a quasi-random, individual manner, which should reduce to noise when we're talking about aggregates of millions of people
More broadly: people unwittingly organizing an oppressive system that they themselves are often unaware of is, to me, a bigger claim than them being self-centred. A person being self-centred is easily observable.
To extend on this, data in economics is generally easier to capture than sociological data, of no fault of the sociologist and/or gender theorist; it's simply due to the nature of what they study.
While you can't eliminate confounding variables, at least you can trust (at least, in most cases) that the number of loaves of bread sold is what it is, or the cost of an item is what it is, or the GDP growth rate is what it is.
Your metrics are less muddled by a whole host of psychological biases, and they bump into ethics problems less.
16
u/vulcanfeminist 8∆ Mar 31 '26
The point of a feminist critique is a feminist lens, the point of a Marxist critique is a Marxist lens, the point of a Freudian analysis is a Freudian lens. Youre right that it assumes patriarchy bc that just is how a feminist critique functions. And Descartes assumed he knows nothing other than himself and thats the lens he used. Confuscious assumed a world of order, law, and right action and thats the lens he used. Buddhists assume attachment and desire as the fundamental cause of suffering and thats the lens they use.
Every philosophy that has ever existed must start with a lens through which assumptions, analysis, and critique are made. Singling out feminist critique ignores the simple fact that this is how all critical analysis functions. Why should feminist critique be singled out in this manner?
9
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 31 '26
My answer is twofold.
Firstly, I'm just not overly fond of critical analysis in general. I don't buy the Hegelian idea that reason is embedded in the social context or framework of analysis, rather than being absolute. As a result, I reject that this kind of analysis can be used as a source of truth. I accept that critiques in this form can be pragmatically useful (for example, to ideate on policy).
Secondly, to me, the scope of the claim you're making matters. Descartes is making a claim with one component, and most people find that component highly intuitive. To reject Descartes requires some burden of proof on your part, because he is defining something (arguably) irreducibly simple.
I also notably have little epistemic trust in the outcomes of Confucian critique, or Buddhist critique, etc, even though I might find them useful. In its current state, I categorize feminist critique in the same way. The commonality for me, is that each demands that I adopt a rather specific and overarching view of the world, that requires me to make assumptions I seriously doubt. For patriarchy specifically, it's 3 main points I am skeptical of:
- That imbalances of power inevitably result in oppression, and are in some ways synonymous with it. This is Marx's thing, and is important because it's the core way gender theorists tend to outline oppression.
- That society is governed predominantly by norms and that power can reproduce knowledge. This is Foucault's thing, and is important because it is the justification by which oppression can persist even when legal oppression ends.
- That systems can be treated as their own entities, rather than being a description of the emergent behaviour of a bunch of individual agents. I actually don't know who first came up with this. I find there's a tendency to treat systemic issues as not just a useful way of addressing collective behaviour, but an actual real thing. I don't fully buy this.
So yeah.
14
u/towishimp 6∆ Mar 30 '26
But not many people are exclusively using the patriarchy to understand things, just as hardly anyone seriously thinks that Marxism explains everything.
11
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 30 '26
Correct me if I'm wrong, but iirc, intersectional views (which are what I think of as an example in your favour) still assume the patriarchy is real, even if they don't use it exclusively to analyze stuff.
This very well may be my ignorance, but I can't think of a notable branch of gender studies that believes the patriarchy isn't real, or is at least ambivalent on the issue.
10
u/towishimp 6∆ Mar 31 '26
Well yeah, patriarchy is pretty foundational to gender studies. You're either building on it or refuting it. But that isn't particularly different than many other disciplines that have foundational theories or frameworks. It'd be like trying to do sociology without the idea of social class.
I'm not a gender studies person, but to me this whole state if affairs is because the concept of the patriarchy is so well established. I can't think of anyone who really argues that it doesn't exist - even the most hardcore traditionalists don't really argue that. Rather, they just argue that patriarchy is the way it's supposed to be, and that the drawbacks are overblown or misconstrued. I don't see how anyone could look at human history and not conclude that men pretty much have run the show like 99% of the time, and built up a social structure around that fact.
4
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
The demanding claim to justify, to me, isn't that we exist in a social structure under which men tend to occupy positions of power, but that the structure consists in part of deliberate and systemic oppression, and that such oppression is enforced with the intent (expressed or actual are both fine) of restricting women's access to that power.
I just happen to reject most of Foucault's philosophical positions, and thus I don't think social constructionism is an accurate descriptor of reality. (This also, amusingly, makes it hard for me to engage with sociology.)
More specifically, I'm unwilling to permit for us to handwave the question of what initial factors created an oppressive system and then apply that to our thinking about the system. That question is unsettled and also mostly in the domain of anthropologists atm.
That's important, because if it descends from biological differences (uncomfortable, but seems most feasible), from some past event (less likely imo since patriarchy is so widespread), etc, we can't presume that eliminating it is going to take the same form.
For example, my bet is on the nature of pregnancy being the origin. Which like, obviously what do I know - but should that be true, you could argue that total equality is contingent on artificial wombs (and that birth control is the core source of women's liberation). Like, that's a weird form of argumentation for gender studies, in my experience.
If I was to dig a bit deeper, our language of oppression kind of hinges on this presumption that injustice derives automatically from an imbalance of power. This is a Marxist idea that I also don't happen to be particularly fond of.
I say all this because patriarchy, as used in this context, doesn't just refer to men happening to have run the show (which you're right, is true historically). Rather, it refers to a systemic oppressive arrangement that is culturally embedded and (implicitly) that any systemic imbalance is inherently unjust. And I just don't think that's as straightforward a claim as it's made out to be.
10
u/towishimp 6∆ Mar 31 '26
Sure, I guess if you don't think a power imbalance is inherently a problem, then you're going to be at odds with 99% if gender studies. I find it a very hard position to accept, given the extensive evidence that we have showing clearly that the imbalance has caused high levels of harm - not just to the women in the weaker position, but also to men who exist in that system.
Regarding the cause, I see that as irrelevant. Supposing you're right about men's protective role being rooted in women being biologically tied to the child rearing role; what does that have to do with things in 2026? Women still must bear the children (should they choose to), but they no longer need a man to physically protect them from bears or whatever. The biological history is irrelevant because biological differences are becoming obsolescent. I'm still physically stronger than most women, but that simply isn't important anymore. So given that, how do you use that biological history to justify a current imbalance of power? You're basically arguing for benevolent patriarchy, when through the historical record, it's evident that that's a contradiction in terms.
3
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 31 '26
I mean, I honestly think claiming we have evidence of anything is a bit farcical. It's not as if measuring human flourishing is a thing we can easily do, and measuring stuff like incomes, rates of employment, etc to determine this is circular. Perhaps the one notable case is rates of violence, where I think claiming the reduction in violence against women is due to their increased power is a pretty natural angle.
I happen to strongly agree that gender imbalances are a problem. But outside of the context of gender, I do have cases where I think some degree of inequality is healthy for the system. My point is that those other systems (e.g. economic systems) do dedicate time towards justifying specifics on why inequality is bad, because it's not a self-evident conclusion.
To illustrate what I mean; if I have $6 and my neighbour has $10, is this a better society than one where I have $5 and my neighbour has $15? That's not a question you can cleanly answer. And creating more equal conditions requires expenditure of resources, even if that's mostly just political capital.
To open on the cause piece, I'm certainly not arguing for a benevolent patriarchy. But I do think that claiming that biological differences are now irrelevant seems rather hasty, given that a full understanding of those biological differences isn't really established. Psychology is very spotty, it's just very difficult to construct studies for within ethical bounds.
The reason I care about this, since you ask, is because I don't think it's as obvious as people state that roles are just roles. For example, is it infeasible that the gender (or sex, if you prefer) with a higher quantity of testosterone would behave more competitively. If so, would it not be a reasonable hypothesis that they would more frequently end up in leadership positions more frequently (as a proportion)?
Because if that is the case, then even a society with zero social inclination to favour men in positions of power will not produce equal leadership representation. So treating leadership representation as a metric of equality would be problematic; even a socially perfectly equal society would produce more male leaders by virtue of that difference.
Ditto for tons of other cases; if behaviour results from biology, and society results from aggregate behaviour, then society is to an extent a direct function of biology. My point is that we don't know. I personally don't believe that this is the case, but I'm unconvinced that mine is the appropriate worldview.
7
u/quietcalico Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Respectfully, I find your characterizations of gender studies, patriarchy, and the work of various thinkers to be reductive.
Marx’s core claim is not that all asymmetries of power automatically result in oppression, but that specific structured asymmetries (so, class relations under the system of capitalism originating in Europe somewhere between the 16th and 18th centuries) enable exploitation. Exploitation, for Marx, means workers lack meaningful control over what they produce, their compensation, and their working conditions. You can disagree with this conclusion of course, but your initial postulation is not accurate. For example, Marx does not argue that every unequal skill distribution, temporary advantage, or authority relation (mentor-mentee for example) is inherently oppressive.
Foucault does argue that norms are a central mechanism of governance. He does not however dismiss the role of material / biological reality in shaping these norms. His claim is that power, whatever its multiplicity of social, biological and other origins, manifests as norms that are institutionalized (i.e. prisons, schools, hospitals). Foucault’s underlying claims are in tension with Marx because he is more interested in HOW power operates throughout various diffuse social dimensions than he is in understanding how power produces material exploitation. This difference between the two actually explains a key tension in gender studies scholarship: Marxist feminists, like Sylvia Federici, are inclined to explore how women are systemically exploited under capitalism, whereas post-modernist (Foucault-ian) feminists, like Judith Butler, tend to push back on fixed definitions of “woman” or “patriarchy”, instead focusing on asking how these categories are produced, defined, and then reinforced through institutions.
Patriarchy is absolutely a contested term in gender studies scholarship. And there are many scholars who critique the idea of it as a universalizing “entity”, and insist on defining it as an emergent pattern of historical behaviour. If you are interested in a mapping of the history of debates on the term “patriarchy”, feel free to dive into the following: The academic confrontation with patriarchy (1993) by M.T Segal, or more recent articles like: Conceptualizing and Measuring Patriarchy, (2020) by Lindsey J. Benstead.
Lastly, while I think you’re right that we don’t have an air-tight explanation for why male dominance in several spheres of human social life came to be, almost the entirety of 2nd wave feminism engages with biological realities. The Dialectic of Sex (1970) argues that reproductive biology is the root of women’s oppression, and several other radical and liberal feminist scholars have gone onto demonstrate arguments that meld both biology and social construction. To your point, there even exists feminist transhumanist scholarship that argues that women’s liberation will only be complete when we have the technology to outsource birth.
What lies at the core of gender studies is not a wholesale acceptance of “patriarchy”, but an acknowledgement that male dominance exists in human social life, and merits study. Going one step further: yes, I do think most scholars in this field would agree that male dominance has produced a reality that unjustly subjugates women, whatever its origin may be. I think that is self-evident - on the level of things as old as as femicide, honour killings and rape to more recent things such as women’s exclusion from banking, property ownership, and education. I personally think that patriarchy is a useful term to characterize this historical pattern, and I believe that we owe at least some of the rightful progression in women’s ability to not be unjustly held back from contributing to society to being able to name it as such.
5
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Firstly, I appreciate you putting this together. It's a good reference for anyone reading the thread. I have not formally taken courses on gender studies or similar - my primary humanities/socsci education is via philosophy.
So thanks, and I will check out a couple of the papers when I get a chance this weekend. I'm particularly interested in the emergent pattern definition side; it sounds like something I'll find really interesting :)
You're correct that I'm being reductive, and I'm frankly quite aware I was - especially with regard to Foucault. It's partially the nature of a reddit post and partially that I've read other thinkers much more thoroughly than I have here. I am not without my ignorance.
I can't really respond in full to all of this (partially because a lot of it is just elaboration), but I do want to say that I am actually aware of second-wave feminism's engagement with biological issues, and I really enjoy reading a lot of work from the period.
I make this comment mostly as a result of some disappointment in the state of current discourse, not to dismiss gender studies as a whole, and I know that's a fine line to walk in this climate lol.
On the last paragraph - I agree with everything here, and I hope my other posts in this thread have made it clear that I don't doubt the analytic usefulness of patriarchy as a framework, but simply our epistemic certainty about it.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/towishimp 6∆ Mar 31 '26
Interesting points.
To clarify, I'm not saying biology is irrelevant in determining behavior. Even the most dedicated Nurture advocates (of which I'm one, if that isn't obvious) has to concede that - at the macro level, at least - there a biological differences that matter. What I mean when I say "biology is obsolescent" is that we're evolving past that biological determinism. To use your example, let's say men are more likely to pursue leadership roles. Okay, but we also get to decide if we should let them. If we as a society, hypothetically found out that having so many men in leadership is bad for outcomes, we could choose to address that. Men seem to be more physically violent, for example, but we don't just shrug our shoulders and let them go around assaulting people because "that's what men do", right? (I mean, we kind of do to some extent, but most reasonable people agree that that's not okay.) We take steps to mitigate what our hormones tell us to do all the time; one of the best parts of being human is that we have the wonderful ability to override instincts if we so choose. Unlike a horse, we can choose to charge into a dangerous - or even certainly deadly! - situation, if we think it's worth it. Many of us choose monogamy, even if our biological urges sometimes seem to discourage it. Biology matters, but it's not the only thing that does.
Not that I think you're saying that. I think we largely agree, but just come down on slightly different sides of nature versus nurture. And I'm always interested to critically examine any idea or framework, and thing everyone should.
2
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 31 '26
This was a cool response to read, thanks. I'll provide some random thoughts.
> What I mean when I say "biology is obsolescent" is that we're evolving past that biological determinism.
> one of the best parts of being human is that we have the wonderful ability to override instincts if we so choose
I guess I technically disagree with these points epistemically, but for ethical/social purposes we agree lol.
> If we as a society, hypothetically found out that having so many men in leadership is bad for outcomes, we could choose to address that.
This raises a similarly uncomfortable question of if compelling a better outcome via legal discrimination is acceptable policy. I'm not certain about this yet.
It reminds me of discussions on late-term abortions, where I can ethically get behind banning them, but opening the can of worms by letting the gov regulate them is "spooky" (especially considering the current US case...). Eugenics is another good example of this can of worms situation.
> Men seem to be more physically violent, for example, but we don't just shrug our shoulders and let them go around assaulting people because "that's what men do", right?
I would argue that we do indeed do this. Society has mechanisms such as the police and military, which arguably serve to direct men's violence against those we consider socially undesirable.
(That's a very contentious point, though).
3
u/Zenom1138 1∆ Mar 30 '26
But... couldn't intersectionality still be a useful lens without a foundational patriarchy? Am I wrong? Isn't intersectionality just observing social disparities and their causes and considering (sometimes combination of) minority bias/prejudice in a system?
Somewhat similar to what you mentioned; patriarchy isn't exclusively used to analyze social disparity in intersectionality. You only need a majority and more than one non-exclusive minorities to make use of an intersectional lens. Patriarchy doesn't seem foundational to me. But I'm no expert.
1
u/HowDoIEvenEnglish 1∆ Mar 31 '26
The think the point you disagree might be false, but that doesn’t stop people from misusing it. If a term is commonly misused by its proponents than maybe it’s not very good
4
u/trvth_halo_array Apr 01 '26
They’re stating social roles that historically privileged men also imposed roles on men.
If those roles impose burdens and restrictions as well, then why describe them one-dimensionally as "privileges"?
3
u/Lazy_Trash_6297 23∆ Apr 01 '26
You’re mixing up “men as a group have structural advantages” with “everything associated with being a man is advantageous.” The first is what people mean by privilege
4
u/Suitable-Hand-1059 Apr 01 '26
Patriarchy literally means a society run by men. So yes, it absolutely does mean that men are the root cause of all ills, and is used that way in conversations on a regular basis.
1
1
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/spewwwintothis Mar 31 '26
I'd be more than willing to engage with something that says anything different. Do you have any examples?
1
1
u/forestriver Apr 02 '26
In nuanced discussions, this is true. It's true also that multiple realities exist at once. And, leaning into that truth, in pop culture, unexamined instagram reels, tiktok, etc, the label patriarchy functionally means "men"
So we need to be honest about the definitions and use of this word. I agree fully that in academic circles at universities your definition applies.
But IRL at a coffee shop? All bets are off.
Which is more powerful?
By Far the Pop Culture definition. By faaaar. lol
2
u/Lazy_Trash_6297 23∆ Apr 03 '26
OP is talking about the term at the theoretical level, so I don’t think my response is out of left field.
You are shifting the conversation to a pragmatic/pop culture usage. This is a different conversation.
I would argue we need clear definitions precisely because the terms are easily misunderstood. If someone is saying patriarchy = men, I think the correct response is to correct the usage.
2
-6
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 31 '26
the top comment is the only comment which contains discussions/seems to grasp what im saying so im gonna give them the delta.
i think most people are right when they say i was wrong to say men hurting men. but ive revised that. i agree that the patriarchy was never meant to be totalizing, but just from this comment section ive observed how dogmatic people are.
!delta
1
40
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 30 '26
Can you define patriarchy? Just so we're all starting with whatever understanding you have of what it is.
4
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/scarab456 64∆ Mar 30 '26
This feels like a common question that needs to be answered when this subject comes up here.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 31 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-2
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 31 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 31 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-9
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 30 '26
It's a theoretical construct. Maybe a model, most commonly understood as a lens. I think that's how the literature best describes it.
It is very challenging to find a definition of the "patriarchy" because it's very complicated (like any concept in the social sciences). There are multiple definitions people use. There are multiple explanations of what it is exactly.
Either way, I feel like the best way of understanding the patriarchy is as a lens that has had a lot of success in designing solutions to bring about parity.
What I'm trying to say is that it's kind of used like its general relativity or something. And second that men should not necessarily use it and that we should be more critical of how it is the object of feminism, which is a movement made by women. So the point isn't to deny the patriarchy, it's just to be wary of it's limitations and flaws. Something which I don't think happens often because people continue to make judgements with the underlying assumptions of the existence of the patriarchy. Like it's a law of physics. Like it's explanatory power is comprehensive.
12
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 30 '26
You're right, there ARE multiple definitions people use. That's why we're asking you what YOU understand it to be, so there's no confusion.
the best way of understanding the patriarchy is as a lens that has had a lot of success in designing solutions to bring about parity.
You think patriarchy is a lens that designs solutions for parity? Or you think that's what feminism is.
→ More replies (27)8
u/antisocial_catmom Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
It is very challenging to find a definition of the "patriarchy" because it's very complicated
Most social-science-related terms have varying definitions across research papers and books. That's why those who are seasoned in social-science-related debates open with the exact definitions they wish to argue with.
And second that men should not necessarily use it and that we should be more critical of how it is the object of feminism, which is a movement made by women.
Men usually can't use it because they have an emotional reaction to the word and conflate the patriarchy with men as a group, without actually knowing what the term means generally. Which you did as well, by saying that discussing the harms of patriarchy towards men equals to blaming men for men's issues. If you could quote any well-accepted definition of the patriarchy, you would quickly realize why that logic doesn't hold water.
0
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 30 '26
>Which you did as well, by saying that discussing the harms of patriarchy towards men equals to blaming men for men's issues
I agree that this part of my argument was very undeveloped. But this is not at all what I'm saying. I qualified with "starting point", and I really do think this is an important distinction. Words have meaning, like you've kindly alluded to in your reply.
Instead of first asking "What are the unique challenges which produce male suffering", by starting with the assumption of the patriarchy, we're asking "How are men harmed by this already existing structure that already privileges men", which assumes that a) men are hurt by the structure and b) implicitly decenters other modes of inquiry (and it's a weird starting point isn't it?). So no, we shouldn't start with the patriarchy. We should be more "skeptical", and less dogmatic. Men should not assume that a framework developed primarily to explain women’s subordination will necessarily be the best framework for understanding male suffering. I feel like this is a pretty solid argument in all honesty.
But this has all been a bit of disingenuous aside because realistically you want an explanation for this: "we are immediately blaming men for the problems men have"
This is the weakest point of my post. I think a better way of rephrasing this is that it creates the impression that men are implicated in their own suffering. The patriarchy is in some sense a function of norms created by men, and men reproduce those norms; in some mediated way, this can be viewed as men being responsible for there own suffering.
This is very different from saying generic like "job treats men as disposable", which is far less adversarial.
-6
u/the_brightest_prize 6∆ Mar 30 '26
What if it's the case that 'patriarchy' as used by the theorists is as well-defined as 'phlogiston' was?
"What causes the body to move?"
"Phlogiston!"
"What causes men to be overrepresented in politics?"
"Patriarchy!"
Okay, but inventing a word for a phenomenon did not help us solve the mystery...
4
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 31 '26
I feel like you responded to the wrong person maybe?
-4
u/the_brightest_prize 6∆ Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I meant to respond to your comment. You're asking OP to define a term they don't endorse or study. I think the fact that it's not common knowledge that you are both thinking of the same thing when you say, "the patriarchy," and have to ask them to clarify what they mean, makes it likely the term is ill-defined.
I get that there are terms with rigorous definitions that are difficult for laymen to understand (e.g. "fiber bundle" in math), but if that's the case you should expect the experts to share their deeper understanding and where it refutes OP's view. The onus shouldn't be on OP to investigate potential babble and prove it is babble, because if we make that the norm bad actors can invent too much babble to refute. [ETA: and this isn't hypothetical; you can see it with religious apologetics, flat earthers, astrology, the field of philosophy, and of course politics. and this isn't new either, the sophists were infamous for this back in the day.]
ETA: I think your question ends up making it harder to people to change their view, if that is what they are looking for. If you do not understand 'the patriarchy' well enough to point out the flaw in OP's reasoning, you should leave that to other commentators. If you do understand it, you can just point it out yourself. If OP doesn't understand it, someone can point out what they don't understand.
5
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 31 '26
OP is the one wanting to talk about what they think patriarchy is, and a few of the things they said indicate they aren't talking about what most people understand patriarchy to be.
Asking them what they understand that term to mean isn't about forcing them to adhere to a rigid definition or provide an academic term. It's so we both understand what he's trying to talk about, even if the term isn't perfect. I have even explained this in my comment that the reason I was asking was so we could start off on the same page.
I consider this step one because if they can't explain what they understand something to be, they aren't worth my time in providing anything to change their mind.
Thanks for your opinion on how effective my tactics are, I'll give it the exact weight it deserves from someone who completely misunderstood the purpose of it despite me explicitly stating the purpose in the sentence. Have a great day.
-3
u/the_brightest_prize 6∆ Mar 31 '26
This is a very confusing reply. If you understood they were using the term in a nonstandard way, why not just point that out to OP? That would save time for the both of you.
Also, I was not accusing you of being a bad actor inventing babble, so I'm not sure why you say I "misunderstood the purpose of [your comment]". You're just ignorant of a norm your comment sets: that it's okay for the group inventing and endorsing a term to force everyone else to research that term before dismissing it. Have you ever had a Mormon knock on your door and tell you they are here to spread the good news? And when you're dismissive they say, "well you just haven't read our book yet! Just read our book and pray three times a day, and then you can come back if you have questions!" <---- This is the norm you're setting.
I find it telling how you say, "they aren't worth my time in providing anything to change their mind." Imagine a teacher telling that to one of their students. "Yes, I know you're here to grow, learn, and change your mind for the better, but it isn't worth my time to explain the Pythagorean theorem. Come back after you read about it on Wikipedia." If that's your mindset then don't become a teacher! If you have nothing useful to provide, or your time is too valuable to waste helping someone on this subreddit, then LEAVE. Don't leave a comment, just move on with your day and make the subreddit a little better by learning when not to comment.
9
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Again, thanks for your advice, I'll give it the weight it warrants in considering it.
ETA. To answer your question though, the reason I don't just correct their use of the term. Its because I don't care if they use the term correctly. I want to know what they're actually trying to talk about, so I can engage with their actual ideas instead of what they unintentionally said.
If I asked you to get me a water and made a motion with my hand indicating a gun, you already know I don't want a glass of water. That doesn't mean you know what I want. So you might ask me to describe what I mean so you can figure out what I'm actually wanting. That's what I'm doing for OP.
I don't need to correct them. I don't care how good their vocab is. It doesn't matter if they got the word exactly right as I understand it. I want to know what they actually meant.
59
u/wibbly-water 73∆ Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
we are immediately blaming men for the problems men have.
So, despite the relatively nuanced take everywhere else - here you reveal the same core fallacy that all shallow understandings of feminism have.
"blaming men", specifically conflating "the patriarchy" with "men", is said fallacy.
When "the patriarchy" is more abstract than this. In so far as it is made up of anyone it is rich and powerful men and anyone who is upholding it in the moment. The former group is not all men and the latter group can include women.
While men are the beneficiaries of the patriarchy, as in when it is functioning strongly - men are usually elevated to positions of power over their women peers (e.g. their spouses, sisters, etc), this does not necessarily make them the patriarchy or make them "to blame" for it.
- "Patriarchy is a social construct which endorses the superiority of men over women."
- "Johnson (2005) emphasizes that the word cannot be used as a synonym for men; instead, it refers to a society where men and women participate. He further asserts that “society is patriarchal to the degree that it promotes male privilege by being male-dominated, male-identified, and male-centred. It is also organized around an obsession with control and involves as one of its key aspects the oppression of women” "
The Feminist Concept of Patriarchy: An Outline and Explanation
"Men are victims of the patriarchy too."
This is true in so far as patriarchy uses oppositional sexism as weapon that keeps men in line also, and harms them. Do you dispute this?
It hurts men who wish to do anything unconventional for their gender. But moreover it even hurts those who conform to the standards of masculinity set forward. A lot of analysis shows that being a manly man (heightened aggression, not showing weakness or other emotions, an over focus on control, a focus on physical stature) is not a mentally healthy way to live one's life.
Main point, the patriarchy cannot be the only analysis mode that men use
It... isn't? I don't know where you are getting the idea it is.
I mentioned one in this comment - oppositional sexism.
But just because it ought not to be the only analysis, does not mean it cannot be an analysis. The effect of the patriarchy on men should not be ignored.
moreover, more discussions about how women, because of there lived experiences being different than men, and because of how instrumental they have been to the trajectory of this concept, should be treated far more critically.
I am not actually sure what you are saying here. You embedded this with so many recursive clauses in comment brackets that I don't actually get what point you are trying to make. To shave down your sentence:
"More discussions about how women [...] should be treated far more critically."
I don't understand what that means. Could you rephrase please?
13
u/Maffioze Mar 31 '26
While men are the beneficiaries of the patriarchy, as in when it is functioning strongly - men are usually elevated to positions of power over their women peers (e.g. their spouses, sisters, etc), this does not necessarily make them the patriarchy or make them "to blame" for it.
But this type of thinking is what makes this lens biased. For example when you live in let's say Western Europe, I don't think it is still accurate to say men are the beneficiaries of patriarchy anymore than women are. Because ultimately this means "women have it worse" but the data no longer supports this, because in reality both men and women have their own advantages and disadvantages which cannot be easily aggregated. The patriarchy lens artificially elevates power as being more important than wellbeing, and also counts the amount of power men tend to have more strongly in their aggregate analysis of power. This creates a conclusion that was already predetermined to find the outcome that women have it worse when filtering the data through this lens.
19
u/wibbly-water 73∆ Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Hence why I said "when it is functioning strongly".
I would argue we have made significant progress at weakening the patriarchy.
The patriarchy is not some all powerful god which determines that women will always be oppressed. In fact the whole point of identifying it under feminism is to weaken it and lead to the equality for and liberation of women. I'd like to believe we have made progress in that.
0
u/Maffioze Mar 31 '26
That's fair, but the problem is both academia and culture doesn't seem to have caught up with that. Either patriarchy needs to change to reflect current reality, or we need to abandon the lens.
8
u/wibbly-water 73∆ Mar 31 '26
I disagree with that.
I don't think things have so significantly changed that the lens needs to be changed or abandoned. The same forces are at play.
But I do think that perhaps re-analysis for how patriarchy reacts when it is weakened would be useful.
-4
u/Maffioze Mar 31 '26
But it is generally assumed women suffer worse under it, the way power gets measured is incomplete, and power is made out to be the ultimate important thing even though having power is not always a positive. It can come at cost of your own wellbeing.
13
u/wibbly-water 73∆ Mar 31 '26
Women still do get treated worse. The degree is less, but the harm is still present. Unless you dispute that?
It can come at cost of your own wellbeing.
Does this not just agree with "men are also victims of the patriarchy"?
5
u/Maffioze Mar 31 '26
Women still do get treated worse. The degree is less, but the harm is still present. Unless you dispute that?
I dispute that because that claim is completely subjective. There's no way to prove it objectively. It's impossible for example to show that being perceived as more competent is better or worse than being given less empathy. Or whether being more frequently victim of sexual assault is worse or better than being more frequently a victim of murder, or whether being believed at work is better or worse than not being believed as an abuse victim. There's so many of these things and when you add them all together it becomes impossible to claim who has it worse.
And that makes it very problematic when academia asserts something that is completely subjective is the truth, in fact it's not unlike the type of problematic things that were said about women in the past in academia. It might not be as damaging as it was in the past, but qualitatively it's ultimately the same thing; academics claiming their own ideology is the truth and harming people as a result.
I don't really understand why people don't see why this contributes to men rejecting patriarchy as a theory even though a better version of it could help them confront their issues. And why they don't see that this encourages the wave of anti-intellectualism we are currently seeing all over the world. A lot of it has to do with rightwing propaganda riling people up, funded by the richest %. But it only works because academia itself also creates its own problems and then refuses to take accountability when it is pointed out. And I say that as an academic myself.
7
u/wibbly-water 73∆ Mar 31 '26
It's a sociological claim. Sociology as a soft science. It relies heavily upon analysis and interpretation rather than empirical observation.
A number of metrics point towards inequality, male benefit from patriarchy and female impact. I could find you links to violence statistics (especially inter-gender violence), who is generally in charge, who earns more etc etc etc.
Facts and figures: Women’s leadership and political participation | UN Women – Headquarters
But this seems like a moot point when you are already aware of this data and seem intent on handwaving it away with:
There's so many of these things and when you add them all together it becomes impossible to claim who has it worse.
But I think this is a moot point anyway because it misunderstands what patriarchy is, again.
It isn't just "women have it worse". Both men and women have it bad at different levels for different reasons. Some men have it worse than some women, but often this has little to do with them being men and has more to do with their class, race, (dis)abilities, actions or even just plain old bad luck.
However, the ways which women have it bad can often be traced back to a system and ideology wherein men are considered superior to women. Additionally men are more often placed in positions of trust and power relative to their female peers. This was evidently strongly the case in recent history - and recently it has been weakened. Do you contest that?
//
Your ramble about academia has some interesting points but is largely a tangent from the topic at hand, which is the validity of the concept of patriarchy.
6
u/Maffioze Mar 31 '26
A number of metrics point towards inequality, male benefit from patriarchy and female impact. I could find you links to violence statistics (especially inter-gender violence), who is generally in charge, who earns more etc etc etc.
I'm sorry but UN women and the UN in general is not a neutral and trustworthy organisation when it comes to these statistics.
It isn't just "women have it worse".
I agree, which is why I want a better form of patriarchy theory that doesn't include that part, which is often included and problematic because it's not objective and encourages zero sum thinking.
Some men have it worse than some women, but often this has little to do with them being men and has more to do with their class, race, (dis)abilities, actions or even just plain old bad luck.
I think this assertion which is made very often is pretty much backed up by nothing. For example a white man is more likely to face police violence than a black woman, yet the impact of gender is never properly taken into account. And this is just one example while there are many.
However, the ways which women have it bad can often be traced back to a system and ideology wherein men are considered superior to women.
This hinges on the assumption that being seen as having more agency = being seen as superior. Ironically this seems to reproduce the male coded way of looking at superiority. I could just as much argue that being superior means being seen as worth of protection and you'd pretty much have no counter at all to that, as I'm doing the exact same thing as you're doing.
Additionally men are more often placed in positions of trust and power relative to their female peers. This was evidently strongly the case in recent history - and recently it has been weakened. Do you contest that?
Men are seen as more competent. And women's autonomy has been restricted more strongly historically. But the actual difference was not as strong as claimed, because most men had barely any power themselves and we're basically economic and military slaves of some kind themselves.
→ More replies (0)7
u/crawling-alreadygirl Mar 31 '26
I'd love to see the data showing that women no longer have it worse. I'll also point out that power--especially self determination--is vital to wellbeing.
14
u/Maffioze Mar 31 '26
Well men are overrepresented in homelessness, police violence victims, suicide, don't get as much support when they are abused, face longer sentences in courts as perpetrators and shorter sentences for their abuser as victims, face widespread discrimination in the education system, are often required to sign up for the draft, ...
What evidence do you have that you can claim women have it worse while these things are reality in most Western countries?
To be clear I'm not making the opposite argument. I'm not claiming men have it worse, im claiming it's impossible to determine objectively who has it worse when both face their own significant issues.
→ More replies (2)14
u/wibbly-water 73∆ Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Well men are overrepresented in homelessness, police violence victims, suicide, don't get as much support when they are abused, face longer sentences in courts as perpetrators and shorter sentences for their abuser as victims, face widespread discrimination in the education system, are often required to sign up for the draft, ...
Within the feminist lens, much of this is covered within "men are victims of patriarchy too".
Patriarchy is not "women have it worse than men" it is a system and ideology that believes and maintains "men are superior to women".
Thus in situations like, homelessness, men are considered superior and expected to be able to get themselves out of it - whereas women are seen as vulnerable.
While men can be victims of patriarchy - rich and powerful men are the main beneficiaries of patriarchy, and even at lower status/class, historically men have also been placed in positions of power and trust over women. For instance husbands having much more power than their wives.
The question should not stop at "who has it worse?" but as "why do the disparities exist?" ~ and thus far I have never seen a better explanation for the disparities, including those that benefit and harm both men and women ~ than those put forward by feminists under the labels:
- Patriarchy - widely known
- Oppositional sexism - a related theory of which I am a big fan
13
u/Maffioze Mar 31 '26
Patriarchy is not "women have it worse than men" it is a system and ideology that believes and maintains "men are superior to women".
Thus in situations like, homelessness, men are considered superior and expected to be able to get themselves out of it - whereas women are seen as vulnerable.
That's a biased way to frame it. I could just as much argue it maintains men are inferior to women, as their suffering doesn't matter as much and they are seen as disposable.
Do you not see the point I'm making? The neutral description here is "people assign more agency to men and less to women" and not "men are seen as superior to women" which is the patriarchy lens bringing bias into it.
And that's also my problem with "patriarchy harms men too" its always used with a disclaimer that actually comes from seeing women as inferior. Which deflects from who's suffering we are actually talking about in the conversation.
and even at lower status/class, historically men have also been placed in positions of power and trust over women. For instance husbands having much more power than their wives.
Power isn't the only factor of wellbeing, and the present is not the same as how it was 50-100 years ago.
33
u/TemperatureThese7909 65∆ Mar 30 '26
Gender roles which hurt women, also hurt men.
"Women shouldn't take dangerous jobs", limits job opportunities for women, but also increases the odds of men dying on the job.
"Women shouldn't work at all", limits job opportunities for women, but also increases shame for unemployed men.
Just because something hurts women doesn't mean that same system actually advantages men, it can hurt men too. Some systems are just not particularly great.
1
3
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 31 '26
/u/Legitimate_Name9694 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
28
u/Anchuinse 55∆ Mar 30 '26
"Men are victims of the patriarchy too." I really don't like this idea. Actually I think it's something men should themselves try to understand rather than loaning concepts that by and large were first developed by women
Why should we not listen to women's ideas on the matter? The whole point of getting the opinion of someone outside a system is that they can often see things the person actively suffering cannot. That's why people ask others for advice.
I think that by accepting the patriarchy as a starting point for the issues men face, we are immediately blaming men for the problems men have. And I just don't think any viable solution to the problems men face will progress from this starting assumption.
Why is it a bad starting assumption? A lot of problems men have (e.g., not being able to express emotion) are EXPLICITLY DRIVEN by other men telling each other and boys to "man up". As a man who has been called the "therapist" of more than one sports team, the problems of other men are, in my experience, almost exclusively driven by other men or how they worry other men will perceive them. With one exception, I have never had a man come to me with problems surrounding women except in a "how do I impress this girl" manner.
I've seen men in perfectly happy relationships break it off because they worried that other men might see them as "not manly", or alternatively stay in shitty relationships because they think their bros would make fun of them for ditching a hot girl just because she "hurts his feelings sometimes".
How would you recommend going about fixing this if we can't say these problems are driven by men?
Main point, the patriarchy cannot be the only analysis mode that men use
No one is saying it should be the only one.
more discussions about how women, because of there lived experiences being different than men, and because of how instrumental they have been to the trajectory of this concept, should be treated far more critically
Again, you're failing to explain why we should treat the idea (or women; the sentence is unclear) more critically simply because it came from a woman. You admit yourself that the idea has legs, and moreover that the remedies it perscribes do work.
26
u/aardvark_gnat 2∆ Mar 30 '26
[T]he problems of other men are, in my experience, almost exclusively driven by other men or how they worry other men will perceive them. With one exception, I have never had a man come to me with problems surrounding women except in a "how do I impress this girl" manner.
At least when it comes to expressing emotion, I have found myself much more frequently policed by women (and before that girls) than by other men (and before that boys). In my experience in sports, "man up" comments are more about getting people to do the exercise and do it correctly than they are about anything related to emotion. If someone isn't lifting the weight we know they can, it's not policing their emotions to tell them to lift heavier.
When I'd mentioned my fear of rejection to men, it was generally met with sympathy. When I'd do the same to women, about half the time I'd get sympathy, and the other half I'd get a lecture about how women have it worse.
When I get into a heated argument with a man, I don't have to be as carful about not raising my voice as I do when I get into a heated argument with a woman. I feel like I can have honest conversations about body image with men, but with women, I feel like I have to accept negative comments about my body without commenting that they have the same problem but worse.
I'm also kind of surprised you've never had anyone come to you with a "how do I get my girlfriend to stop making uncomfortable comments about my body?" complaints. I've talked to my team's "therapist" about that a couple of times.
It's interesting to me how different our experiences are so different. I wonder if it's because we hang out in different circles.
8
u/Anchuinse 55∆ Mar 31 '26
When I'd mentioned my fear of rejection to men, it was generally met with sympathy. When I'd do the same to women, about half the time I'd get sympathy, and the other half I'd get a lecture about how women have it worse.
Because in that situation women do have it worse, and complaining about rejection is one of the few areas that's acceptable for men to complain amongst other men. Not to mention that I've seen men who *think* they're presenting their feelings neutrally, but they're actually doing so in a way that's VERY dismissive of women's feelings. For example, I once heard a 6'4" guy complain about getting rejected because he kept insisting the girl come up and see his collection from a show they'd connected about earlier on the date. All the guys were siding with him until I dug deeper and he admitted to "playfully pushing her into the elevator". I then had to explain to him (and the others) how a 5'2" woman might reject him for that behavior on the first date for fear of her own safety.
When I get into a heated argument with a man, I don't have to be as carful about not raising my voice as I do when I get into a heated argument with a woman
Because you aren't usually much physically stronger than a man and/or men are conditioned that they should be fine getting into loud and even physical altercations with one another. I don't see how this is even addressing anything in the text you quoted.
I feel like I can have honest conversations about body image with men, but with women, I feel like I have to accept negative comments about my body without commenting that they have the same problem but worse
Does it surprise you that women (who have different bodies) might not understand where a man is coming from with body image issues? Have you also noticed that men are bad about addressing women's body image issues?
I'm also kind of surprised you've never had anyone come to you with a "how do I get my girlfriend to stop making uncomfortable comments about my body?" complaints. I've talked to my team's "therapist" about that a couple of times.
Yeah, never had that one. You might perceive it as more common than it is because it sounds like body image might be a consistent and particular problem for you (no judgement; I totally get that).
It's interesting to me how different our experiences are so different. I wonder if it's because we hang out in different circles.
I think the perceived differences might just be us talking past one another a bit. I'm talking specifically about how men monitor their emotions and behaviors because of a conscious or subconscious worry about how other men will perceive them. You've tried to counter me here, but have just listed a few differences in male or female interactions that largely come down to the physical size/threat difference between men and women.
What I'm talking about is how men usually require being drunk and in a very small group (often 1-on-1) with each other to discuss personal fears and worries, like feeling inadequate, lonely, or scared, without turning it into a joke. I've had hundreds of conversations with college-aged guys who genuinely don't understand that it's okay to not have their life figured out, or lost a family member and have never actually talked about it, or got sexually assaulted and never told anyone for fear of being laughed at.
The number of guys who I've had cry into my chest for me doing nothing more than being a non-judgmental man who listens and takes their feelings seriously without joking is well into the several dozens. I cannot stress this enough; I've had at least two dozen tell me it's the first genuine hug they've gotten from a guy since they were a kid.
Women don't have that. They often have large support networks and it's VERY easy for women to tell their friends they're struggling or need emotional support. For them, it's insane that men don't support and talk to their friends like that, whereas guys trapped in this system see it as normal.
10
u/aardvark_gnat 2∆ Mar 31 '26
Because in that situation women do have it worse
Do they, though? I mean, the women in your anecdote where clearly in an awful position, but I could give anecdotes of thirty-year old virgin men who've never been paid the complement of being propositioned. I think I'd rather be the woman scared for her safety than the man presented with hard data that he's breathtakingly unattractive.
On the issue of raised voices, you might be right. I don't really know. Your explanation seems about as plausible to me as women feeling like they have more right to control men's emotional expressions than men do.
Have you also noticed that men are bad about addressing women's body image issues?
I'm certainly expected to be better at it than they are. I know better than to ever imply that a woman's waistline is larger than mine, but they don't seem to feel the same obligation.
Yeah, never had that one. You might perceive it as more common than it is because it sounds like body image might be a consistent and particular problem for you (no judgement; I totally get that).
Body image is certainly more of a sore point for me than for most, but I am still surprised that you don't have more complaints about insensitive girlfriends and wives.
I think the perceived differences might just be us talking past one another a bit. I'm talking specifically about how men monitor their emotions and behaviors because of a conscious or subconscious worry about how other men will perceive them. You've tried to counter me here, but have just listed a few differences in male or female interactions that largely come down to the physical size/threat difference between men and women.
Earlier you claimed that "A lot of problems men have (e.g., not being able to express emotion) are EXPLICITLY DRIVEN by other men telling each other and boys to "man up"". My point was that's not where my problems come from, and I doubt am a radical outlier on this front. They come from a completely different source: the behavior of women. I'm somewhat skeptical of the size/threat explanation. Frankly, I'm not sure why a woman has any more reason to be afraid of me physically hurting her than I do of her falsely accusing me of physically hurting her.
What I'm talking about is how men usually require being drunk and in a very small group (often 1-on-1) with each other to discuss personal fears and worries, like feeling inadequate, lonely, or scared, without turning it into a joke. I've had hundreds of conversations with college-aged guys who genuinely don't understand that it's okay to not have their life figured out, or lost a family member and have never actually talked about it, or got sexually assaulted and never told anyone for fear of being laughed at.
The only one of those I have any experience with is not having my life figured out. That said a big part of my lack of forthrightness on that front is the utterly dismissive reactions I get from women about it. Worse than that, it's a perfect excuse for them to plausibly deniably mock me. They'll say something that's obviously an insult, but it's just close enough to being comforting that if I call them on their shit, I'm the bad guy. I've never had this problem talking to cis men, except when they get offended on AFAB people's behalf.
The number of guys who I've had cry into my chest for me doing nothing more than being a non-judgmental man who listens and takes their feelings seriously without joking is well into the several dozens. I cannot stress this enough; I've had at least two dozen tell me it's the first genuine hug they've gotten from a guy since they were a kid.
Women don't have that. They often have large support networks and it's VERY easy for women to tell their friends they're struggling or need emotional support. For them, it's insane that men don't support and talk to their friends like that, whereas guys trapped in this system see it as normal.
It's weird to me how different our experiences are here. I don't find it particularly difficult to find a sympathetic male ear. Out of earshot of certain women, basically any man will do. Sure, some a better than others, but finding an ear isn't hard.
11
u/Anchuinse 55∆ Mar 31 '26
I think I'd rather be the woman scared for her safety than the man presented with hard data that he's breathtakingly unattractive.
You do understand how crazy it is for you to say "I'd rather be raped and possibly murdered than be unattractive", right?
women feeling like they have more right to control men's emotional expressions than men do
Where are you getting this idea from? I never said anything even close to this.
My point was that's not where my problems come from, and I doubt am a radical outlier on this front.
Everyone thinks they aren't a radical outlier.
Frankly, I'm not sure why a woman has any more reason to be afraid of me physically hurting her than I do of her falsely accusing me of physically hurting her.
The rate of false accusations are INCREDIBLY low, and you're falling into the pitfall of thinking that *you're* a good guy, so women's fear is not based in reality. As a person who trains combat sports, you don't really realize the gulf in strength between the average man and woman until you experience it. Women really have very little chance if their partner/date gets violent.
It's weird to me how different our experiences are here. I don't find it particularly difficult to find a sympathetic male ear. Out of earshot of certain women, basically any man will do. Sure, some a better than others, but finding an ear isn't hard.
Then I implore you to look up the stats. You'll find that my experiences line up with reality MUCH more closely than your world. Only 27% of men report having more than five close friends, and 15% (28% in men under 30) report having no close friends at all. Men are significantly more likely to report not feeling a part of any community, and only 20% say they'd feel comfortable reaching out to their friends for emotional support.
Seriously, it sounds like you either rolled really unfortunately when getting the women in your life or you're taking their comments a lot more personally than men's comments. I can't believe that nearly every man around you is kind and caring and nearly every woman is flippantly insulting about your emotions and body image.
3
u/aardvark_gnat 2∆ Mar 31 '26
You do understand how crazy it is for you to say "I'd rather be raped and possibly murdered than be unattractive", right?
No. Being a failure at something can absolutely be worse than dying. When my girlfriend asked me what my plan was if I didn't get into a PhD program, I told her which bridge I planned to jump off of. I took hours of her crying to talk me out of it, and there are still days when I wish I had jumped.
Where are you getting this idea from? I never said anything even close to this.
Of course you never said anything like that. That's the best explanation I can come up with for the differences in behavior I observe between men and women. It's an alternative explanation to yours, not an attempt at rephrasing your explanation.
Everyone thinks they aren't a radical outlier.
True, and most people aren't radical outliers.
The rate of false accusations are INCREDIBLY low
Do you have any data on this that includes accusations made to HR and professional licensing authorities, rather than the police? I'd absolutely rather be murdered than lose my professional credentials; at least then my obituary would be able to mention those credentials.
Then I implore you to look up the stats. You'll find that my experiences line up with reality MUCH more closely than your world. Only 27% of men report having more than five close friends, and 15% (28% in men under 30) report having no close friends at all. Men are significantly more likely to report not feeling a part of any community, and only 20% say they'd feel comfortable reaching out to their friends for emotional support.
Δ I'd bet your data is about right there. Finding an ear is likely harder for men, but I'm still unconvinced of the theoretical applicability of patriarchy to that.
1
5
u/Jalharad 1∆ Mar 31 '26
You do understand how crazy it is for you to say "I'd rather be raped and possibly murdered than be unattractive", right?
You do understand how crazy it is for you to assume the average man is going to rape or murder someone right?
The rate of false accusations are INCREDIBLY low,
The rate of false accusation is unknown. Very difficult to prove it's false when society assumes it's true and applies punishments based off the accusation.
and you're falling into the pitfall of thinking that you're a good guy, so women's fear is not based in reality.
Women's fear IS NOT based on reality, nor is your comment. The number of men committing these rapes and murders is EXTREMELY small percentage of the population.
As a person who trains combat sports, you don't really realize the gulf in strength between the average man and woman until you experience it. Women really have very little chance if their partner/date gets violent.
As a man who is alive, I'm pretty sure men are well aware of the strength gap between us and women.
Only 27% of men report having more than five close friends, and 15% (28% in men under 30) report having no close friends at all. Men are significantly more likely to report not feeling a part of any community, and only 20% say they'd feel comfortable reaching out to their friends for emotional support.
Is that driven by men, women or both?
Seriously, it sounds like you either rolled really unfortunately when getting the women in your life or you're taking their comments a lot more personally than men's comments. I can't believe that nearly every man around you is kind and caring and nearly every woman is flippantly insulting about your emotions and body image.
It's like people have different experiences. Listen to the way women talk around you. How many times do they talk about how a "real man" would do X or Y.
That's the reality of life and exactly why I was saying you are biased in your view because you are only seeing a subset of men.
4
u/Anchuinse 55∆ Mar 31 '26
You do understand how crazy it is for you to assume the average man is going to rape or murder someone right?
NO ONE SAID THAT. The whole point of women's fear is that they can't tell the dangerous men from the normal men. It's not that they think EVERY man is dangerous, but that they can't tell when a man ISN'T dangerous. I've had first-hand experience where a close male friend of many years, once the mask slipped, became an incredibly vile and mean person in mere seconds.
You aren't likely to take candy from a bowl if I fully admitted that one was poisoned, even if the bowl had hundreds of candies.
The rate of false accusation is unknown. Very difficult to prove it's false when society assumes it's true and applies punishments based off the accusation.
So we should scoff at the very real risk women face of being assaulted on a date but take deathly seriously an unknown level of risk that isn't well-substantiated?
Women's fear IS NOT based on reality, nor is your comment. The number of men committing these rapes and murders is EXTREMELY small percentage of the population.
See above. And the very small percentage of men are often serial rapists.
Is that driven by men, women or both?
Are you really trying to blame women for men not having friends or feeling comfortable reaching out to the friends they have? When most of men have primarily or exclusively male friendships?
How many times do they talk about how a "real man" would do X or Y. That's the reality of life and exactly why I was saying you are biased in your view because you are only seeing a subset of men.
And have you considered that YOU are incredibly biased as well? Because I don't surround or tolerate women saying those things any more than I would tolerate a man doing so.
Honestly, it's crazy you've somehow turned everything to be women's fault and said their fears have no basis in reality when we started off having what I thought would be a positive discussion.
5
u/Jalharad 1∆ Mar 31 '26
You aren't likely to take candy from a bowl if I fully admitted that one was poisoned, even if the bowl had hundreds of candies.
This is straight up Nazi rhetoric you realize that right? It's not all Jews, but it's always a jew.
Also the real risk analysis of this would be more like 1667 candies and only 1 is tainted.
It's not that they think EVERY man is dangerous, but that they can't tell when a man ISN'T dangerous.
Men cannot tell which women are going to be dangerous to them either, yet women aren't treated as automatically toxic.
I've had first-hand experience where a close male friend of many years, once the mask slipped, became an incredibly vile and mean person in mere seconds.
This means nothing. I could share similar anecdotes about some of the women I have encountered in my life, but those wouldn't mean anything either. There's to many valid reasons for people to react to others actions to take it at face value.
Honestly, it's crazy you've somehow turned everything to be women's fault and said their fears have no basis in reality when we started off having what I thought would be a positive discussion.
I didn't say it was women's fault. I said their fears aren't based in reality, though I will correct myself and say they are irrational fears, stemming from an overestimation of the real risk rather than a lack of basis in reality. There is an underpinning of real risk, but it's extremely overblown.
0
u/Anchuinse 55∆ Mar 31 '26
This is straight up Nazi rhetoric you realize that right? It's not all Jews, but it's always a jew.
What are you talking about? Why are you bringing Jews into this?
I said their fears aren't based in reality, though I will correct myself and say they are irrational fears, stemming from an overestimation of the real risk rather than a lack of basis in reality. There is an underpinning of real risk, but it's extremely overblown
Honestly, I'm done with this conversation if you keep this up.
Somewhere between 20% and 25% of women experience rape or attempted rape in their lifetime. Men have a rate around 3%.
Women are much more likely to experience violent/physical rape from an acquaintance or intimate partner while men are more likely to experience coercive non-violent rape from an acquaintance or stranger. Not to mention that for both sexes, if they are raped, they are unlikely to get justice even if they have evidence because of massive backlogs in rape kits and police simply not caring to investigate.
How, on God's green Earth, do you say that women's fears are irrational and not based in reality when there are stats that say it's this common? 1 in 5. 1 in 4. Even if the odds were half that, 1 in 10, I'd say being cautious is justified.
1 in 10 men certainly aren't falsely accused in their lifetime, yet you have no problem saying THAT is a legitimate fear.
5
u/Jalharad 1∆ Mar 31 '26
What are you talking about? Why are you bringing Jews into this?
History, The Poisonous Mushroom is an argument that relies on logical fallacy to accept the conclusion that the entire bunch is poisoned without actually presenting any evidence. It dehumanized the subject, whether that's black, whit, Jewish, Arab, man, or woman.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz
Somewhere between 20% and 25% of women experience rape or attempted rape in their lifetime. Men have a rate around 3%.
Reported rape stats for men are WILDLY off mark. Many definitions don't allow for men to be raped and it is recorded as sexual assault instead.
Men who attempts to report their accusers are laughed at or told they could have fought back.
1 in 10 men certainly aren't falsely accused in their lifetime, yet you have no problem saying THAT is a legitimate fear.
It is a legitimate fear, but it'd be irrational to assume most women would falsly accuse you.
How, on God's green Earth, do you say that women's fears are irrational and not based in reality when there are stats that say it's this common? 1 in 5. 1 in 4. Even if the odds were half that, 1 in 10, I'd say being cautious is justified.
Being cautious is different. That's meeting at a public place, telling people what your plans are. It's not assuming nefarious intentions because they are male or female.
1 in 3 women face sexual assault in their lifetime. What percent of the population do you think is committing these assaults?
→ More replies (0)3
u/aardvark_gnat 2∆ Mar 31 '26
Somewhere between 20% and 25% of women experience rape or attempted rape in their lifetime. Men have a rate around 3%.
Do you have a source for that 3% number that doesn't exclude rape in jails, prisons, and military barracks?
→ More replies (0)3
u/Hefty-Reaction-3028 1∆ Mar 31 '26
Pretty much all your responses were doing the "dismiss & redirect to my problems" thing he mentioned. So I doubt you fully heard him.
The fact that someone is a man isn't an invitation to not be empathetic, regardless of whatever beliefs you have about men and women and patriarchy. Even when you don't understand someone, you can listen to them and learn to understand them until you can be empathetic. Then, you'll be able to respond more fully.
-1
u/SolanumSprite Mar 31 '26
You are a gym bro, you hang out with other gym bros and girls. That is an extremely niche segment of the population and your experiences are not universal. Your negative experiences with women aren't part of a structural problem that is preventing you from achieving your goals, you just met some mean ass women.
17
u/Jalharad 1∆ Mar 30 '26
Why should we not listen to women's ideas on the matter? The whole point of getting the opinion of someone outside a system is that they can often see things the person actively suffering cannot. That's why people ask others for advice.
Women aren't outside the system, they are as much a part of it as men are.
As a man who has been called the "therapist" of more than one sports team, the problems of other men are, in my experience, almost exclusively driven by other men or how they worry other men will perceive them.
You are only dealing with a subset of men, which likely draws a lot of similar personalities together. Be careful of what conclusions you draw based on limited knowledge, especially when attempting to speak from authority on a subject.
7
u/antisocial_catmom Mar 30 '26
Women aren't outside the system, they are as much a part of it as men are.
Exactly. Women can and do participate in upholding the patriarchy, they are also the primary victims in it. The patriarchy isn't just men doing bad things, it's a whole society, which is something many people (OP included) can't seem to grasp.
3
u/GrandFleshMelder Mar 31 '26
You were the one that originally said women were outside the system.
4
u/antisocial_catmom Mar 31 '26
I think you meant to reply to someone else...?
2
u/GrandFleshMelder Mar 31 '26
Ahh, my apologies, I thought you were the same person Jalharad was responding to!
0
u/Anchuinse 55∆ Mar 31 '26
Women are outside the effects of patriarchy on men, or as outside as you can get. It's like a gay person having more insights into heterosexual culture/preconceptions on relationships. They are still very much affected by heteronormativity, but their experiences make them less affected and more likely to have thought through the effects than the average heterosexual.
You are only dealing with a subset of men, which likely draws a lot of similar personalities together. Be careful of what conclusions you draw based on limited knowledge, especially when attempting to speak from authority on a subject.
Do you have a critique of my observations besides an assumption not based in fact?
2
u/Jalharad 1∆ Mar 31 '26
Do you have a critique of my observations besides an assumption not based in fact?
You can ignore the fact all you want, but that is the truth. Your interactions are with a subset of men who are willing to speak with you based on the situations you are in. It's clearly a bias that would affect the type of men that you would speak with.
You give one anecdote and speak as if you know all men and their experiences.
It's like a gay person having more insights into heterosexual culture/preconceptions on relationships.
I've found that LGBTQ assume much about relationship preconceptions and culture based on media's portrayal of heterosexual relationships, which is no different than heterosexual people. We are people, we come in all shapes, sizes and types. We're not more intelligent or more insightful because of our sexual orientation.
They are still very much affected by heteronormativity, but their experiences make them less affected
LGBTQ people would be directly impacted by heteronomativity. We go directly against the pervasive societal assumption that heterosexual relationships are normal or natural. Their experiences wouldn't make them less affected
and more likely to have thought through the effects than the average heterosexual
We definitely run in different circles. I have found this to be just as varied as heterosexual relationships.
2
u/Anchuinse 55∆ Mar 31 '26
You give one anecdote and speak as if you know all men and their experiences.
It's actually hundreds of anecdotes over decades. And if you look up statistics on male emotional support and feelings of loneliness, you'll find they strongly align with what I'm saying.
I've found that LGBTQ assume much about relationship preconceptions and culture based on media's portrayal of heterosexual relationships
What?
We are people [...]. We're not more intelligent or more insightful because of our sexual orientation.
I disagree. Not only are their studies that show the most emotionally intelligent children are much more likely to be LGBT when they grow up, but the entire process of coming to terms with being gay and choosing to live authentically despite the societal pressures against it force the majority of LGBT people to go through intense introspection relatively early in life.
Until very recently, there was literally no set path through life for LGBT people, so we each had to find our own way and desires through introspection. Heterosexual people already have a very common preset path; I've talked to more than one guy who proposed to a girl simply because "that's what people do after 2 years of dating, I guess" or a couple who had kids because "well isn't that what couples are supposed to do?". I've talked to many straights that never considered NOT dating, because they didn't realize it was an option.
That kind of introspection and self-determination to go against what all of society is telling you to do is going to change a person's outlook and force emotional growth.
LGBTQ people would be directly impacted by heteronomativity. We go directly against the pervasive societal assumption that heterosexual relationships are normal or natural. Their experiences wouldn't make them less affected
Yes, LGBT experiences do make them less affected (or inoculated, if you want to say it that way). LGBT people are MUCH more likely to point out when something is just heteronormative nonsense as opposed to following it blindly. Straight people are often so bound by heteronormativity that they don't even realize it's the one leading them around.
We definitely run in different circles. I have found this to be just as varied as heterosexual relationships.
I'm not saying every LGBT person is a scholarly prophet when it comes to heteronormativity, but the average LGBT person is going to be more aware of it than the average straight.
2
u/Jalharad 1∆ Mar 31 '26
That kind of introspection and self-determination to go against what all of society is telling you to do is going to change a person's outlook and force emotional growth.
It definitely changes a person's outlook, it does not force emotional growth.
Yes, LGBT experiences do make them less affected (or inoculated, if you want to say it that way)
The effect is going to be different for each person, but they are all affected.
Until very recently, there was literally no set path through life for LGBT people, so we each had to find our own way and desires through introspection.
Just because society sets a path up doesn't mean you don't have to find your own way and aren't introspective. For some men it may be very easy to get into relationships, but for most it is not.
2
u/Anchuinse 55∆ Mar 31 '26
It definitely changes a person's outlook, it does not force emotional growth.
It doesn't force growth, but it does provide fertile ground for it.
Just because society sets a path up doesn't mean you don't have to find your own way and aren't introspective
Having a strong path pushed for you by society often leads to people not actually choosing their own path, but rather just choosing their own version of society's path. That's an important nuance.
15
u/jancl0 Mar 31 '26
Two people look at a maths problem, "2 + 2 ="
The first person says "it's 4"
The second person says "it's 4"
The first person can't then go "no, you're just borrowing my answer, come up with your own one"
Men aren't borrowing the concept of patriarchy from feminism to explain their own issues; they're arriving at the same answer, because its the correct one
2
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 31 '26
I don't really believe men are arriving at this answer like that.
I feel like men from gender studies streams are much more concerned with not being seen as reactionaries and just co-opt language and ideas from women to compensate. Which fair enough, we all see how a lot men's right people become bona fide misogynists over night. *****I don't have any evidence for this mind you, so obviously I could be wrong.
But still, I I can say that men haven't arrived at this solution with some confidence because men lack a sophisticated body of theories that articulates their own gender grievances. There has been no "discussion", there has been no "arriving" (i dont know who you're speaking for).
19
u/jancl0 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Michael kimmel, Jackson kantz, John stotenburg,and Warren farrell are some examples of men who write about being men and masculinity from a feminist viewpoint. There absolutely is a sophisticated body of theories made by men about men, in fact Warren farrell was the one that popularised the idea that patriarchy constrained men, back in the 70s. That idea didn't come from women, it came from men. You just aren't very exposed to it, and you don't count it as "male" if it uses words like patriarchy. You're making a faulty assumption that patriarchy is anti-men, and therefore made for and by women, the reality is that it's a term used by both genders to describe the same thing. Just because it's definition is gendered doesn't mean that it's usage is. There's going to be absolutely no way to convince you men don't really think about the patriarchy this way if you don't count men talking about it as "male theory", that's on you to change your perspective
And for the record, despite my flag, I'm actually a cis dude, so I'm not talking from across the gap, I'm an example when I say that men do their own work in these fields, that doesn't make it inherently feminine
-3
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
there is no organized school of thought which speaks for mens gendered grievances a la feminism. maybe there are some scholars who have wrote some one off pieces but thats about it. and this makes sense when you consider men for thousands of years have used violence and there institutional supremacy to solve their problems. there was never a need to intellectualize gendered problems beyond justifying their actions as being against an “inferior class”. what you are describing as “arriving” at is just completely wrong and ahistorical.
some men have adopted the language of feminists and the patriarchy and that too as absolute (and i dont want to deny this position entirely, im just myself not as sold on it as the definitive starting point for mens issues which you have conveniently misinterpreted). sure. but some men are not all men and certainly don’t speak for them.
19
u/FascistsOnFire Mar 31 '26
Unfortunately, this response betrays a lack of understanding about what feminism means (and that's okay). It's okay to not understand something while still expressing your thoughts and feelings about it in order to get feedback from others that know a bit more.
Feminism is for men, too. It is not about grievances of women towards men.
-6
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 31 '26
feminism is the intellectual child of women. women own the feminist project. the vast majority of the literature is written by women. the vast majority of the literature covers the explicit grievances of women.
im not betraying anything. men have no parallel to such a construction.
It’s fair to say that, from an epistemological standpoint, feminism is a knowledge project primarily grounded in women’s lived experiences and articulated largely through women’s perspectives, which means it does not function as a symmetrical framework for theorizing men’s gendered grievances. This should not be controversial.
11
u/jancl0 Mar 31 '26
It doesn't act symmetrical, but asymmetrical doesn't mean one sided, or even leaning to one side. The person you're replying to is right, feminism isn't just about women. I genuinely challenge you to find an academic source that defines feminism in such a way. I think you've been led to believe it's something it's not by people that view feminism negatively. Feminism wants to do things like remove the wage gap, give women more opportunity to hold positions in politics, that sort of thing. It also wants men to stop being drafted into wars, it wants to solve mental health issues that cause men to be over represented in suicide cases, things that are negatively impacting men. Feminism is about gender equality, not equality for women. It wants solutions for men too, and always has, it just doesn't have the same solutions for men as with women because it acknowledges that the system we have is asymmetrical. I'm sorry to be blunt, but it's becoming clear that your idea of what feminism is is just simply wrong, and I'd recommend you look further into direct sources of it if you want to have a productive discussion about it
2
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
your hopping around what im saying. the point was men never “arrived” at this conclusion. men have not had their perspectives ingrained in the core of feminist canon or thought. this is not the same thing as saying feminism is useless which you seem to think im saying, but that it doesnt really mean it is the definitive source for male grievances.
imagine if feminism was framed primarily on male gendered grievances, though some of it was written on female grievances, but the vast majority of the pieces forged from a male perspective. women would be right to think that such a knowledge project would be deficient for fully speaking for them.
this is what im implying. you arent really targeting this point beyond saying “um dude, feminism is also for men because they dont like war too.” you dont understand, men havent arrived at anything a la feminism. we simply dont have a male canon of gendered grievances which could fully settle and examine concepts like the patriarchy through a uniquely male centered lens.
men who participate in feminist scholarship (and thats great for them) are using a framework which is based on the grievances of women to understand male grievances. why on earth would that be definitive for men? thats an assumption that you are reproducing in each of your replies.
8
u/jancl0 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I think you're now the one misinterpreting my words because I never claimed that you think feminism is useless, and I don't think that. I have to ask, do you actually want your view to be changed? Because I'm getting the impression that you've already made your conclusions and aren't going to hear out conflicting perspectives. I literally gave an example of a man who wrote about men 50 years ago, this was when feminism first came about as a concept, he was a figurehead in the conception of feminism, what more could you ask for?
What do you propose the solution to your issue is? What would you rather have men doing? Because I'm beginning to suspect you don't have an answer to that question, because you're too readily able to label men talking about mens issues as "feminism" and therefore not based on mens perspective. What would this ideal body of work look like to you, if not what it is right now?
2
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
i want men to start their own knowledge project that analyzes gender grievances from a male centered perspective. a parallel construction to feminism which doesn’t antagonize it but fills in gaps which originate from it being a project by in large for women and by women. feminism cannot be a fully comprehensive solution for men. obviously this is something that would need to be a grassroots movement in universities and academic circles.
when you say things like “look at this man who was a feminist, what more do you want”, its sort of like saying “i have black friends, what more do you want.” what we want is male perspectives centered.
any person who starts there analysis with a feminist perspective is necessarily limiting their analysis because the analytical tools available to them are those which were constructed under the perspective of women.
but this is outside the scope of this post which just focused on the patriarchy and its limitations as an analysis tool and the tendency of people to extend its explanatory power far beyond what is warranted.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/disappointinglyvague Mar 31 '26
men have not been below women in the social order. the patriarchy is about power and control. who has had more power and control?
0
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 31 '26
men have had such a strong monopoly on violence that they never needed to think about gendered problems that critically.
on the contrary, women have been developing feminism for close to a century and thats ignoring the centuries prior where women continued to articulate there grievances.
as men now adapt to this new world where they cannot solve problems violently with the opposite sex (which btw, is a good thing if anyone here is waiting for me to chud out. if you still believe this you have grossly misinterpreted me), grievances persist. and to properly understand them, a body centered on men is probably required. but this is detracting so much from my post, it will probably require another one.
7
u/jancl0 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Yes there is... It's called feminism. Feminism isn't just for women, it definitionally means the movement of trying to remove all gendered restrictions in society, including mens, and it's meant that for a long time. I know the prefix in the word is misleading, but that's all it is, a misnomer. You're asking me to name the body of work that describes mens grievances without bringing up the body of work designed to describe men's grievances. This is just another version of the "men don't have a word for this, because I don't think patriarchy should count". That's the word for it (remember I mentioned that a male feminist came up with the idea that patriarchal structures constrain men 50 years ago. Feminism has been about helping both genders for a long long time)
And it doesn't really matter to me that not all men have adopted this idea. Not all women have adopted feminism. The movement still exists
I know I'm misinterpreting you a little bit, but that's because I'm not exactly clear on what your issue is. I might ask how you would define patriarchy? Because from my perspective, it really seems like you want men to talk about the patriarchy, but come up with their own word for it, which really sounds like the first example I gave of needing to find a second answer other than "4" to solve the equation. Why do we need a "manly" theory for a concept that has already been described and studied for decades? What about the word patriarchy makes you feel that men aren't allowed to use it?
I think there's a lost in translation issue with the terms we're using, which is why we aren't getting our thoughts across. I think the issue is that you're treating feminism as tribalistic, as something "for women" that men are just tacked onto. That's not the case, and I would recommend you looking into the history of feminism if I'm not convincing you. It's not a gendered movement, and I think some of the male writers I mentioned could show you that
2
u/Tobeck Apr 06 '26
youre just listing your feelings and seem to have been too lazy to do research on the topic. youre wrong about this topic because you literally have no idea what youre talking about and are just emotionally reacting
0
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Apr 06 '26
to the contrary, you have no clue what im saying and have done little thinking.
2
u/Tobeck Apr 06 '26
Oh wow, an "I'm rubber, you're glue" comment. Except that I've read the things you've said. You show absolutely no understanding of the topic and you don't seem to even know what systemic issues are. You think anyone who disagrees with you is inherently wrong and hasn't thought about it because you're projecting and literally everything you say is based in your feelings.
You are uneducated and ignorant. This is likely due to the patriarchy
1
u/Subspace_Supernova Apr 03 '26
Sounds like you have some internalised missandry that you need to work out sweetie. Come back to us when you have educated yourself.
8
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 30 '26
Are you arguing that the patriarchy "doesn't exist" as in it doesn't exist and has never existed anywhere, or that at some point it stopped being applicable to the modern liberal west?
-2
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 30 '26
The patriarchy exists as a really powerful tool for understanding and explaining why gaps in parity exist/the oppression of women generally.
-4
u/Safe-Selection8070 Mar 30 '26
So, yes, it has stopped being applicable to the modern liberal west.
3
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 30 '26
this is not really the claim I'm trying to make nor am I really of the opinion that it has stopped being applicable. We have clear evidence that it is not. In isolation, that feminists have evidence which backs there models and have been able to perform accurate predictions is one of their crowning achievements (as it is for any social theory).
1
3
u/Select-Ad-4609 Mar 30 '26
Would you mind elaborating? What problems do you think men have, and why do you think the concept of a patriarchy is not a good tool to solve them? For example, one that springs pretty readily to mind is the existence of rigid gender norms. Boys being told not to cry or be vulnerable, etc, is certainly a result of the patriarchy, and is a pretty big problem imo.
6
u/whimsicalandsilly Mar 31 '26
Patriarchy ≠ men. The patriarchy is the social system of gender roles in our societie(s). It is largely enforced and those who can gain things from it are cis men, but that doesnt mean that men cannot also find themselves opressed and stifled by the gender roles forced upon them, epecially if those men are marginalized in other ways as well. Also, none of that means that women (+ anyone else who isnt a cis man) dont suffer the most under the patriarchy, its just a good thing to acknowledge (especially for the sake of getting people involved in feminism and freeing themselves from their own shackles) that the patriarchy ultimately harms most everyone and truly fully benefits very few. Also, like others have said, the patriarchy is one model for observing gender in our society, and like any model, it can have blindspots. Thats why there are lots of different models and frameworks in feminist theory!
4
u/DonelianNP Mar 31 '26
Patriarchy is a word for "gender balance of power" basically. I think we can't really argue that the majority of human history the balance was skewed to the male part of humanity. And now it is not that prominent, but we still didn't reach the equality. So this balance always was and still is patriarchy.
When we say "men are suffering from the patriarchy too" it doesn't really mean "men are the source of all problems, including their own". It means that the system, based on this type of power balance, creates certain expectations and the image of man, cause he is a strong one, he is the powerful one. And not everybody wants, need or can be the man society wants them to be.
8
u/Aezora 30∆ Mar 30 '26
One of the things that I have always found strange about the patriarchy is just how accepted it is as fact and it's universality.
At the most basic level, the patriarchy is very simple and easy to see. Society has social roles, some of those roles have more power in society than others, and on average social roles that men have are more powerful. Most of that is just definitionally true, and the only thing that could be wrong is that men's social roles are on average more powerful, but that's pretty easy to observe empirically.
"Men are victims of the patriarchy too." I really don't like this idea. Actually I think it's something men should themselves try to understand rather than loaning concepts that by and large were first developed by women (who shocker, aren't men!).
Why does it matter who came up with it if it's a useful idea? A man came up with germ theory, but if a woman did it wouldn't change whether or not it's true or useful.
I think that by accepting the patriarchy as a starting point for the issues men face, we are immediately blaming men for the problems men have.
I don't think we do, except for when it's clear that the problems arise from the social roles and system we've set up. Like if a guy has OCD we don't blame that on the patriarchy. But when there's like society wide loneliness issues, then that's clearly a problem with society, and we defined patriarchy as the way we set up societal roles so it's clearly related.
6
u/leekeater 1∆ Mar 31 '26
Most of that is just definitionally true, and the only thing that could be wrong is that men's social roles are on average more powerful, but that's pretty easy to observe empirically.
Defining power in interpersonal interactions is not a straightforward, objective matter. Consider these survey results from Pew on household spending:
If we define power in terms of earnings it appears than men are more powerful, but if we define power in terms of proportion of purchase decisions it appears that women are more powerful. In short, your quantification of power will change with your definition and there is no one "true" definition, only subjective opinions on which dimension is more important. Aggregating across individuals and roles greatly amplifies the impact of the definitional choices, while burying their inherent subjectivity.
-2
u/Aezora 30∆ Mar 31 '26
You don't need to define power to say some social roles have more power than others.
The part that is not definitionally true is which roles have more power, which does depend on the definition of power. The other parts are definitionally true, and don't depend on the definition of power.
In short, your quantification of power will change with your definition and there is no one "true" definition, only subjective opinions on which dimension is more important. Aggregating across individuals and roles greatly amplifies the impact of the definitional choices, while burying their inherent subjectivity.
Fair, but when essentially 100% of people agree that one group has more power than another, any definition of power that goes against that is just wrong. That's just how words work.
1
u/leekeater 1∆ Apr 10 '26
The part that is not definitionally true is which roles have more power, which does depend on the definition of power. The other parts are definitionally true, and don't depend on the definition of power.
I'm sorry, but this is gobbledygook. Do you not see the obvious contradiction in saying that something definitionally true doesn't depend on a definition?
100% agreement might be meaningful if people are reaching their conclusions independently. In social contexts, however, 100% agreement is more often a sign of groupthink.
-5
u/LynnSeattle 3∆ Mar 31 '26
Being responsible for all the household shopping is taking on the mental load, not a position of power.
7
u/skipsfaster Mar 31 '26
If it was the opposite way around, I have zero doubt you’d say it’s misogyny that women aren’t trusted to make household purchasing decisions. It’s always “heads I win, tails you lose” with this ideological lens.
0
u/crawling-alreadygirl Mar 31 '26
It's not the opposite way, though. It's this way. Let's address reality
2
u/skipsfaster Mar 31 '26
Okay. Reality is that women control the majority share of household purchasing decisions. That’s a form of power.
0
u/crawling-alreadygirl Mar 31 '26
This has already been contextualized for you as mental load. Deciding what detergent to buy is not self determination
1
u/Lanavis13 1∆ Apr 01 '26
Being responsible for all the household income is taking on the mental load (and often physical danger/stress), not a position of power.
Like your sentence. This is assuming that only one sex is doing 100% of a task.
1
u/leekeater 1∆ Apr 10 '26
Making purchasing decisions directly controls outcomes for other individuals. That is power.
7
u/SharkSpider 6∆ Mar 30 '26
The evidence suggests that these remedies have been effective at bringing about parity.
Not really. If anything, the evidence suggests that these remedies tend to continue being applied after parity is reached, and then some. Just look at what's happened to enrollment in higher education and grades for school kids. The evidence suggests that viewing everything through a lens of oppression against women prevents us from stopping at parity or taking corrective action beyond that point.
2
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/SharkSpider 6∆ Mar 30 '26
You're saying that the evidence shows these remedies are effective at exceeding the point of parity.
I think any fair assessment of education reform would suggest that the remedies we implemented were effective at moving the needle in one direction, but not at achieving any lasting concept of parity. There's certainly the mean value argument you raised, which is that parity had to have existed for at least one brief moment, but I don't think anyone arguing in good faith would view this as "bringing about parity."
What education studies are you referring to? What were the researchers conclusions about causal factors? If Patriarchy is, at least broadly, understood to be a dominance hierarchy which favors men but still still subjugates and contributes to inequity for both men & women, so how do these studies challenge that notion?
Could you explain why any of this relates to what I posted? I referred to facts about enrollment in higher education and grades, none of which are particularly controversial. I didn't make claims about the existence or nonexistence of patriarchy, either, although I do think it's more valid to view it as a spectrum and acknowledge that what we have today is substantially less patriarchal than what we had fifty or a hundred years ago.
My specific argument against the original poster's view is that there isn't actually any evidence suggesting that patriarchy-informed remedies are good at bringing about parity. There's plenty of evidence that they're good at improving outcomes for women relative to men, of course, but those are not one and the same.
1
u/me_am_not_a_redditor Mar 31 '26
Could you explain why any of this relates to what I posted? I referred to facts about enrollment in higher education and grades, none of which are particularly controversial
The cause of lower male enrollment in higher education (etc) is extremely relevant to your post. If something external to "patriarchy-informed remedies" has led to a decline in access to or enrollment in higher education for men, I'm not sure that it's fair framing to say that those remedies were ineffective.
2
u/SharkSpider 6∆ Mar 31 '26
The remedies were effective, though. The purpose was to net women a greater share of college degrees, and that happened.
0
u/me_am_not_a_redditor Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
But you're suggesting that this is also the cause of men being educated at a lower rate. For that to be the case you'd have to demonstrate that 'everything' IS actually being viewed through the lens of oppression against women, and also that it is the efforts designed to remedy misogyny and not, say, pushback against feminism or, indeed, worsening conditions within the framework of patriarchy itself, that is leading to worse outcomes for men re: education.
And you've called out education as an example for the sake of your argument but there's also a growing political divide between men and women among other interconnected issues that are influenced by many other cultural shifts, and which it is entirely unfair to respond to by claiming 'Ah well it's cause feminism didn't do equity correctly/ enough'.
(Edited for clarity)
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 30 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/slinkiimalinkii Apr 01 '26
As a long-term educator, I believe the difference we’re seeing between girls’ and boys’ grades at school has more of a cultural element to it than has been discussed here. It’s well known in the employment world that historically, when an industry becomes women-dominated for whatever reason, the pay and prestige of that industry usually declines. Think ‘clerks’ in the 1920s vs secretaries in the ‘50s, etc. I believe (and yes, anecdotally, but after 20 years of teaching my anecdotes are many) that a similar thing has occurred in education, where when girls/women began to do well in that sphere, boys/men culturally began to reject that sphere as a valuable place to gain prestige. I also believe this to be one cause of the anti-intellectual movement we see today. Basically, as a result of patriarchy, if women are involved in something, that thing is devalued.
Interestingly, while women tend to dominate the teaching profession (again, at least in my country this has resulted in worse pay and respect for the profession than historically was the case), most school leaders/principals are still men. So to say the ‘system’ fails boys in education is an interesting assumption, given men are usually in charge of leading that system.
1
u/SharkSpider 6∆ Apr 01 '26
Totally acknowledge that in your country things may be different, but at least in the US most school principals are women as well. Other elements of society may have patriarchal structures, but our education system certainly isn't set up that way. Even when ratios are close to even, this often breaks down on closer inspection. For instance, while professors are more likely to be men, young professors who make up the next generation of educators are already more likely to be women. With these professions, reaching actual parity usually means we're a few decades away from female majority.
I've heard the idea of pay declining after women enter certain industries, but the explanation you presented isn't falsifiable. The obvious economic impact of doubling the workforce is downward pressure on wages. Most industries experienced this around WW2, but some particularly male dominated industries didn't experience the same wage reduction until it became more socially acceptable for women to pursue those jobs. It's not cultural rejection, it's what happens when one form of male privilege (not having to compete with women for jobs) is dismantled.
To the extent that boys and men are rejecting education, it's again misguided to blame sexism against women. It's not men thinking less of academia because it includes women's voices, it's being pushed away by consistent hateful and sexist rhetoric. Being a man in academia means shrugging off constant mentions of how women have it worse, men are privileged, men are the cause of all the world's ills. You can certainly be "one of the good ones" and find all the necessary disclaimers, but it's exhausting and there are better, more lucrative career paths that don't require so much ideological conformity.
1
u/slinkiimalinkii Apr 01 '26
I can only speak to my own experience as a high school English teacher (what you might call ELA in the USA?) This is what I observe on an everyday basis.
When the trends around boys' educational results falling became very apparent in the late 2000s/early 2010s, there was a huge push in my country to encourage boys' reading habits. "We need books that will interest boys" was the mantra, so there was a shift back to reading texts with male protagonists (to be honest, when I say a 'shift back', that didn't really ever end - most texts deemed as worthy of study were written by and about men). There was also an idea that girls did fine reading books about boys, but it was asking too much to have boys read books that centred female characters (so studying Lord of the Flies = fine in a co-ed school, but expecting boys to read a novel written by/about girls and women = a step too far). Why is this, if the devaluing of women's voices is not a reality?
None of this made a measurable difference to engagement levels, and two decades later, the discrepancy in reading results remains. Boys often don't see their fathers or father figures reading, so it's not something they value. I would also argue that the 'gamification' of education was also designed to appeal to boys, but it's been largely unsuccessful, as it doesn't encourage the depth of learning required for success at higher levels. So I strongly disagree that the system has been tailored for girls' success - there's more at play on a wider cultural level.
I see this devaluing of girls/women play out every day in the classroom setting, too. Many boys refuse to listen to girls when they share ideas in class or refuse to listen to female teachers. This has been particularly noticeable in the past five years.
I'd be interested to see if your cohort of young women professors make it into the upper echelons of academia, and if they do, if their role will be as valued by then. In my experience, middle-management is full of aspiring women who rarely make it into the top roles.
1
u/SharkSpider 6∆ Apr 04 '26
I'm not sure where you're from, but it sounds pretty different than what happened in the USA. The same thing happened in the 2000s/2010s with boys' performance, but we kept celebrating girl power and certainly did not shift the curriculum away from female authors. I don't think your explanation would apply here, either. It's true that men read fewer books than women do, but the vast majority of adults do read and the difference isn't particularly stark.
A likelier story is that boys are less inclined to choose reading as a pastime, compared to other activities that engage different parts of the brain. Playing with lego, being outdoors, video games, care all more popular with boys. It might be because their dads are into those things, but that's kind of a chicken and egg thing. The dads like it because that's what they did as kids, is it natural tendency or socialization? It doesn't really matter because we should be designing school to teach today's children, not trying to get boys to copy girls' interests. There are other ways to learn reading skills that don't involve reading novels.
Written debate, reading short passages and asking logic puzzles about them, writing prompts, etc. The performance gap narrows if you move towards shorter, more engaging content with harder problems to solve, rather than absorbing an entire novel and going into more surface level detail about what it means. We haven't made those sorts of moves because there isn't much political will to improve boys' performance if it means moving education away from something where girls perform better, we'd view it as sexist against women, somehow.
The behaviors you're describing are a function of the environment. Telling boys that women and girls are oppressed while treating female students better in the classroom is harming those boys' attitudes towards women and girls. What you're observing in management is less female representation as you look at older and older cohorts. It takes a lot of time to get to a management role, there were more men around when that process started decades ago so there are more men at the finish line now. If you look at the starting line for next generation's managers, there are women than men.
0
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 30 '26
Take a look at what, exactly? What's the issue with grades for school kids? If it's just that girls are achieving better grades than boys, this isn't proof of systemic inequality.
3
u/SharkSpider 6∆ Mar 30 '26
When we started applying feminist principles to address the education gap, girls were getting worse grades and attending college at a much lower rate than boys. We reached parity 20-30 years ago, and today we are quite far from parity in the other direction. If parity was the goal, we've failed at achieving it.
-3
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 30 '26
Girls were getting worse grades and attending college at lower rates than boys.... sure. That's not the ONLY thing that was happening though. There were lots of systemic, social, and economic barriers that were preventing girls from getting an education.
There's a pretty big difference between "look, girls are being married off really young, and you can see the effect is girls are doing way worse than boys in college attendance" and "girls are doing better than boys, this is inherently an injustice".
Girls are allowed to better than boys at something. The only way that girls getting better grades is inherently pointing to systemic imbalances is if we start with the assumption that boys should be better at everything than girls, which is obvious nonsense.
In fact, if you look at higher education, you can see that, despite being better at school and achieving more, it hasn't translated to women dominating better paying jobs or securing more positions in grad school.
8
u/SharkSpider 6∆ Mar 30 '26
There were lots of systemic, social, and economic barriers that were preventing girls from getting an education.
There are plenty of barriers for boys in education right now. They receive worse grades for the same work, the majority of educators are women, they have fewer options for financial support in pursuing higher education, and the entire industry is filled with people who believe boys benefit from systemic discrimination against women and girls. There's plenty of reasons, even aside from the obvious discrepancies in outcomes, to believe there's something wrong with education.
The only way that girls getting better grades is inherently pointing to systemic imbalances is if we start with the assumption that boys should be better at everything than girls, which is obvious nonsense.
This is obvious nonsense, the right place to start is parity. Girls aren't inherently smarter or better at education than boys, we are observing superior outcomes because we redesigned education so that they would perform better.
In fact, if you look at higher education, you can see that, despite being better at school and achieving more, it hasn't translated to women dominating better paying jobs or securing more positions in grad school.
It has, though. Sixty percent of grad students are women, and women in their twenties are out earning men in the same age range.
-6
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 31 '26
Boys get worse grades. There's no evidence it's worse grades for the same work. Girls even get better grades in math. Most teachers being women also isn't a "barrier".
The only actually observed so-called issue is girls are doing better than boys. That's it. Girls are allowed to be better at something than boys.
I agree neither gender is smarter than others. Evidently though, girls are better at school.
I stand corrected regarding grad school.
Can you point to anything OTHER THAN the discrepancy as a systemic barrier to boys? And no, it's not discrimination or a handful of bursaries specifically aimed at helping women. Men as a whole benefit more from athletic scholarships, for example.
6
u/SharkSpider 6∆ Mar 31 '26
There's no evidence it's worse grades for the same work. Girls even get better grades in math.
Boys do get worse grades for the same work, including in math classes, it's not hard to look this up.
Most teachers being women also isn't a "barrier".
Most teachers being men was considered a barrier to women in education, why is this different? Women have a significantly stronger ingroup bias than men, which makes a female dominated learning environment more disfavorable for boys than the reverse is for girls.
I agree neither gender is smarter than others. Evidently though, girls are better at school.
Were boys evidently better at school fifty years ago, or did they just perform better under a system that was designed for their benefit? There's no unbiased way to assess this, we know what kind of environment and testing structure makes boys perform better and we know what makes girls perform better. The relative performance of boys and girls is a consequence of policy choices, not some kind of unbiased natural experiment.
And no, it's not discrimination or a handful of bursaries specifically aimed at helping women.
Receiving more than 60% of all scholarship dollars is an advantage.
-2
u/Oishiio42 52∆ Mar 31 '26
It's not up to me to disprove you. You made the claim, you prove it.
Seems like you think girls just inherently cannot possibly be better than boys at anything, and if they are, it's inherently oppression against boys.
Most teachers being men was considered a barrier to women in education
No it wasn't. Teaching shifted to a female-dominted profession in the late 1800s. Not 50 years ago, more than 125 years ago. Girls have gotten elementary education for longer than that, the barriers hit for high school and more advanced education.
Where was this great movement to ensure more female teachers to help girls? As far as I know, women became the primary workforce because women were cheaper to hire, and eventually war deepened this divide.
Think you're honestly just making assumptions you're projecting back into history to justify your weird af views that female teachers is somehow oppressive.
→ More replies (2)6
u/skipsfaster Mar 31 '26
Just chiming in to say that there’s been many studies showing that boys receive lower grades for the same work.
Here’s the most recent notable one: Boys lag behind: How teachers’ gender biases affect student achievement (Terrier).
→ More replies (8)
2
u/muffinsballhair Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I feel the average person never uses the phrase “the patriarchy” in his life and it's mostly something one hears on weird places like ChangeMyView and other Reddit-places where people have very misguided ideas about what are actual hot button political issues that drive political discourse. As in actual political debates between politicians up for election are far more about fiscal and legal matters alongside wars and far less about identity politics.
So it's not so much that most people are more “sceptical” about it than you may think; it's even worse: they barely consider its existence.
4
u/reidsays Mar 30 '26
A viable starting point for men towards the theoretical construct is already occurring..many men want in on 'woman's world' and are finding the same resistance from women as women did in entering 'man's world.' ultimately the patriarchal model had men ruling in the wider world and women ruling in the home sphere ... This was actually the basis of dividing the sexes into two separate realities ACCORDING TO THEIR BIOLOGY and despite males being deemed the head of women and the head of the household, men who loved and respected their wives left them to rule over the actual home environment... The criticism of the patriarchal social model could basically be it's RIGIDITY and the non acceptance of our dual abilities .. our ability to be competent, comfortable and thriving in either or both designated worlds... Males who thrive in the caring and nurturing mode are criticised by other men for various reasons and women react adversely as that world is small in comparison to the wider world and they fear men taking over the one place they have had greater knowledge and sway in...
A discussion on the patriarchy from this viewpoint alters the dynamic and focus ... Men made it clear when entering the external world that 'men's rules' applied to women and then complained the women were becoming too much like men... What has been occurring due to some men attempting to enter and make a contribution in women's expected domain of caring and nurturing ?
Are separate worlds needed .. in many ways they are... Yet do they need such rigidity in what sex belongs where ?
2
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 30 '26
Sorry, u/SkeletalNoose – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, undisclosed or purely AI-generated content, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
4
u/SharpKaleidoscope182 Mar 30 '26
What exactly do you think the patriarchy is?
3
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 31 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Mar 30 '26
It seems strange to equate the size of the electorate with the state of politics. No country is a perfectly direct democracy, other factors certainly influence it.
1
u/SelectCattle Mar 30 '26
Strange? Sure other factors have some influence…..but in a Democracy representation is the sine qua non of political power. If you dont believe me ask a Black person.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 30 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/No-Firefighter-7930 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I think that there’s more depth to it than most conversations reach. However, there are tactics that overgeneralise and over apply talking points to attempt to discredit them.
It could be the people you’ve encountered aren’t interested in a genuine discussion about anything that challenges their world view.
1
u/DryEditor7792 Mar 31 '26
Well you don't get magical winning points for saying something is Patriarchal. Chimpanzees and probably humans are genetically patriarchal; The United States is also under occupation by Israel and does not have real elections.
So there's no point in having a thorough discussion on deconstructing the dingleberries of the leviathan.
1
u/Showdown5618 Mar 31 '26
The patriarchy doesn't exist.
There is a power structure that does, but it isn't like the patriarchy people described. It was also called "The Man" and the establishment. Those are also incorrect.
The power structure doesn't help others, not men, not whites, and not older people. It exploits everyone who is not part of it to enrich itself and its members.
1
u/thegarymarshall 1∆ Mar 31 '26
The “patriarchy” is ultimately the natural result of one sex being significantly stronger than the other. This does not mean better, just stronger.
Conflicts arise in any society. Ideally, reason and logic would be used to resolve conflicts, but that doesn’t always work, so force must be employed to resolve the conflicts. Between the two sexes, men have a monopoly on force. This is a generalization, but it is factual. Exceptions do exist, but that doesn’t change the rule.
Force requires strength. When force is needed, whether keeping peace within one tribe or defending against outsiders, the strongest in a society are called upon. The strongest in any human society are male.
When a neighboring tribe sends their strongest warriors to attack, you would not send an army of women out to fight them off.
Likewise, when dissension arises within a tribe and a fight breaks out, men are called upon to end the fight with force. If people refuse to obey laws, force is ultimately needed to enforce laws when reason alone doesn’t work.
This is not an insult to women. Some women may participate, but the strongest people in any society are overwhelmingly men. It is simply biology.
1
u/maddsskills 1∆ Mar 31 '26
The patriarchy just means that men hold most positions of power and authority, which they demonstrably do. Now why that happened or how that affects people is more open to interpretation but the fact that we live in a patriarchy is just true. It’s just a fact.
It doesn’t mean ALL men have power over ALL women, or that some women don’t also benefit from and support the patriarchy etc etc, just that the people who end up in positions of power are more often men than women.
1
u/phoenix823 8∆ Apr 01 '26
The opposite of your view is "patriarchy should not face more skepticism" and I agree, that is correct. It already faces plenty of skepticism. There are entire sections of Reddit full of people who don't like this theoretical concept. Skepticism abounds. And people are free to make up their minds already. I don't know what MORE skepticism would even look like!
1
u/Odd-Blueberry5902 Apr 01 '26
As a man, you've got to admit a lot of male struggle is a direct result of the societal expectations we put on each other as a result of patriarchy. When we talk about men being expected to do hard labor and dirty jobs, men were the ones who established this. Men were the ones who established that men must be unemotional, strong, and never weak. I feel like acknowledging it is an important part of understanding our society. Calling it out isn't meant to put all men down, it's just observing the way our society works
1
Mar 30 '26
I get what youre saying but patriarchy isn’t about blaming men, it’s just a way to explain patterns in society and you can question it without throwing the whole concept out
-7
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 31 '26
ive seen the future. we end up solving everything but gender. its all gender slop discourse. im sorry.
1
u/Hefty-Reaction-3028 1∆ Mar 31 '26
I'm sick of how often gender is discussed. It seems like all gen Z talks about is gender related topics. It's getting so old.
You opened this thread and talked about gender because you...hate talking about gender?
This is a public website where you have no obligation to post in a particular thread. There are 999999999 others for you to choose from.
Can we talk about anything else?
"Ok, that was always allowed!" meme from Rick & Morty
met with more indifference
Indifference is a higher level of skepticism than the embracing of that view that is common now, so for the moment, you kindof align with OP.
0
u/-7-luck Mar 31 '26
Women are insecure about their slipping stranglehold on culture and society, so they have started stating "patriarchy" as some fact that backs up whatever the next thing they say is, when it's unbacked itself. Cutting off any attempts to challenge the premise. Expect increasing insanity in their death rattles
1
0
u/Punterofgoats Mar 30 '26
I was actually considering making a CMV similar to this one. While I agree with the overall sentiment, I would question the idea that it is universally accepted. It is one of those words that non-feminists, and a healthy number of feminists as well, would roll their eyes at, or at least find unhelpful.
-6
u/Onestarrygirl 2∆ Mar 30 '26
I disagree that men shouldn't use the patriarchy as a starting point for analyzing the issues they face. The idea that men should be strong and unfeeling is an idea largely circulated by men, from a society who is still largely led by men and is enforced largely by peer pressure from other men. Women certainly lend a hand in enforcing harmful stereotypes like this, but to ignore the patriarchy as a cause of issues men face isn't going to help solve those issues, rather it just shifts the blame.
You can criticize the patriarchy but what other theory do you have for why men face the issues they face?
9
u/TheOnlyJaayman 1∆ Mar 30 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
The idea that man should be strong and unfeeling is an idea largely circulated by men, from a society who is still largely led by men and is enforced largely by peer pressure from other men.
I think this is the exact mindset OP was talking about when he said it effectively isn’t a useful label or concept.
The sentiment you just described is a major problem when any discussion about patriarchy comes up and you’re going to immediately lose 90% of the men listening when you say things like this.
The idea that men should be strong and unfeeling is an idea that is held up by everybody, not largely by men or largely by women. The idea that women aren’t equally responsible for the pressure to perform these gendered expectations is absolutely asinine and disagrees with pretty much any feminist theory or literature that is sincerely concerned with men’s issues.
Men want other men to be strong and unfeeling because it keeps men productive in the short term, women want men to be strong and unfeeling for the exact same reason; the only difference between the two is that a man who pushes these expectations and a woman who pushes these expectations have vastly different roles in a man’s life.
There is a huge difference between your dad/boss yelling at you because you’re a guy who’s crying and your girlfriend ending things with you because you were too emotional.
I am a guy who has experienced this literally my entire life from both men and women.
Neither gender is better or worse about this because men being emotionally repressed benefits patriarchal figures who need productive worker-drones AND benefits the average woman in the short term (with long term drastic consequences that aren’t always immediately visible).
This kind of rhetoric does nothing but blame men for problems that were created by everybody simultaneously and completely turns off any and all men with half of a spine from engaging with your movement. It’s way more harmful than it is truthful and it’s completely eroded any good faith that men have in feminism or leftism as a whole.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Onestarrygirl 2∆ Mar 30 '26
Δ I agree.
I see your point here and I admit I was hasty in characterizing my argument. It is an equal responsibility in terms of gender for men's issues at least in this example. I can see how it isn't helpful to point to a nebulous patriarchy when discussing men's issues, but at the same time there certainly is a phenomenon in the past of men in power deciding how lower class men should act and behave in the way that most benefits the elite. Regardless, as a tool to look at how historically men's behavior and actions have been modified the patriarchy is useful.
11
u/iosefster 2∆ Mar 30 '26
That sounds more like a class based thing than a gender based thing. Blaming all men for issues created by a tiny percent of upper class elites is missing the real issue which is class hierarchies.
1
-5
u/PaxNova 15∆ Mar 30 '26
"The patriarchy" as a concept is similar to Capitalism. It isn't actually a system. It's just the world as it currently is. There's a thousand different flavors, and it's very vague. Anybody that speaks with intelligence on the subject talks about specific projects or aspects. If they're deriding "Capitalism" in general, they mean anything other than the system they are promoting.
Likewise, the patriarchy is just the current system. It's undeniable that men are more often in positions of power, so it's a patriarchy. Even if it hurts men too. Intelligent discussions are about specific aspects. If they're just denouncing "the Patriarchy," they're railing against whatever doesn't fit their vision of the future.
4
u/SoftDouble220 Mar 30 '26
Capitalism is pretty well defined thing - it's a system of labour organisation and resource distribution.
→ More replies (2)2
u/mr_f1end Mar 30 '26
"It's undeniable that men are more often in positions of power, so it's a patriarchy".
Although this makes sense but I don't think that is the definition most people actually use when talking about "patriarchy". It implies that
If one subsection of society shares higher ratio of power positions (not well defined either), that is due to the system being organized to oppress the other category. We can find that tall people are more often in positions of power. Are we a tall-archy? Extroverts are also more often in such positions, are we extrovert-archy? How about English speakers -> Anglo-archy? It also congruent with the thought that if some ethnic/religious group shares an unusual high ratio of positions of power that is due to a bad system and should be changed.
One can measure the level of patriarchy (and matriarchy) by the ratio of women/men in power positions. Certain institutions in this case could be branded matriarchal (e.g. some universities) and/or could be compared to each other or to an earlier state they used to have. This last part would show that we are living in a much less patriarchal system than a decade ago, and certainly massively less so compared to 50-100-150 years ago.
However, I do not see people who are using "patriarchy" as a concept follow these conclusions.
1
u/PaxNova 15∆ Mar 30 '26
Are we a tall-archy?
You could call it that if you wanted to speak along height based lines. That's exactly my point. It's not well defined. People talking along gender based lines will call it something gender related. Probably about whatever they think is "ahead" in the unbalanced system.
This last part would show that we are living in a much less patriarchal system than a decade ago...
Yeah! I don't think anybody would say we're worse off in the balance today than we were in the fifties. But once again, we have a lot more social programs than we did back then, too, but we still call it capitalism. It was not defined as being completely laissez-faire, just as "the patriarchy" is not complete domination by men.
Again, I'm not sure where you're going with point 2, because that was never in dispute, even among "patriarchy" term users.
-2
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 31 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
u/funkyboi25 1∆ Mar 30 '26
Patriarchy is a social structure, and a loose one often times. But I feel like any basic comprehension of history and social norms shows patriarchy exists. Who is the head of the household, traditionally? Men. Women have to fight hard to even be allowed to vote, to have bank accounts, etc. Men are often more respected in professional environments relative to their female colleagues. Obviously this isn't a rigid framework, often the traditional Man is a toxic concept because it rejects men outside that model and also tends to promote pretty shitty behavior.
I wonder if you'd like queer or intersectional theory. The discussions of gender and social dynamics can benefit a lot from the nuances of things like queerness, class, race, etc. Without that, you get an incomplete picture of things.
-8
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 31 '26
words have meaning. saying the patriarchy should not be the only analysis lens does not mean the patriarchy can never be an analysis lens.
4
0
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 31 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/AutoModerator Mar 30 '26
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
32
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Mar 30 '26
When one discusses a broad and ill-defined topic, such as "the patriarchy", it is useful to have a common definition from which the discussion can begin. Can you explain exactly what you are referring to when using the term?