Matriarchy at work

[Rhea]

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.

An honest reading of my posts reveals that I did not refuse to acknowledge the existence of bad events for men. But I refused to let anyone claim that their existence demonstrates a "matriarchy" or that they are significantly more troubling ("less trivial") than those bad events or barriers for women. I do refuse to put those troubles to the front of the line of things to fix.

Are you saying that my admonition that he should be the one to work on those problems that affect men as the immediate victim rather than expecting me to be the one is somehow a statement that the problem does not exist? You're completely wrong. I said, yes it exists, welcome to the club, and when are you going to join us in combating that?

You'll notice that his main theme here and in all threads is, "why aren't you working on my problem first? No one's working on my problem! Why are you working on something else? You should be working on my problem, because I'm not posting a single word about what I am doing to work on my problem, only what you aren't doing!"

And I again reply - acknowledging his problem - "join the club, get to work." Join. The. Club. Sorry it took you so long and a very special victim to notice the fucking problem.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Apparently the mote in your side's (the "anything but racism") eye is blinding you as well.

(It's not specific to this issue, the same problem happens with all antidiscrimination efforts.)

Do tell. Because this broadbrush generalization appear more ridiculous than rational.

 

[Toni]

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.

An honest reading of my posts reveals that I did not refuse to acknowledge the existence of bad events for men. But I refused to let anyone claim that their existence demonstrates a "matriarchy" or that they are significantly more troubling ("less trivial") than those bad events or barriers for women. I do refuse to put those troubles to the front of the line of things to fix.

Are you saying that my admonition that he should be the one to work on those problems that affect men as the immediate victim rather than expecting me to be the one is somehow a statement that the problem does not exist? You're completely wrong. I said, yes it exists, welcome to the club, and when are you going to join us in combating that?

You'll notice that his main theme here and in all threads is, "why aren't you working on my problem first? No one's working on my problem! Why are you working on something else? You should be working on my problem, because I'm not posting a single word about what I am doing to work on my problem, only what you aren't doing!"

And I again reply - acknowledging his problem - "join the club, get to work." Join. The. Club. Sorry it took you so long and a very special victim to notice the fucking problem.

Excellent post.

 

[Togo]

The valid points are what people here go out of their way to avoid responding to...

...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.

Which is, somewhat bizzarely, the point I made back in post 70. Guess who dismissed it, didn't want to consider it, and went out of their way to avoid considering it?

And you need them on your side. A little empathy in all directions is not a bad thing.

So are you accusing both sides of lacking empathy, or just one?

The problem is that there is a level of hysterical hyperbole beyond which it becomes almost impossible to have a conversation. And claims of matriarchy solidly cross that line.

 

[Rhea]

Which is, somewhat bizzarely, the point I made back in post 70. Guess who dismissed it, didn't want to consider it, and went out of their way to avoid considering it?

Post 63, I think.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You'll notice that his main theme here and in all threads is, "why aren't you working on my problem first? No one's working on my problem! Why are you working on something else? You should be working on my problem, because I'm not posting a single word about what I am doing to work on my problem, only what you aren't doing!"

That is a nice string of strawmen. Would it be appropriate to react in the same way in threads about mistreatment of women? Should men simply state it isn't their problem, and they won't put it ahead of the line to care about or do something about? Should they whine that the speaker (who at least started a thread) isn't doing anything about it, so they have no right to talk about if they are not out there spending all their time trying to fix it? Has it occured to you that talking about and exposing it is one aspect of fixing it?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So are you accusing both sides of lacking empathy, or just one?

Both. People clearly appear to be digged deep into camps here. You're either a radical feminazi or you are a horrid misogynist on this forum, according to how people seem to react to one another. There appears to be no room for rational thought, on a board called "TalkFreethought". Odd that.

The problem is that there is a level of hysterical hyperbole beyond which it becomes almost impossible to have a conversation. And claims of matriarchy solidly cross that line.

True. But then you have pretty much the same level of hysterical hyperbole in the opposite direction, only in gang form, instead of one or two guys.

 

[Ford]

People clearly appear to be digged deep into camps here. You're either a radical feminazi or you are a horrid misogynist on this forum, according to how people seem to react to one another. There appears to be no room for rational thought, on a board called "TalkFreethought". Odd that.

Well there certainly are accusations of misogyny and radical feminism being thrown around, but it is worth noting that the former are almost exclusively directed at the one (or two, if you don't consider the new user to be a sock) who is throwing all the latter.

That aside, if one rationally considers the OP premise - that this one case is part of a pattern of decisions driven by radical feminism - it can't be reasonably supported. Just like the assertion that one false rape claim means women generally like to cry rape when none has happened. Or that statistics regarding the pay of women vs men for the same job are skewed by a secret cabal of radical feminists.


I'm "dug into" the camp that we live in a male dominated society which has made some strides towards equality, but gender bias still exists and it is predominately directed against women.

This apparently makes me a Feminazi.

What's rational about that?

 

[RavenSky]

Something tells me you've never actually left the country.

something tells me he's never actually left his mother's basement.

 

[RavenSky]

I want to treat women with respect.

When do you plan to start?

 

[laughing dog]

Both. People clearly appear to be digged deep into camps here. You're either a radical feminazi or you are a horrid misogynist on this forum, according to how people seem to react to one another. There appears to be no room for rational thought, on a board called "TalkFreethought". Odd that.

What an odd mischaracterization - all stemming from a dispute about whether the miscarriage of justice of one man is caused by matriarchy.

True. But then you have pretty much the same level of hysterical hyperbole in the opposite direction, only in gang form, instead of one or two guys.

You have a habit of making unsubstantiated claims concerning the contents of posts. Please do not omit the ill-considered condescension from a one or two posters.

 

[Rhea]

Something tells me you've never actually left the country.

something tells me he's never actually left his mother's basement.

Even though certain posters have thrown out some nasty stuff about us having some conspiracy to keep them down and oppressed, I'm not comfortable hearing personal put-downs.

It seems to usually be a complaint about too much power and intelligence, and somehow that's not as personal and demeaning as a direct put-down of low worth.


I just wanted to say that aloud as solidarity to mitigate the sting to the poster that this would make me feel if directed at me.

 

[Rhea]

You'll notice that his main theme here and in all threads is, "why aren't you working on my problem first? No one's working on my problem! Why are you working on something else? You should be working on my problem, because I'm not posting a single word about what I am doing to work on my problem, only what you aren't doing!"

That is a nice string of strawmen. Would it be appropriate to react in the same way in threads about mistreatment of women? Should men simply state it isn't their problem, and they won't put it ahead of the line to care about or do something about? Should they whine that the speaker (who at least started a thread) isn't doing anything about it, so they have no right to talk about if they are not out there spending all their time trying to fix it? Has it occured to you that talking about and exposing it is one aspect of fixing it?

No, you are not responding to my actual words. I am not saying it isn't my problem. I am saying I work to fix a larger problem than this one example and all of the things I seek to change would also address this problem and hence it is not singularly my top priority because it is simply one of very very very myriad many examples. If he wants it to be the number one top priority to the exclusion of the similar problems that he not only fails to address but actively derides, he'll have to do that without me.

I also clearly said that the reasons for my choice of not rushing his case to the top of the list is that the type of problem he outlines happens with a frequency of about 1/1,000,000th of that of the ones I'm already very vocal about. And while I care about it (I have said in other threads that I think it is 100% wrong to force men to pay child support for any child that they would have agreed to abortion for), and I consider it a problem, it's not the biggest problem. But with this new complainant on board we've got a bigger justice team and he can fgight for that case while I am fighting for the ones I'm already fighting for.

So if your example asks would it be appropriate for men to simply state that discrimination against millions is not their problem, because they are more concerned about a very rare and infrequent case, then....



WAIT! They already do state that!

Well then, now you see why I am fixing to address those things. Millions affected... one affected. What to work on first.