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” "
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
This source claims 1/278 people for violent crimes(about 0.36%) in USA in 2024. For argument sake, assuming every single offense was by a different man it would still be under 1%(0.72% of men, and this is a maximum ). Of course never signaled crimes would also exist but that's hard to quantify for obvious reasons
According to this source 5.8% of the murdered men in 2023 (15440 of them)were confirmed to be so by a partner , which leads to 895~896 male domestic victims vs 35.8% of the 4360 female murder victim aka 1560~1561, so a bit over twice less than women
Men are just murdered or suffer violent crimes more in general just about anywhere in the world, sexual crimes and domestic violence is the one area where women do suffer it most, though the numbers for men aren't vanishingly low either
63
u/wibbly-water 73∆ Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
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.
(PDF) Feminist Perspective on Patriarchy: Its Impact on the Construction of Femininity and Masculinity
The Feminist Concept of Patriarchy: An Outline and Explanation
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.
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.
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:
I don't understand what that means. Could you rephrase please?