If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

"Patriarchy"

2»

Comments

  • As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    I, too, enjoy belittling the struggles of groups of people who are not me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
  • edited 2011-05-06 23:13:56
    Inside, too dark to read
    See, your tone suggests sarcasm, but your behavior suggests that you do it sincerely.
  • Rottweiler, I never know if he's serious, so on the safe side I never take him seriously.

  • I, too, enjoy belittling the struggles of groups of people who are not me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    As a woman, as someone whose ancestors have struggled for my rights in a world that did not grant them even basic human freedoms, I say.....


    ....lighten up and quit being so offended. As struggles go, it's more of a struggle to frown than to smile*, so laugh a little.

    * okay, that's an old wives' tale, but you get my point...
  • Inside, too dark to read
    @ninjaclown: People you don't take seriously are a lot more fun to be around if they're funny or jolly.

    Dour Quakers who take offense over any jest at the Testimony of Equality don't serve a useful purpose.
  • As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    Eh, frankly I don't think any of the threads in which men come to whine in a peculiarly unmanly fashion about feminism merit seriousness.
  • Now that I can understand. Sure there is inequality for both genders but...of all the things men can complain about, he chose this?
  • As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    Not to mention what he's complaining about has nothing to do with the word 'patriarchy.'
  • ^^^ Right 'unmanly' *rolls eyes* like I actually give a shit about qualifiers like that. Are you going to tell me to "Grow a pair" next?

    ^^ You'll notice the forum is called IJBM. Please reread the OP, which will clarify the thread ISN'T about inequality. It's about feminists spouting on about 'patriarchy'

    Which bugs me.
  • As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    But you didn't really explain why. You went off on a tangent about other things that have little or nothing to do with the word 'patriarchy' and its usage.
  • I didn't latch onto sexism and inequality. That's where the thread went. I talked about why I hated that phrase and why I thought people kept using it.
  • Holdo on, though, isn't the patriarchy a concept primarily pertaining to theories of structuralised inequality?

    When you're complaining about people talking about inequality, the thread is, in some way, about inequality or the lack thereof.
  • ^^ You were the one who brought up pay.
  • Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    > I included a personal anecdote because I've SEEN discrimination. And it's a lot more "I was clearly a victim of sexism" then "Men must earn more then me because that's what I've been told."

    You don't get statistics from anecdotes, my friend.

    Also, I never cited the statistic; you cited it.

    > ^ Glenn was talking about his mom cooking for a family dude.

    Ever tried doing it immediately after mowing a half-acre lawn with bagging the grass?

    > Rottweiler, I never know if he's serious, so on the safe side I never take him seriously.

    People take each other seriously on the internet?
  • edited 2011-05-07 13:30:42
    no longer cuddly, but still Edmond
  • ^^ Dude. Most of the shit on that list is entire bullshit. I went through that list, crossing off tons of lines with the mental thoughts of "False. False. Irrelevant. Repeated. Subjective. False."

    When I got to the line "If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover." I stopped. Because that is the fattest lie of them all.

    ^ That first site cited a statistic from 1995 and I'm suppose to take that seriously? Honestly, after that I'd doubt anything linked to that site. There is a second site there, but I have no idea if that study takes into account seniority.

    ^^^ Why is it then, that it seems every woman who ever complains about being discriminated in her salary points to supposed 'studies' which 'cite' she's being paid less per hour instead of talking about how her male coworker "Mr. X" makes 'Z' dollars more then her for the same work at the same hours?

  • edited 2011-05-07 19:50:16
    CRIMINAL SCUM!
    I decided to reread through that list. At my displeasure. And cross off the statements which are false, irrelevant, or subjective. I found the most true statements listed first and the falsest and most inane listed last.

    False. Not true.

    10. 11. 13. 17. 18. 21. 22. 24. 25. 29. 39. 41. 43.

    Irrelevant. Not sexist or the same applies to women.

    4.13. 20. 23. 26. 30. 31. 32. 34. 37. 44.

    Subjective. Only true sometimes, or depends upon a person's opinion, not something socially granted.

    8. 19. 38. 45. 46.

    Also, the woman's list left out a bunch.

    I decided to ask my Mom on the irrelevant list, for the ones that would apply to women, she agreed with almost all of them.
  • Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Well I see that IJBM is currently enjoying its first gender roles argument and second political argument.

    I guess it's a sign that our forum has come into its own.
  • When in Turkey, ROCK THE FUCK OUT
    10 and 13 are true for various levels of subjectivity.

    17 is very true, and he provides a link for 18. 

    For 22: You've really never heard the "women can't drive" stereotype?

    29 is truth in television much more often for males than women.

    11 is truer for men than women. 

    For 30: yes, because I've heard so many men called "shrew" and "bitch". Uh-huh. 

    34 is almost always true. 

    37 used to be true, and still is true, for many religions.

    8 is true. 
  • 10. Isn't true. Any father who doesn't provide for his kids is called a deadbeat.

    13. I could say is subjective.

    17. Is not true. I can see plenty today of stereotyped boys and father figures. Notice that the image for ALoserIsYou is a father. Fathers in media today seem to always be portrayed as bumbling.

    18. Is a link to their own site. Which I don't trust. Although I'd be willing to say it's subjective.

    22. And the same isn't true for boys? The stereotype men are over aggressive and get themselves into wrecks speeding recklessly? There's a reason men's insurance costs more. Which is a far more direct consequence of sexism then a simple stereotype.

    29. Hardly. A boy with poor looks is just as likely to be ignored by a woman with good looks as vice versa. Maybe I should've put it under the irrelevant section.

    11. Maybe.

    30. No matter what a man does. I don't think anything he does will get him called a shrew or a bitch. So the statement is entirely loaded. Replace "shrew" and "bitch" with "asshole" and "jackass" and it can be called false.

    34. This one is tough. It's true, but only to an extent. Hyphenated names are getting really popular. People aren't really expected to conform to the old ways of married names.

    37. Is irrelevant though. Because anyone can pick their religion.

    8. Is not sexist. Men are not often raped, and it's a physical rather then social reason why. Besides, everyone is taught not walk alone out at night in average public spaces regardless of sex or reason.


  • no longer cuddly, but still Edmond
    Umm, dude? My link leads to two lists--a Male Privilege one and a Female Privilege one. Which one are you debunking?
  • edited 2011-05-08 02:04:23
    As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    ...insurance rates are determined by actuarial tables that produce a statistically approximate chance of accidents of varying severity depending on the kind of vehicle and driver, based on correlate information. Men's rates are more expensive generally because men get into more accidents; that might be for a variety of reasons, but insurance companies aren't trying to figure out reasons, they're trying to figure out rates that will be profitable for them while remaining competitive. Is this a somewhat obtuse way of doing it? Yes, but there's really no better way to do it.

    Also, being able to pick your religion doesn't make you able to live completely insulated from people of religions you disagree with.
  • edited 2011-05-08 02:26:22
    CRIMINAL SCUM!
    Imagine if women's accident rates were higher. And insurance companies charged women more for insurance. For the sole reason of the demographic they are a member of.

    Can you imagine how outraged feminists circles would be?

    It'd be called sexism of the highest order, regardless of what the statistics say. Because car insurance is required to operate an automobile.
  • As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    Is there any point about arguments along the line of 'Ooh, those people I disagree with would be so wrong if the universe was X?' It isn't, and we don't know that. Certainly feminists aren't up in arms about all the things that are more expensive for women due to real reasons, like contraception. 
  • edited 2011-05-08 04:54:17
    Pony Sleuth
    • "Which one are you debunking?"

    I think I can make an educated guess as to which one he would bother trying to dispute.
  • ^^ That's not the same at all. The price of a contraceptive is determined by the expense of its manufacture. Insurance is the same product, priced differently by gender. What if insurance companies looked at statistics and started charging black people more for insurance?

    The point is. If all you need to do is reverse the situation "If this were happening to women instead of men" to get the reaction of 'sexism' then what is currently happening, is sexism.
  • I'd say insurance provided to a riskier demographic is a costlier and somewhat different product to produce than insurance for a safer demographic. It's not necessarily sexist or racist for a company to provide insurance at a higher cost to a demographic if it makes economic sense for them going by the statistics available. Whether this is something that should be regulated is another question, though.
  • edited 2011-05-08 13:34:45
    As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    But nobody said that if women's insurance was costlier, that would be sexism; you are the one up in arms about it. That's a statement you put into the mouths of 'feminists.' I'm sure there must be some obscure insurance or financial product that is more expensive for women; maybe private pensions (Because women tend to live longer).
Sign In or Register to comment.