Problematic Stuff

[pErvinalia]

We haven't really found a point of disagreement yet, other than the word patriarchy.

I mean, if you want to defend a vague idea which you haven't studied, we can go on, but really, why are you so attached to it?

rEv, here is one just on this page.

Too late though. I already think it would be worthless talking with you about this. I can't hear anything from you that I can't learn from Jezebel online.

What does being "attached" to an idea mean? If it means - Why do I think this idea has merit? - then I would have thought it was pretty obvious. It makes sense to me. Your facile "bogeyman" theory makes zero sense. Any more idiotic questions?

And that was one question. You said I didn't answer your questions, which implies all of them. I answered all the non-trolling and non-retarded ones. Fuck off back under your bridge.

[JimC]

This is pretty fucking simple stuff. Women have been historically disadvantaged during the formulation of our societies. That's why society has been (and still is, to a degree) patriarchal. The fact that we have equal laws for women and men now doesn't mean that patriarchalism just magically disappears. It's going to take time and continued struggle. A struggle that isn't helped by arse-clowns like Cunt and Dave Dodo who don't even admit there is a problem.

Eta: it's like the absurd libertarian claim that because everyone is equal under the law everyone has the same opportunity to succeed. What this ignores is entrenched power and bias.

But it's also important to realise that a pretty high proportion (although not all) of that disadvantage has been reduced, at least in most Western societies, and that the lot of women in much of the third world, particularly the islamic bits, is vastly worse than women in, say, modern day Australia.

[pErvinalia]

Of course. But it's the feminist movement, and some work by liberals, that has really seen that disadvantage reduced. Acting like feminists are evil, or something, ignores that history.

[Cunt]

So you think 200yrs ago there were equal rights for women? Ok then.

The fact that you didn't specify which person, quote or eyeglasses style makes it problematic to try to understand you.

Eta: it's like the absurd libertarian claim that because everyone is equal under the law everyone has the same opportunity to succeed. What this ignores is entrenched power and bias.

It's problematic that you see women as a cohesive group of disadvantaged. There were, and are women who are MUCH more 'equal' than either of us, and much less.

It's problematic that you can't see anything but the feminist side of things.

You should comb out your feminazi hair, adjust your horn-rimmed glasses, sigh obesely, and claim I am horrible for not agreeing with you 100%

Oh, and then make false claims about my position which you can ridicule easier.

If you could do it in a passive-aggresive way, it would tickle my root.

[Cunt]

Kudos to you for making me go quote one of the questions you missed. That's fucking funny. I feel foolish.

You bleat away. I am listening intently. Really.

[tattuchu]

I don't like this thread because I hear the title in John Travolta's voice from that dreadful musical Grease.

Well this thread could be systematic,
hydromatic,
ultramatic,
problematic



Oh god make it stop

[Forty Two]

So you think 200yrs ago there were equal rights for women? Ok then.

200 years ago there wasn't equal rights for men, either.

[Forty Two]

The word "patriarchy" is often used in a very unthinking way, and as a gross generalisation. However, that does not mean that there are not aspects of the current way that society is organised that put obstacles in women's way, and that could not be organised better.

This is a great question. So, what would be one or two of the main aspects of the current way that society is organized that put obstacles in women's way?

[Cunt]

When folks use the word 'patriarchy' seriously, but don't mean anything about fathers, I tend to dismiss them as parroting. The concept may or may not be true, but the word is laughably inaccurate to describe anything.

Makes for good chants though.

[pErvinalia]

So you think 200yrs ago there were equal rights for women? Ok then.

The fact that you didn't specify which person, quote or eyeglasses style makes it problematic to try to understand you.

Eta: it's like the absurd libertarian claim that because everyone is equal under the law everyone has the same opportunity to succeed. What this ignores is entrenched power and bias.

It's problematic that you see women as a cohesive group of disadvantaged. There were, and are women who are MUCH more 'equal' than either of us, and much less.

It's problematic that you can't see anything but the feminist side of things.

You should comb out your feminazi hair, adjust your horn-rimmed glasses, sigh obesely, and claim I am horrible for not agreeing with you 100%

Oh, and then make false claims about my position which you can ridicule easier.

If you could do it in a passive-aggresive way, it would tickle my root.

Trolololol..

[pErvinalia]

So you think 200yrs ago there were equal rights for women? Ok then.

200 years ago there wasn't equal rights for men, either.

They didn't need it as they were almost solely the decision makers in society and the family.

[JimC]

The word "patriarchy" is often used in a very unthinking way, and as a gross generalisation. However, that does not mean that there are not aspects of the current way that society is organised that put obstacles in women's way, and that could not be organised better.

This is a great question. So, what would be one or two of the main aspects of the current way that society is organized that put obstacles in women's way?

Mainly, finding ways to reduce the financial, superannuation and career disadvantages that accrue to women when they have children. There's not a single answer to this, it will depend partly on a change of attitude by fathers, as well as some clever actions by both government and employers in terms of tax, child care etc.; in the end there will probably still be some disadvantage, but it would be surprising if it could not be reduced.

Also, further efforts to reduce domestic violence would be a good thing.

[Cunt]

So you think 200yrs ago there were equal rights for women? Ok then.

200 years ago there wasn't equal rights for men, either.

They didn't need it as they were almost solely the decision makers in society and the family.

I don't even know how to address this fantasy...where do you get this bullshit?

Tell me, oh wise one, why did the 'decision-makers' not choose to engage in war by sending women to fight, then watching over beer and wings? Why did the men always end up dying for their society and family? Why didn't your patriarchy run things in such a way that men benefitted more than women?

Is it just barely possible that they are not the two groups you pretend they are? That things are much less black and white than you pretend?

Your knowledge of history suggests that you attended a liberal arts 'university', or perhaps were home-schooled...

[pErvinalia]

So you think 200yrs ago there were equal rights for women? Ok then.

200 years ago there wasn't equal rights for men, either.

They didn't need it as they were almost solely the decision makers in society and the family.

I don't even know how to address this fantasy...where do you get this bullshit?

Tell me, oh wise one, why did the 'decision-makers' not choose to engage in war by sending women to fight, then watching over beer and wings? Why did the men always end up dying for their society and family? Why didn't your patriarchy run things in such a way that men benefitted more than women?

I thought I fucking addressed this fallacy. The concept of patriarchy affects both men and women in negative ways. Perhaps you should have had a crack at reading that rational wiki article, or at least the segment I reproduced here.

Is it just barely possible that they are not the two groups you pretend they are? That things are much less black and white than you pretend?

In societies where women didn't have the vote and men did, that's pretty black and white. In religious institutions where women can't be priests etc and men can, that's pretty black and white. These are the foundations of our societies. It's nowhere near that bad now (although, religion still lags), but we are still facing the inertial legacy in society of such underpinnings.

Your knowledge of history suggests that you attended a liberal arts 'university', or perhaps were home-schooled...

And your trollery suggest with high likelihood that you do indeed live under a bridge.

[Cunt]

And your trollery suggest with high likelihood that you do indeed live under a bridge.

Dismissing you as a troll here.

I hope you don't find it problematic.