Feminism

[OldTrees]

TL;DR: first, provide evidence of 'patriarchy.'  Then, maybe, this discussion can go somewhere.

Again, not all feminists consider 'equal income' (or even universal suffrage, for that matter) as 'equality'.

In my opinion, the fact that there are more male engineers than female engineers is not necessarily a sign of patriarchy. The fact that men are, as you say, told to 'suck it up' or 'be a man about it', however, probably is.

Miscommunication is one of the greatest obstacles that reasonable versions of feminism face.
1) The name implies Misandry when feminism does not preach Misandry.
2) The phrase "check your privilege" sounds like claiming someone had an unfair advantage however I have mostly encountered it used to say "every perspective is different and it takes effort to understand another perspective".*
3) Patriarchy implies Misandry but is just a misfortunate name for "the enemy".

*Well excluding the times it is used as "You are not an X therefore you must be silent."

[memimemi]

Again, not all feminists consider 'equal income' (or even universal suffrage, for that matter) as 'equality'.

Maybe not - but *you* claimed it as evidence of patriarchy.  I'm not discussing things with all feminists; just those who are here.  I've responded to your claims, and you've neglected to show the same respect.  I'm not offended; it's par for the course in these discussions.

In my opinion, the fact that there are more male engineers than female engineers is not necessarily a sign of patriarchy. The fact that men are, as you say, told to 'suck it up' or 'be a man about it', however, probably is.

So, then, a proposed system that oppresses women, as a class, to the benefit of men, as a class, is harmful to men?  Does not compute.

Miscommunication is one of the greatest obstacles that reasonable versions of feminism face.
1) The name implies Misandry when feminism does not preach Misandry.
2) The phrase "check your privilege" sounds like claiming someone had an unfair advantage however I have mostly encountered it used to say "every perspective is different and it takes effort to understand another perspective".*
3) Patriarchy implies Misandry but is just a misfortunate name for "the enemy".

*Well excluding the times it is used as "You are not an X therefore you must be silent."

The core texts of feminist thought, as taught in academic Women's Studies programs, are misandric in both tone and intent.  First Wave: We need to hear the excuses men make to themselves for their worthlessness' (Margaret Fuller).

Second Wave - do I need to start quoting Solanis?  'Cause I refuse to give any respect to a madwoman with violent intent.  So, instead: 'There needs to be bolder thinking, ... on how to measure the quality of life of men and women in the work force. Currently, success is measured by material advancements. We need to readjust the definition of success to account for time outside of work and satisfaction of life, not just the dollars-and-cents bottom line.' (Betty Friedan, with a message seemingly lost on every single feminist I've had the pleasure of debating); I also point you to the National Organization for Women's own foundational document for evidence that feminism is, indeed, a numbers game - only when 'enough' women are in all fields (seemingly without regard to their individual choices), receiving the same pay (seemingly without regard to actual number of hours worked), will equality be acheived.

Third Wave: devolution into fragmented, post-modernist 'it means whatever you want it to mean' backpedaling; self-identification as 'feminist' being the only accepted criterion of what makes a 'feminist;' the inevitable watering-down of a movement that persists despite having acheived its originally stated goals, into PC politics and clever POMO wordplay arguments.  Or, if there really is a concise description of Third Wave Feminism, I'm unfamiliar therewith, and all ears.  Of note: if my precis of the Third Wave holds water, then it is to be expected that 'miscommunication' will be the norm, rather than the exception.

'Patriarchy' was not a poorly-chosen word; it is the core of feminism, and has been since at least Simone de Beauvoir wrote in the 40's.  It specifically relates to (assumed) 'masculine,' or 'male' qualities, which lay (so the hypothesis goes) at the heart of oppression.  Take the most Leninist texts you can find, and replace 'capital' with 'masculine,' and you'll see where I'm going with this.

edit: formatting error

[OldTrees]

@memimemi
You obviously know more about feminism than I do since my experiences were limited.

My encounters gave me the impression that patriarchy described the opposition which just happened to be primarily male rather than the opposition being males. Thus I think patriarchy is a poorly chosen term to describe the opposition.

However you have a deeper background in the subject so I defer to your knowledge.

[cometbah]

Again, not all feminists consider 'equal income' (or even universal suffrage, for that matter) as 'equality'.

Maybe not - but *you* claimed it as evidence of patriarchy.  I'm not discussing things with all feminists; just those who are here.  I've responded to your claims, and you've neglected to show the same respect.  I'm not offended; it's par for the course in these discussions.

You were responding to someone else, I think. I made a total of two posts on this thread, both were about how there are multiple versions of feminism, and neither claimed differences in income to be a sign of patriarchy.

In my opinion, the fact that there are more male engineers than female engineers is not necessarily a sign of patriarchy. The fact that men are, as you say, told to 'suck it up' or 'be a man about it', however, probably is.

So, then, a proposed system that oppresses women, as a class, to the benefit of men, as a class, is harmful to men?  Does not compute.

Yes.
Most early feminists (and many contemporary feminists) would agree that patriarchy is detrimental to both men and women, as it prevents either from reaching full potential.

[memimemi]

You were responding to someone else, I think. I made a total of two posts on this thread, both were about how there are multiple versions of feminism, and neither claimed differences in income to be a sign of patriarchy.

You are correct; I extend my apologies.  It was Savage, not you, who claimed this.

Yes.
Most early feminists (and many contemporary feminists) would agree that patriarchy is detrimental to both men and women, as it prevents either from reaching full potential.

A relevant quote, which I recently posted in another thread: 'A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.' -Popper.  If there were a patriarchy (something, I note, that nobody seems interested in proving, still), then what useful, testable predictions can we make based on it?  You state that wage inequality isn't one of them; we (apparently) can't reasonably expect a system that benefits men at women's expense to actually benefit men (see above); so where's the patriarchy, and what's it doing?

Once again, to move this discussion forward, I must insist that we not take the existence of the heretofore ill-defined 'patriarchy' as a given - the concept of 'patriarchy' is a core, fundemental tenant of *any* form of feminist thought, contemporarily.  Much as any denomination of Christianity is equally invalidated without first proving Jesus, any form of feminist thought still holds the burden of proof on the point of patriarchy.

So, what is *your* evidence?  To follow Sagan - you're making an extraordinary claim, involving sweeping generalizations of the whole of civilized humankind throughout history - it requires extraordinary evidence.

[cometbah]

A patriarchy, to me, is simply a social system 'designed' to be dominated by the male gender (and I am using 'design' very loosely, meaning 'the system that self perpetuates in such a way that the male gender will tend to come out on top', as opposed to 'someone had consciously designed the system').

The issue Emma Goldman (an example from a link found in one of my previous posts; other historical feminists with similar opinions exist) has with patriarchy is not so much that the male gender would tend to come out on top, but that there is a gender-biased self-perpetuating system at all (and that there is any sort of self-perpetuating system at all; but that is more of the anarchist part of her thoughts). She would be, I think, as strong an opponent of matriarchy as she was to patriarchy.

I admit I am unfamiliar with the statistics of whether the male gender does tend to come out on top in our society, and it is difficult, I think, to clearly identify what is considered 'the top' of a society. However, the personal experiences of many acquaintances - some of whom are transgendered and have therefore been on 'both sides of the fence', so to speak - seem to suggest that having qualities associated with masculinity is generally considered desirable in the workplace and facilitates the acquisition of power.

Again, however, whether the male gender tends to come out on top is not the core issue of the feminist movement, in my opinion (and the opinion of at least some feminists). The core issue is the existence of a gender-biased self-perpetuating system.

The 'gender-biased' part is readily observable. To use the example you have already noted, men are frequently told to 'be a man and suck it up'.

The existence of a self-perpetuating system is a bit off-topic, as it's more of an issue of (anti)statism.


A (admittedly not perfect, but hopefully functional for the purpose of illustration) comparison:

Anti-murderism opposes the act of murder. It is irrelevant whether the murderer actually gains benefit from the act of murder.
It is also irrelevant which is the murderer, and which is the victim.

Compared to:

Feminism opposes the act of gender oppression. It is irrelevant whether the oppressor actually gains benefit from the act of oppression.
It is also irrelevant which (gender) is the oppressor, and which is the oppressed.