Matriarchy at work

[Crazy Eddie]

The tragedy is that the man in this case got some absolutely DREADFUL legal advice from a shitass attorney that was probably trying to clear his caseload faster and didn't feel like dealing with the paperwork. There are too many court-appointed lawyers who think they are procedurally savvy but wind up leaving their clients twisting in the wind.

Was that a female attorney? Who let this poor male down?

Buyer went out of his way to point out the discrimination against straight white christian males without vaginas. I can only assume this is because the attorney in this case was a straight white christian male WITH a vagina?

 

[Derec]

Who made this perverted law? The majority woman congress? Approved by the majority woman Senate? Signed by the woman president? Upheld by the majority woman supreme court?

Women are the majority of the electorate, plus there are many men who call themselves feminists and support sexist laws against men (just look at this board and all the men who support this and other sexist laws).
In the end, it doesn't matter who passes the laws but the laws themselves.

 

[Derec]

No, I think that men are not systematically discriminated against. There are some instances (like the OP) where it would appear that an individual man may have been treated unfairly, but that (again) doesn't mean all men are discriminated against, nor are they the hapless victims you make them out to be.

Men are definitely systematically discriminated against, in family law as well as other areas. Of course, women are also systematically discriminated against in some areas. But while the areas where women are discriminated against has been shrinking that is not the case for areas where men are discriminated against due in large part to men like you who deny, for ideological reasons, that there is even a problem.

Now this one is probably going to make your head spin, but you know what? I was passed over for a promotion once because I was male. I was more qualified, had been with the company longer, was next in line to be promoted, but because the position in question had been previously held by a woman, management decided to fill it with another one.

And yet you deny that there is sexism against men?

Will you come to my defense now, oh white knight of manhood Derec? Am I now your brother in the struggle against the evil matriarchy because I was victimized by a society hell-bent on destroying men?

The problem is that you fail to acknowledge there is a problem even if the problem bites you in the ass. You are like Uncle Ruckus of white men.

No, please don't. The people who made the decision were men. Plus unlike you I don't whine and cry when I'm treated perhaps unfairly. I take it like a man.

That the people who made the decision were men makes no difference other than bolstering my point that many men have internalized the idea that sexism against men is a good, "progressive" thing. Like you who keep saying that men should just accept sexist discrimination against them.

I'm wondering...do you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a radical feminist?

Only when they exhibit radical feminist doctrine. Like the idea that sexist discrimination against men is not a big deal and that men should "take it like a man". Reminds me of the Vasser University provost who said that college men being falsely accused of rape is a good thing.
Of course, not all disagreements I have with people are due to radical feminism. Most notably, if somebody were to say that women should be treated as second class citizens, I would disagree with them but I would not accuse them of being radical feminists.

Because that seems to be the pattern here. Just because I don't buy into your bullshit notions of male victimhood (and again unlike you I've actually been discriminated against) doesn't mean I'm a bra-burning, Gloria Steinem-reading, gynocentric radical who wants to enslave men.

And yet you think men should just take sexist discrimination against them and not complain about it.

I just disagree with the fantasy world you've created for yourself.

You just admitted that it is no fantasy.

Now here's some practical advice since you brought up the subject...if you want to make it easier to get laid, you've got to treat women with respect.

I want to treat women with respect. I do not want to treat them like supreme beings where I have to be in fear that a loose overheard comment or joke can get me fired because some woman (like Adria "Donglegate" Richards) is "offended" or to be passed over for promotion because of my gender and having to shut up about it because pointing out sexism against men is not "politically correct".

Don't freak out about the fact that they want things like equal pay for equal work.

I have no problem with equal pay for equal work. But the "73 cents on every dollar" nonsense is not comparing equal work which means that those that champion it do not want equal pay for equal work but equal pay for unequal work.

Don't imagine they're all out to falsely accuse you of rape should you actually get past second base.

Well some are. Just like some men are rapists. But in this country we prosecute rapists while false rape accusers are very rarely prosecuted.

You don't have to "adopt a radical feminist ideology," you've just got to stop being such a dick to women, stop being such a whiny little crybaby, and for god's sake don't let them read what you post here.

You on the other hand let them read what you post here to prove to them what a good little white knight you are.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, this is your interpretation of reality, not actual reality.

In other words, actual reality, not the politically correct version of it.

 

[Derec]

I _have_ been passed over for employment (twice: "we do not hire women to lift boxes")

That is wrong. Requirements should be clearly stated ("must be able to lift 50 lbs") and everybody should be evaluated based on whether they fulfill that requirement. Of course, many more men than women will be able to fulfill a strength based requirement like that but a whole class should not be excluded because of group averages.
Now what is wrong as well is insist that equal numbers of men and women should be hired for that position and waiving certain requirements to increase the number or women hired. That is what fire and police departments are doing for example.

See, unlike you and other feminists on here I can acknowledge that there is some discrimination against women as well. Why is it so hard for feminists to acknowledge that there is discrimination against men? Why is feminism so hell-bent on maintaining sexist privileges for women like life-long alimony?

I _have_ been passed over for advancement because of gender (more than twice, even when I am objectively measure to produce more finished work in less time)

As have men (see Ford's admission). Both are wrong.

I _have_ been discriminated against in court (we aren't calling this a assault because the man claims he knew her.
I _have_ been assaulted in my own home, by a stranger with no legal action taken even though he took a fucking baseball bat to the cars in the driveway and there were witnesses to all of it because, well, he said he knew me (he didn't).

If you were assaulted and there was evidence to that effect that is wrong.

So for all your examples, derec, I say, "welcome to my world (and the world of most women and minorities) - it took you this fucking long to notice the injustice? Get in fucking line." Or better yet, wake up, help solve the injustice and stop your whining that you are the only victim in the room. Wake up. Help solve the whole problem and stop expecting all of the people already fighting this widespread problem to drop everything and come to your rescue first. There are people bleeding a lot harder and for a whole lot longer than you."\

Yes, we should work to stop all injustice. But when certain, not politically correct, injustices are routinely dismissed with "take it like a man" then that is very frustrating.

That's what I have to tell to your examples. Welcome to my fucking club. What took you so long in noticing the decor? Wanh. Fucking Wanh. Pardon me while I keep working on what I was always working on. You gonna help the whole problem? Or are you still just looking out for number one?

I have no problem working on the whole problem if my part of the problem is not dismissed (and me being attacked and insulted personally) because it doesn't fit into the ideological commitment that women are being oppressed in the "patriarchy".

 

[laughing dog]

In other words, actual reality, not the politically correct version of it.

Of course you are free to make any claim about reality you wish. Just as your audience if free to observe the lack of accuracy in your claim. To claim one's unsubstantiated conjectures about the motives of others is an accurate portrayal of reality either requires a massive ego or assuming the massive stupidity on the part of one's audience.

You have made assertions as to motives. However, until you present clear and convincing of your unerring ability to read minds or some disinterested evidence to support your specific claims (not handwaved blather about "matriarchy"), your claims can only be seriously taken to reflect your idiosyncratic view of the world, not the actual world.

 

[Ford]

Men are definitely systematically discriminated against, in family law as well as other areas.

You know, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat an unsupported assertion, right? You've yet to back up this claim.

But while the areas where women are discriminated against has been shrinking that is not the case for areas where men are discriminated against due in large part to men like you who deny, for ideological reasons, that there is even a problem.

I deny there's a problem of systematic discrimination against men not because of any ideological stance, but for the simple fact that you've utterly failed to prove such systematic discrimination exists.

And yet you deny that there is sexism against men?

I deny that there is systematic discrimination against men, yes. You have yet to prove otherwise. Men are not - as a group - the victims you imagine.

That the people who made the decision were men makes no difference...

Actually it makes all the difference in the world. In my line of work (as is true in most industries) the people in charge are men. In nearly 30 years in the business, I have worked for many general managers. Only one was a woman. Many program directors. No women at all. Never worked under a female regional VP, company President, or CEO. There have been some cracks in that glass ceiling, but in my business (and most others) the overwhelming majority of senior management positions are held by men.

Now here's the part of the story I didn't tell you because I figured (rightly) you'd do a fine job of sticking your foot in your mouth:

The woman they chose to promote over me? They did so because every other position on the staff was filled by men. I lost out on the promotion to a token. An EEOC hire. A concession in order to stave off accusations of discrimination which would have been absolutely true. The business I work in is overwhelmingly male-dominated. Was then. Is now. So is yours - assuming of course you have a job.

Which brings me back to the fantasy world you've created where you're a victim:


It doesn't exist.


In the real world, men overwhelmingly dominate business. Men overwhelmingly dominate government. Men overwhelmingly dominate sports, the military, the entertainment industry, medicine, the legal profession, etc. The fact that you can find a few instances where men were treated unfairly (Duke rape! Duke rape!) doesn't change this fact. Yet you're so insulated in this self-created bubble of victimhood that you don't even see how being a male gives you an advantage.

I was able to find one example in my own life where being a man kept me from getting a promotion. How did I handle it, you ask? I didn't whine like you would have me do. No, I quit that job and got a better one. If I was a woman I couldn't do that as easily because again most of the jobs went to men. That next job I got, know how many women were on the staff? One. Job after that? One. I wasn't experiencing systematic discrimination against men, Derec. I was operating in a system where discrimination against women was so entrenched that a few jobs had to be given to women to keep the company in compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.


The exact opposite of your fantasy land where women control everything.

 

[Rhea]

That is wrong.
As have men (see Ford's admission). Both are wrong.
If you were assaulted and there was evidence to that effect that is wrong.

yup. Wrongs going on for years. DECADES.
And against millions of women.

Yes, we should work to stop all injustice. But when certain, not politically correct, injustices are routinely dismissed with "take it like a man" then that is very frustrating.

That's what I have to tell to your examples. Welcome to my fucking club. What took you so long in noticing the decor? Wanh. Fucking Wanh. Pardon me while I keep working on what I was always working on. You gonna help the whole problem? Or are you still just looking out for number one?

I have no problem working on the whole problem if my part of the problem is not dismissed (and me being attacked and insulted personally) because it doesn't fit into the ideological commitment that women are being oppressed in the "patriarchy".

Your part of the problem is dismissed because it's waaay back in line behind more egregious ones on the agendas of people who have already been in the trences for a long long time.

And your part of the problem is dismissed by you because you don't want to work on your problem, you want **US** to work on your problem instead of ours. Sorry, we're a little busy right now with a much bigger deeper and more enduring problem. How about we get to your problem when it doesn't have a hundred other itmes ahead of it on the list.

Or, better yet, how about YOU work on your problem by proposing solutions and working to enact them and leaving out all the whiney bits about why no one thinks your problem affecting one guy in a custody case is just as bad as decades (centuries, really, and you know it) of far more financially harmful cases affecting millions.

That's what "take it like a man" meant in that post up above. Ford lays it out plain as day. The woman was promoted in an environment dripping with severe discrimination against women, as a means of avoiding consequences for the widespread discrimination against women. For you to think, "hang on! We need to address this woman's unearned promotion FIRST!" Never mind about the thousands of women who were unfairly denied and are still trying to financially recover from that... "one man was harmed Oh! Noes!! Look at me! Look at meeeeeee!!!! We need to address this first!"

Meh, it falls flat. You get the rest of the discrimination all fixed up and your man-problem will simply evaporate. No one will ever need a token hire again.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The two go hand in hand. When you mock and deride Derec while he makes a valid point and tell him to "take it like a man", you make yourself look unreasonable and it becomes harder to take your valid cause and claims at face value. You start to look suspect, like a feminist that is interested in screwing over men, instead of an egalitarian out for fair treatment to all.

It doesnt take much to acknowledge that something is wrong when men are mistreated. It doesnt mean you have to change your efforts away from working to help women.

Failing to acknowledge all aspects of what is going on, also feeds into an us vs them way of thinking. It bolsters misogyny, not the opposite.

 

[laughing dog]

The two go hand in hand. When you mock and deride Derec while he makes a valid point and tell him to "take it like a man", you make yourself look unreasonable and it becomes harder to take your valid cause and claims at face value. You start to look suspect, like a feminist that is interested in screwing over men, instead of an egalitarian out for fair treatment to all.

Perhaps to you. But clearly not to many others. So what does that say?

It doesnt take much to acknowledge that something is wrong when men are mistreated. It doesnt mean you have to change your efforts away from working to help women.

There is something wrong when anyone is mistreated. However, when a man is mistreated, that does mean the cause is matriarchy. The problem with most of Derec's arguments is the bizarre extrapolation from some outcome (which may or may not be mistreatment) to some grand anti-male conspiracy. Just look at the OP title and the argument of the OP. It is ridiculous. Add in the utter dismissal of history and actual mistreatment of others, and it is fucking ridiculous.

Failing to acknowledge all aspects of what is going on, also feeds into an us vs them way of thinking. It bolsters misogyny, not the opposite.

Yes, it does. So why are you bolstering it?

 

[credoconsolans]

The two go hand in hand. When you mock and deride Derec while he makes a valid point and tell him to "take it like a man", you make yourself look unreasonable and it becomes harder to take your valid cause and claims at face value. You start to look suspect, like a feminist that is interested in screwing over men, instead of an egalitarian out for fair treatment to all.

It doesnt take much to acknowledge that something is wrong when men are mistreated. It doesnt mean you have to change your efforts away from working to help women.

Failing to acknowledge all aspects of what is going on, also feeds into an us vs them way of thinking. It bolsters misogyny, not the opposite.

A fine example of "not ALL men"...

 

[Rhea]

The two go hand in hand. When you mock and deride Derec while he makes a valid point and tell him to "take it like a man", you make yourself look unreasonable and it becomes harder to take your valid cause and claims at face value. You start to look suspect, like a feminist that is interested in screwing over men, instead of an egalitarian out for fair treatment to all.

It doesnt take much to acknowledge that something is wrong when men are mistreated. It doesnt mean you have to change your efforts away from working to help women.

Failing to acknowledge all aspects of what is going on, also feeds into an us vs them way of thinking. It bolsters misogyny, not the opposite.

I do not mock & deride derec. I don't think anyone else has, either. I deride his POINT, which includes, in his words,

I used the word "matriarchy" as a riff on feminists using the term "patriarchy" to rail against anything they dislike about society, usually much more trivial than the issues than being forced to pay for a child that is not yours. But I have not seen you ridiculing those feminists as being "utterly absurd" for imagining that the US is some sort of "dictatorship of the dicktariat".
But such double standards are to be expected from the Left.

Yes, I deride the point that all of the efforts for equal rights are for things "much more trivial" than a guy having to pay child support because he got rotten legal advice.

Yep. wanh. Derision of that point.

And, of course, the judge is a female. Gotta support the "sisterhood" I guess.

But feminists still labor under the illusion that the US is somehow a patriarchy.

Look at his OP. It's a poorly described straw-man of the actual case moving instantly into "women are out to get him obviously and there is no such thing as an effect of 'patriarchy' harming women."

Yep. wanh. Derision of that point.

What was his "valid point," again? the sisterhood? The mocking of feminists? The rollseyes? I'm trying to hard to keep an eye on his "valid point" Perhaps you can re-post it for us.

 

[Ford]

The two go hand in hand. When you mock and deride Derec while he makes a valid point and tell him to "take it like a man", you make yourself look unreasonable and it becomes harder to take your valid cause and claims at face value. You start to look suspect, like a feminist that is interested in screwing over men, instead of an egalitarian out for fair treatment to all.

In Derec's worldview, there are no egalitarians out for fair treatment to all (except, I suppose he imagines, himself). No, any attempt to point out that we live in a male dominated society is dismissed immediately as "radical feminism."

It doesnt take much to acknowledge that something is wrong when men are mistreated. It doesnt mean you have to change your efforts away from working to help women.

Derec is using the fact that some men have been mistreated (which is true) to advance the absurd notion that all men are victims of systematic discrimination and that we live in a society run by feminists out to screw over men. This is why I presented my own experience with "discrimination" the way that I did.

Context is important, after all, and what Derec is doing in his points (which you seem to think have validity) is dropping context entirely.

If one man is falsely accused of rape, then men are victims of horrible discrimination. Never mind the fact that false accusations represent at best a small fraction of rape cases. Never mind that the victims of rape themselves are often victimized again by a system which makes it difficult to make the accusation in the first place. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of rape victims are women. No, according to Derec's logic, the most important rape statistic in America is the few accusations made by evil women which turn out to be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States

Nearly 90,000 people reported being raped in the United States in 2008. There is an arrest rate of 25%.[1] According to the National Crime Victimization Survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 39,590 men and 164,240 women were victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault in 2008.[2] Of those committed by a single offender, 78.1% were committed by men and 18.5% were committed by women, with 3.5% by an unknown attacker. Of those committed by multiple offenders, 75.7% were committed by only men and 24.3% were committed by both men and women.

According to Derec, those numbers above are what male victimization looks like. I wouldn't be surprised if he comes along shortly and claims those numbers were all made up and the real problem is all the women rapists out there.

Rape is overwhelmingly a crime which impacts women. This is not even the slightest bit in doubt. Yet for Derec the much larger problem is the handful of false accusations.

I think that's a position which deserves mockery. At the very least it is unreasonable, and should not be taken seriously. He's blowing things hilariously out of proportion, and when you call him on his obvious bullshit he accuses you of being a "radical feminist."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What was his "valid point," again? the sisterhood? The mocking of feminists? The rollseyes? I'm trying to hard to keep an eye on his "valid point" Perhaps you can re-post it for us.

The valid points are what people here go out of their way to avoid responding to. Go have a look at the posts throughout this thread (and others) and you will see people reaching for the low hanging fruit, instead of addressing the more poignant and valid points. It isn't matriarchy, that is Derec jumping the shark, as I said in my earlier post in this thread. For the other guy, the post at the end of page 11 was quite good, and everyone here skipped over it in favour of attacking the very low hanging fruit he presented later (telling minorities to "go home" and saying he doesn't like working with women, etc).

Like it or not, and acknowledge it or not, gender bias is a real thing. Women are often seen as weak and vulnerable and in need of protection and special treatment (if they are allowed to do what men do), and men are often seen as strong and capable and aggressive and something other men need to protect women from. This results in unfair treatment to both women (who are skipped over or not taken seriously and denied equal treatment to men) and men (who are treated as aggressive and denied the very right to complain about unequal treatment against them - "take it like a man Derec"). This is how society has seen things for centuries. That it is patriarchy and men in power that put the system in place is irrelevant to the fact that it is there, and that both men and women can exploit it and that both can be victims of it. It is only when we look at the underlying dynamics of this that we can truly get to the heart of it.

And to refuse to acknowledge that it exists in both directions doesn't help at all. That only serves to make "feminists" (a word in itself problematic) look unreasonable and not worth taking seriously, which is already a problem women face due to the gender bias against them. It makes it worse for women, not better, to pretend that men don't face any barriers. Treating individual white male christian straight people, those who belong to the groups that have historically faced the least barriers (and had unfair advantages) as if mistreatment against them doesn't matter, or is worth laughing at, or that they deserve it, or to ignore it can happen at all, only serves to turn may them against you, when you could get them on your side. And you need them on your side. A little empathy in all directions is not a bad thing.

 

[laughing dog]

The valid points are what people here go out of their way to avoid responding to. Go have a look at the posts throughout this thread (and others) and you will see people reaching for the low hanging fruit, instead of addressing the more poignant and valid points. It isn't matriarchy, that is Derec jumping the shark, as I said in my earlier post in this thread. For the other guy, the post at the end of page 11 was quite good, and everyone here skipped over it in favour of attacking the very low hanging fruit he presented later (telling minorities to "go home" and saying he doesn't like working with women, etc).

Fascinatingly, you skip over the alleged "poignant and valid" points, even when asked about them. It cannot be the rest of your post, because it directly contradicts many of Derec's claims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Meh, it falls flat. You get the rest of the discrimination all fixed up and your man-problem will simply evaporate. No one will ever need a token hire again.

The problem is that your side can't tell the difference between actual discrimination and differences that have nothing to do with discrimination. (It's not specific to this issue, the same problem happens with all antidiscrimination efforts.)

 

[ksen]

somebody's panties are in a bunch

 

[Crazy Eddie]

For the other guy, the post at the end of page 11 was quite good

In YOUR opinion.

Truth be told, I initially ignored it because it struck me as a rambling "stream of consciousness" rant sprinkled with links to some of buyers' favorite "issue" websites. It also appeared that he had only registered for the website SPECIFICALLY to participate in this thread and will likely never post here again after he's said his piece.

Frankly I was amazed he even bothered to post again after that initial tl;dr. Then I read what his post actually SAID, and I wasn't amazed anymore.

Like it or not, and acknowledge it or not, gender bias is a real thing.

I don't think that anyone is actually disputing that concept; it's almost impossible to live in western society for any length of time without being aware of it.

But to go from "gender bias is a real thing" to claiming "straight white christian men are the most heavily affected victims of gender discrimination" is an EXTRAORDINARY claim.

And to refuse to acknowledge that it exists in both directions doesn't help at all.

Nor would any halfway rational person even attempt to deny that it exists in both directions. Even Derec is capable of recognizing this.

Is it merely your contention that Derec is pointing out something that everyone already knows, that the legal system is inundated with sexist memes that sometimes prejudice the decisions of both jurors and judges? Or is Derec trying to make a case that the legal system is heavy stacked against MEN, in an attempt to undermine the prevailing notion that women are more often the recipients of discrimination than men are?

This is not an issue where you can really get away with playing the "both sides do it" card. Even in family court, discrimination by women against men is a relatively small problem compared to the reverse case.

A little empathy in all directions is not a bad thing.

Empathy is reserved for those who are actually in need of it. In this case, a guy who got horrible legal advice from a shitass lawyer.

If Derec wants to make the case that poor people are often the victims of an autocratic legal system simply because they can't afford decent lawyers, then this is something we should all be concerned about. If Derec wants to make the case that white christian males are often victims of a matriarchal and/or misandryous legal system, that's a much longer leap to make.

 

[Underseer]

Meh, it falls flat. You get the rest of the discrimination all fixed up and your man-problem will simply evaporate. No one will ever need a token hire again.

The problem is that your side can't tell the difference between actual discrimination and differences that have nothing to do with discrimination. (It's not specific to this issue, the same problem happens with all antidiscrimination efforts.)

Probably because your side's definition of "nothing to do with discrimination" includes things like passing laws that force women to have rape babies and allow the rapists to sue for custody.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that your side can't tell the difference between actual discrimination and differences that have nothing to do with discrimination. (It's not specific to this issue, the same problem happens with all antidiscrimination efforts.)

Probably because your side's definition of "nothing to do with discrimination" includes things like passing laws that force women to have rape babies and allow the rapists to sue for custody.

That's not my position at all.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Probably because your side's definition of "nothing to do with discrimination" includes things like passing laws that force women to have rape babies and allow the rapists to sue for custody.

That's not my position at all.

True. It's Derec's.