Still confused about patriarchy

[PixelZing]

What's the feminist take on the fact that, even if we live in such patriarchy, the attention given to issues affecting men/boys is insignificant compared to the same attention given to issues of women/girls?

The list of such issues seems pretty long to me (paternity leave, family court bias, domestic abuse shelters, unequal sentencing, workplace fatalities, due process for false accusations, under-representation in HEAL, men's health funding, suicide rates, homelessness, ...) so I'd say there is plenty to advocate about.

(and BTW I don't even understand why we clump men and boys in the same category, wouldn't be more humane to put boys in the same category of women/girls, since they are affected by similar problems that affect girls?)

One factor is that working class women tend to go for low paid jobs whilst a lot of wc men become tradesmen, which commands a higher salary on average than a graduate job.

Do working class women go for low paid jobs or do they get low paid jobs that fit around childcare? Drop offs/pick up, sick days and hospital appointments etc

Can try but won't get any funding and no politician would touch the idea of a male DV shelters with a barge pole.

I don’t think this is true at all and there are already male DV shelters being set up, quite rightly.

Well, probs both depending on the individual but I see very few women working in the construction sector. There were loads when I worked at a solicitors despite Law being one of the very worst sectors for work/life balance.

That OP smelt to high heaven.

also - @Maitri108 the jobs that fit around school hours etc are low paid and low valued because they are done by women.

Construction is very physically demanding. Women tend to be unpaid carers for elderly parents and children and care work, though essential, is very low paid. Women save the government billions with unpaid care.

Nursing is a skilled profession and very low paid because it's predominantly women. There are very few male teachers now because it's so badly paid.

You're either being goady/disingenuous or you don't understand what the word 'patriarchy' means.

Feminism exists to solve problems that women have, not men's problems. That's on men to resolve.

The OP neither understands patriarchy nor feminism.
Nor capitalism either I think (if patriarchy, why are some men poor?)

Im too tired to get into it.
There are countless books OP.
And lots of old threads if you are genuinely interested.

Or both.

Construction is very physically demanding.

Not necessarily. Our concrete tester is a tiny woman in her early 20s. She doesn't have to lift anything heavier than a bucket.

I've seen a few women around site driving trucks and heavy plant as well - HD Ricketts, for example, is a company where I see a lot of female tipper drivers and I sometimed wonder if it's because the MDs daughter drives one. Our Technical Manager is also female and extremely good at her job.

Part of the problem is myths perpetuated by people that don't know much about the industry - no offence.

And construction graduates don't usually get jobs as labourers. You see them walking around site with a clipboard looking like they've not lifted a bag of sand in their life.

And then you have engineers etc.

Yeah, I read this a lot. So, to recap, you have:

• Feminism is actually good for men/boys.
• Feminism is not about solving men’s/boys’ problems.
• Men must help in the feminist battle; it’s their duty (HeForShe, etc...).
• It’s not women’s duty to help men; it’s up to men to do it (and we call them misogynistic at the first slight misstep).
• Boys outperform girls in STEM: we need progress, we need to intervene 😱
• Girls outperform boys in general in school: well, girls are just smarter and better behaved, not much we can do 👻

You lost me at “family court bias”

• It’s not women’s duty to help men; it’s up to men to do it (and we call them misogynistic at the first slight misstep).

Just taking this one. Women help men. I've worked in SW, recovery services and housing (including rough shelters) for decades. Most of the staff are female. Dealing with threats, violence, biohazard and saving lives everyday. The people in the back earning two times the amount and never seeing a client - all male.

The clients, the challenging, unhappy, addicted and unwell clients were mostly male. And they weren't homeless because of women.

Women help men, more than other men do.

What you want is for women to do ALL the helping, 100% of it, with no money and resources. Just like we had to do for ourselves with women's services. You want us to do it for men. While they sat back and did nothing to help women who were being beaten and raped by men.

Men's DV shelters, I'm fully in favour, and have advocated for them. They will also be full of men beaten and raped by men. Just like homeless shelters and prisons are.

This is the most classic example of internalised patriachy I've ever seen.

The patriachy is designed for and by men but that desn't mean it actually benefits all men, and certainly not all men equally. That's the irony of it.

Different career paths based on preferences and incentives.... see, in a different society, perhaps women would be encouraged to go into high paid work becuase that would be how it would be perceived as them supporting their children. Or perhaps in a different society care and support work would be considered more valuable and so would be better paid.

I remember reading somewhere that low paid, unskilled/low skilled labour dominated by women vs low paid, unskilled/low skilled labour dominated by men have a notable gap in pay. So garbage collectors vs cleaners, nursery assistant vs gardener etc.

I know there are lots of good people out there. When I see volunteers preparing meals for homeless they seem majority women.

My issue is those double standards about the feminism I mentioned above (I should have added more actually).

> They will also be full of men beaten and raped by men.

Well, sure it happens, but the majority of male DV victims are victims of a female perpetrator (this mentions data from Scottish government). After all most men are in a heterosexual relationship.

Why do you think family court is biased?

Because men can be dv victims yes and they're can be emotionally trapped but they're not often murdered or at risk of being murdered when they leave, so they don't need to hide in a shelter they can just stay with a friend and their new home wouldn't be burnt down by their ex with the same frequency as when women leave men

Not sure why you've quoted me OP or what you are asking but here's my view:

Feminism is actually good for men/boys.
It might be for some but that's not the objective.

Feminism is not about solving men’s/boys’ problems.
True - clue is in the name.

Men must help in the feminist battle; it’s their duty (HeForShe, etc...).
Don't know what this means. Men need to stop raping and killing women - is that a "feminist battle"? I've never known what 'heforshe' meant but as it's a campaign run by the UN and led by Emma Watson, I think it can be discounted as 'feminist'.

It’s not women’s duty to help men; it’s up to men to do it
True

Boys outperform girls in STEM: we need progress, we need to intervene
Do they? Where's your stat for this?

Girls outperform boys in general in school: well, girls are just smarter and better behaved, not much we can do
Not sure what your point is here?

A problem with statistics, potentially including some of those in the link you posted about domestic violence though I have not traced their aetiology, is increasingly the use of gender identity rather than sex on official data gathering; hence abuse committed by males who identify as women would be listed as female perpetrators, and vice versa: biological data has been erased from official data gathering including in the field of crime; we have all seen that this was happening, and now Professor Sullivan’s published review has proven it to be the case.

The point is that on balance, the patriachy values contributions traditionally made by men, or personality traits valued by men, more. That's what the patriachy is. We default to assuming men should be in power. We accord them additional gravitas and credibility.

But I don't think you're genuine. "Bias in family courts" is such bollocks.

I'd say feminists have enough to do advocating for women. Isn't the point to free women or a life of servitude to the needs of men. That's not to say men don't need advocates, perplexed as to why you think feminists should be the ones to do it - because they're women? So they're kind? They have time on their hands? They seem pretty good at this kind of stuff? Therefore surely they should be giving their time and skills over to mens rights - for free? Is that what you're saying, OP?

Is there a reason why men aren't concerned about men's rights? Or why they're unable to organise and advocate for themselves? If they cared enough surely they would look into what the barriers are to taking action and do something about it. Women have enough on their hands I'd say.

Strictly speaking, feminists don't advocate for women. They advocate for feminism. I say this because the majority of women don't identify as feminist nowadays. Last study I saw was only 7% of women saying they'd identify as feminist. It was a study by a feminist charity too so unlikely to be biased.