“patriarchy” in this context means something other than you think, I.e. it means a system that upholds gender roles that benefit a (majority male) ruler class, e.g. by encouraging worker class men to go to war for their benefit, worker class women to be caretakers, and so on.
The counterpart to this definition of “patriarchy” is a society with no stratified gender roles, not “matriarchy”.
This is exactly why its such a bad word to use to describe this, it automatically puts people on the defensive and needs to be explained to people that it doesn’t mean what the word means (rule of the fathers).
Everybody living in this world should be aware that words have context and don’t always literally mean what their parts mean. And even then “patriarchy” is one of the more literal ones: it comes from “pater”/father in the same vein as “paternalistic”, with the same connotation of overbearing-yet-out-of-touch.
So just from word meaning that clearly doesn’t mean all men, and obviously it also doesn’t refer to literal fathers either.
I never claimed it wasn’t. Shitty people are going to be shitty but they feel comfortable being shitty in the way that they are, in public, because the patriarchy has made that normal. I never excused her behavior, I identified it as being connected to a much broader sociological issue.
Some women would be shit to men and women and fucking anyone and everyone even if we lived in a matriarchy. Just like some men are shit to everyone and some men and women are nice with everyoneat.
I never advocated for a matriarchy. People will continue to be shitty to eachother but the deconstruction of gender based discrimination and violence would benefit us all. In order to do that we must recognize that what holds us back from this is patriarchy.
My point still stands, no matter if there’s discrimination or not, some people will continue being shit to others and pretending they’re shit because of the system we live in is removing all their agency. “It’s ok if you’re a bad person, it’s just because [insert reason that is out of their power].”
Stop deflecting blame from shitty women. There are shitty women who do shitty things and “the patriarchy” does not excuse their behavior.
Stop worshiping the patriarchy. The patriarchy is not God. The patriarchy is not to blame for every shitty thing a shitty woman does.
Sometimes women are shitty and you make the problem worse by telling everyone it’s not their fault because the patriarchy is God in your idiot doctrine.
Edit: I’m not saying the patriarchy isn’t real, it definitely is and should be dismantled. But you need to interrogate your own righteousness or you’re just spreading neoliberal schlock to make yourself feel better about how women can be shitty to men.
Women thinking men are icky when they express emotions is because they’re taught from a very young age that expressing emotions is feminine and feminine, especially feminine men, is bad. This wasn’t a reach to blame on the patriarchy at all.
The patriarchy isn’t “men are harming people all by themselves.” It’s the gender roles and gender hierarchy that both men and women perpetuate.
I have to push back here and say that I think that the “emotions are feminine” explanation doesn’t give the whole picture. There’s also instrumentalization of men.
We’re all familiar with objectification, the tendency of (some) men to ignore women’s agency, and treat them as objects for their own use. On the flip side, in my experience, (some) women instrumentalize men. That is, treat men as agents to be used as tools to achieve their own goals. As a result, I think that (some) women use men as a bulwark against the stresses and existential terror of human existence, or sometimes even literally, like a bodyguard, or the one who has to deal with the spider in the house.
You want your vacuum cleaner to suck up dirt when you pull it out of the closet, and then disappear quietly back in there once the job is done. You don’t want to have to change the bag, and clean the motor, and replace the belt every time. More metaphorically, you don’t want to find out that your emotional ramparts against a scary world are built on sand, and that’s what kind of happens when (some) women find out that their partner has fears and weaknesses, too.
I’ve heard the same story many, many times from men whose partners begged them to open up emotionally, only to flee once they found out that those emotions included fears and self-doubt. It doesn’t make sense that they’d do the first part, if emotions were unattractive, per se.
I think you’re quite correct in this analysis as well. Historically, women have often had to depend on a husband for financial security and to be this instrument of protection. This archetype of the provider and protector husband is still baked into our patriarchal culture and leads women who don’t deconstruct this attitude to treat their male partners as you describe, and men in straight marriages to feel this burden alone. I’ve seen it often lead to insecurity and self doubt among husbands who feel they can’t live up to this impossible expectation, who also for the reasons widely discussed in this thread don’t feel able to express this insecurity and doubt, or are punished for doing so because it goes against their culturally-prescribed gender role of the strong male protector.
Pointing out shitty behavior is systemic doesn’t absolve the person of their responsibility for that behavior. It helps illustrate the issue is systemic and not just some crazy one off occurrence. It also gives an angle of attack on solutions to the systemic problem.
The patriarchy is just as much a men’s lib issue as it is a feminist issue. The gender roles and hierarchy harms men. Women being shitty to a guy for expressing emotion is an example of just that.
There wasn’t an invitation for you to speak up either. But you chose to speak up so you should expect some push back. Looking at how you’ve presented yourself so far I seriously doubt you’ll listen to me, so I’ll just put my argument very plainly. Nobody should listen to you because you refuse to listen to anyone else.
You haven’t addressed anything the other person has said. All you’ve pretty much done is try to put words in their mouth so you could counter an argument that was never made. There’s no discussion here, it’s just you screaming into the void and the other person wanting to believe you’re a normal person.
You haven’t addressed anything the other person has said.
So?
My point is about the nature of their statement and how it centers women in a topic that is about how when men speak about feelings women center a feminine perspective.
Just because you’re not listening doesn’t mean others aren’t.
I’m going to assume you meant listening (and agreeing). Because there are people listening and disagreeing, for example me. But how do you know anyone else is agreeing with you? Do you have anything empirical to show that would indicate what you believe or is it just something you want to believe?
My point is about the nature of their statement and how it centers women in a topic that is about how when men speak about feelings women center a feminine perspective.
And if you were listening instead of just screaming you’d notice that their statement does not center around women. Their argument is that patriarchal beliefs can be adopted by both women and men and in this case the patriarchal belief is that men shouldn’t express their emotions and in the image it is a woman perpetuating that belief by refusing to accept what was said.
Idk why you thought I was doing any of that. What I meant was this woman feels that it is normal or okay to act in the way that she is because the patriarchal society in which we live makes that normal. It is not an excuse, it is an explanation and identification of a much broader issue.
Edit: I’m not saying the patriarchy isn’t real, it definitely is and should be dismantled. But you need to interrogate your own righteousness or you’re just spreading neoliberal schlock to make yourself feel better about how women can be shitty to men.
“neoliberalism is when you want to dismantle patriarchy”
so are these women naturally “shitty” this is a deterministic take.
a more is grounded in material approach is the patriarchy / modern culture teaches us to behave in certain ways etc, women need a strong man as women are weak according to western cultural norms.
Always remember that the patriarchy harms everyone
An asshole is an asshole is an asshole, don’t you dare act like it’s not these women’s fault if they have no compassion.
Saying something is the result of patriarchy doesn’t absolve anybody (including women) of the responsibility for fixing it.
It’s not the result of patriarchy, is the result of them being bad people. They would still exist under a matriarchy or in an equal society.
“patriarchy” in this context means something other than you think, I.e. it means a system that upholds gender roles that benefit a (majority male) ruler class, e.g. by encouraging worker class men to go to war for their benefit, worker class women to be caretakers, and so on.
The counterpart to this definition of “patriarchy” is a society with no stratified gender roles, not “matriarchy”.
This is exactly why its such a bad word to use to describe this, it automatically puts people on the defensive and needs to be explained to people that it doesn’t mean what the word means (rule of the fathers).
No, that’s the reactionary propaganda doing that.
Everybody living in this world should be aware that words have context and don’t always literally mean what their parts mean. And even then “patriarchy” is one of the more literal ones: it comes from “pater”/father in the same vein as “paternalistic”, with the same connotation of overbearing-yet-out-of-touch.
So just from word meaning that clearly doesn’t mean all men, and obviously it also doesn’t refer to literal fathers either.
deleted by creator
Probably far worse actually.
I never claimed it wasn’t. Shitty people are going to be shitty but they feel comfortable being shitty in the way that they are, in public, because the patriarchy has made that normal. I never excused her behavior, I identified it as being connected to a much broader sociological issue.
Some women would be shit to men and women and fucking anyone and everyone even if we lived in a matriarchy. Just like some men are shit to everyone and some men and women are nice with everyoneat.
Assholes are assholes, that’s it.
I never advocated for a matriarchy. People will continue to be shitty to eachother but the deconstruction of gender based discrimination and violence would benefit us all. In order to do that we must recognize that what holds us back from this is patriarchy.
My point still stands, no matter if there’s discrimination or not, some people will continue being shit to others and pretending they’re shit because of the system we live in is removing all their agency. “It’s ok if you’re a bad person, it’s just because [insert reason that is out of their power].”
I never said it was ok and I never denied their agency
Yes. It is their fault that they’re supporting the patriarchy.
Stop deflecting blame from shitty women. There are shitty women who do shitty things and “the patriarchy” does not excuse their behavior.
Stop worshiping the patriarchy. The patriarchy is not God. The patriarchy is not to blame for every shitty thing a shitty woman does.
Sometimes women are shitty and you make the problem worse by telling everyone it’s not their fault because the patriarchy is God in your idiot doctrine.
Edit: I’m not saying the patriarchy isn’t real, it definitely is and should be dismantled. But you need to interrogate your own righteousness or you’re just spreading neoliberal schlock to make yourself feel better about how women can be shitty to men.
Women thinking men are icky when they express emotions is because they’re taught from a very young age that expressing emotions is feminine and feminine, especially feminine men, is bad. This wasn’t a reach to blame on the patriarchy at all.
The patriarchy isn’t “men are harming people all by themselves.” It’s the gender roles and gender hierarchy that both men and women perpetuate.
I have to push back here and say that I think that the “emotions are feminine” explanation doesn’t give the whole picture. There’s also instrumentalization of men.
We’re all familiar with objectification, the tendency of (some) men to ignore women’s agency, and treat them as objects for their own use. On the flip side, in my experience, (some) women instrumentalize men. That is, treat men as agents to be used as tools to achieve their own goals. As a result, I think that (some) women use men as a bulwark against the stresses and existential terror of human existence, or sometimes even literally, like a bodyguard, or the one who has to deal with the spider in the house.
You want your vacuum cleaner to suck up dirt when you pull it out of the closet, and then disappear quietly back in there once the job is done. You don’t want to have to change the bag, and clean the motor, and replace the belt every time. More metaphorically, you don’t want to find out that your emotional ramparts against a scary world are built on sand, and that’s what kind of happens when (some) women find out that their partner has fears and weaknesses, too.
I’ve heard the same story many, many times from men whose partners begged them to open up emotionally, only to flee once they found out that those emotions included fears and self-doubt. It doesn’t make sense that they’d do the first part, if emotions were unattractive, per se.
(Edit: Missing word.)
I think you’re quite correct in this analysis as well. Historically, women have often had to depend on a husband for financial security and to be this instrument of protection. This archetype of the provider and protector husband is still baked into our patriarchal culture and leads women who don’t deconstruct this attitude to treat their male partners as you describe, and men in straight marriages to feel this burden alone. I’ve seen it often lead to insecurity and self doubt among husbands who feel they can’t live up to this impossible expectation, who also for the reasons widely discussed in this thread don’t feel able to express this insecurity and doubt, or are punished for doing so because it goes against their culturally-prescribed gender role of the strong male protector.
It could also be because they view their husband/partner as a means to an end, rather than a person with feelings.
At some point, the individual needs to take responsibility for their actions, society is made up of individuals after all.
Removed by mod
Pointing out shitty behavior is systemic doesn’t absolve the person of their responsibility for that behavior. It helps illustrate the issue is systemic and not just some crazy one off occurrence. It also gives an angle of attack on solutions to the systemic problem.
The patriarchy is just as much a men’s lib issue as it is a feminist issue. The gender roles and hierarchy harms men. Women being shitty to a guy for expressing emotion is an example of just that.
Removed by mod
There wasn’t an invitation for you to speak up either. But you chose to speak up so you should expect some push back. Looking at how you’ve presented yourself so far I seriously doubt you’ll listen to me, so I’ll just put my argument very plainly. Nobody should listen to you because you refuse to listen to anyone else.
You haven’t addressed anything the other person has said. All you’ve pretty much done is try to put words in their mouth so you could counter an argument that was never made. There’s no discussion here, it’s just you screaming into the void and the other person wanting to believe you’re a normal person.
But people are listening to me.
So?
My point is about the nature of their statement and how it centers women in a topic that is about how when men speak about feelings women center a feminine perspective.
Just because you’re not listening doesn’t mean others aren’t.
I’m going to assume you meant listening (and agreeing). Because there are people listening and disagreeing, for example me. But how do you know anyone else is agreeing with you? Do you have anything empirical to show that would indicate what you believe or is it just something you want to believe?
And if you were listening instead of just screaming you’d notice that their statement does not center around women. Their argument is that patriarchal beliefs can be adopted by both women and men and in this case the patriarchal belief is that men shouldn’t express their emotions and in the image it is a woman perpetuating that belief by refusing to accept what was said.
Idk why you thought I was doing any of that. What I meant was this woman feels that it is normal or okay to act in the way that she is because the patriarchal society in which we live makes that normal. It is not an excuse, it is an explanation and identification of a much broader issue.
Sounds like an opportunity for introspection for you, then!
Thank you for making me introspect about my snarkiness on Lemmy. You’ve helped me see how much of a dipshit it makes me look like
deleted by creator
“neoliberalism is when you want to dismantle patriarchy”
so are these women naturally “shitty” this is a deterministic take. a more is grounded in material approach is the patriarchy / modern culture teaches us to behave in certain ways etc, women need a strong man as women are weak according to western cultural norms.
You are correct that I was speaking glibly and that when I said “shitty woman” I could have said “a woman who happened to be acting shitty.”