Feminism 101- the creation of patriarchy

[sakura184]

The patriarchal takeover began as a means of controlling female reproduction.

It became important for men to know who the father was and thus began a strictly and violently enforced set of social rules-- which is the origin of marriage. Punishments for women who dared to procreate outside marriage were harsh. Their children were cruelly branded bastards and had to deal with the social stigma and poverty that went along with that. ( See the Magdalene laundries in Ireland for general information about how this worked)

But knowing who the father was was no longer enough. Children had become, by law, the father's property. This was the introduction of children as being property whereas before it was generally understood that children belonged to themselves and their mothers had responsibility over them.

I argue that patriarchy is an affront to natural law, and to nature itself. I argue that this is feminism 101

In any case, I am still not sure how taxing women is stealing their resources for men, when men are also taxed, and more since they earn more. Or how taxes are related to unpaid labour from women. Or how marriage steals women's labour but the fact that it means men have to direct their resources to the woman's children is still in the interests of men only. Or how this is all shown historically to be the case.....

I addressed the issue of the draft down below, that masculinity has its own laws. Feminism isn't about fighting to join male hierarchies

Just because women aren't subject to masculinity doesn't mean we can't fight to be free from men

Sakura women invented a literal shit tonne, just off the top of my head Beatrice Shilling fixed the spitfire as there was a design flaw that meant the damn things couldn’t manuever without stalling. One that’s very much in line with your beer analogy is Bertha Benz who was so convinced the automobile would be a game changer drove one on its first long distance journey and invented the break pad along the way, Alice Guy-Blaché basically invented telling a narrative through film so created cinema. Also I was making observations not saying then men should have the exclusive agency to make their mark on the world.

Also I think the whole alpha/beta thing the incels harp on about is nonsense. Quite why they think asking other men will unlock the key to being attractive to women is beyond me. Simple method, go make friends, provide reciprocated positives to those friends make sure some of them are women and just canvass them for tips if you are absolutely dismal in the romance stakes. That would get them far farther and far quicker than listening to angry men on the internet.

I certainly would not say that feminism is about becoming like men. I am not convinced by your assertions of male hierarchies. Not that there is no such thing, but the ones you seem to think exist seem dodgy to me. pushing women to join an oppressive structure like the capitalist workforce, as most men have been forced to, doesn't seem like a win.

And I would not say that feminism is about becoming separate from men either, that's neither possible nor desirable.

I am also not all that keen on feminine hierarchies, having been subject to them in the past.

Dervel

Yes well the alpha/beta thing is up for debate as I don't think it can be proven one way or another but I have seen tendencies that's all, for women to group around certain men who have a certain charisma ( not necessarily about looks either) and it's true that these men can and do have kids with multiple women without even having any money to bring to the table. These kind of men have no need for patriarchal structures that enable men to strike deals with women in the form of marriage.

Elliot Rogers put incels on the map with his femicide. Can't remember how many women he killed but he made a YouTube video about how unfair he thought life was.

The only redeeming feature of incels is that they seem to recognize that prostitution isn't about sex, that it's paid rape and they don't want to pay to rape a woman, they want women to like them for who they are.
It's just interesting that's all because so many men can't seem to tell the difference. Involuntary celibate? Just pay a woman, most would say. Incels should know that their ability to see women as slightly more human than a John might work in their favor in the dating game.

Goosefoot

Problem is, men invented modern capitalism and because they do what benefits them ( laws etc) we can only assume it suits them despite the communist and anarchist men who know that they're not getting as much of the pie as other more high status men in society. Male communist and anarchist ideas about fairness don't seem to include women. They want to oppress and exploit women's labour and control female reproduction just as much as any capitalist.
I've used to have a lot of time for both communist and anarchist ideas, as I'm sure both those systems would probably work out better for women. I know as a woman that laws don't really pertain to me and I don't see justice being done in courtrooms, and I feel that the police are not on my side.
But at root, both communist/socialist and anarchist ideas don't include women (not really)' and I had to understand that and that's when I saw the only thing available to me was feminism.
Read the book "Caliban and the Witch" to see how modern capitalism was built. It was very interesting to see that, yes, it wasn't only women who resisted. Men too, refused to work for a wage and preferred to become vagrants and vagabonds. So the men who ruled declared it was thus illegal to be a vagabond and scraped them off the streets and put them in jails and it was still not enough to get people to work. It took an awful lot of violence and coercion to get people to accept the current system we live under. But let's be very clear that it was men who created this system.

I do understand why women don't really want to know about patriarchy. I don't blame them. It's the horror. How can we ever be liberated when men have got weapons of mass destruction. Men are simply too powerful, they've made it so. The only way women can shut the whole thing down is by refusing to have any more children. I can't think how else patriarchy can end, and it's a shame if that's the only way out. Young women are saying that they think it's child abuse to bring a baby into the world in the state that it's in, that they know they've got no future and they just want to eat good food and live out their days in peace. Maybe it's down to young women to shut the whole thing down

Well I’m not good looking nor rich, and I have zero problem connecting with and attracting women, but I’m definitely not an alpha either. People like who they like. The issues with incels is there is still some sense of entitlement. Like how they are forever bemoaning the friend zone, as if a solid friendship with a woman isn’t a desirable outcome in it’s own right.

I didn’t realise that’s where they stood on prostitution so I guess that is a redeeming feature of a sort, but I have always thought the number of sexual partners one has had is a terrible metric for defining personal worth. I think that’s one masculine and dare I say it patriarchal attitude we could well do without.

I am reminded of an argument of Mary Wollstoncraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women where she argued that the modest behaviour expected of women should be also applied equally of men. I cannot help but think we may have decided to have gone off in an entirely different direction. Not that I am in any way prudish or a anti-sex,
but you have to look at the modern sexual landscape to we’re doing something wrong.

Also I feel I have to go up to bat for the “oppressive capitalist” structure as I think capitalism is given a bad rep. First of all people often make the mistake of conflating capitalism with mercantilism. Mercantilism fueled imperialism and capitalism essentially freeing us from empires entirely.

I’m not making the case that capitalism is entirely free from exploitation, but it is at least impartial. The free market doesn’t care if you are a man or a woman, or what race you are. Although obviously the current incarnation of crony capitalism definitely is. I just happen to think that at its core free market capitalism ends up preserving and indeed encouraging personal liberty far more than any other system like mercantilism, socialism or communism.

Dervel

Anyway, if you are a man then I assume you have come on here to learn.
Let me draw your attention to some excellent reading.
It's called radfem 101 . Any feedback welcome

factcheckme.wordpress.com/radfem-101/

From that link:

Mansplaining/women’s perspective is wrong
Under patriarchy, men <a class="break-all" href="http://href.li/?scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2010/01/you_may_be_a_mansplainer_if.php" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mansplain to women constantly. Often, men mansplain to women who do not like pornography why it’s really harmless, or mansplain to women who criticize or abstain from PIV on political grounds or women who do not enjoy PIV that they are just “doing it wrong.” Doctors and other experts and professionals are actually experts in mansplaining and professional mansplainers; unsurprisingly, male experts — being male — often mansplain to women on the topics of PIV and porn too. Of course, from women’s perspective, not liking porn and PIV is very reasonable, where porn is often documentary evidence of coercive sex (i.e. rape) and implies risk of unwanted pregnancy and infection, and where pornographic imagery provides no obvious indicators that the “sex” is consensual, and where the circumstances do not imply consent. Rather than acknowledging the validity of women’s perspective on any issue, which is based on centuries of collective lived experience and biological reality as well as individual and even professional expertise, women’s perspective is considered defective or based in ignorance.
Why? Because…
Mansplaining supports male power. Mansplanations are not merely a waste of women’s time or inane — but essentially harmless — babbling by oafish men; in actuality, mansplanations are an exercise in forced-perspective, where men force women to view the world the proper way, which under patriarchy means through men’s eyes. Mansplanations are thought-terminating — they are intended to and do actually stop women’s thought processes and women’s discussions in their tracks, where those processes and discussions are coming dangerously close to representing a female-centric reality, or where men’s interests are not being properly represented and catered to. The intent of mansplaining is to get women “back on track” to furthering the patriarchal agenda, and to undermine the true revolutionary potential of majority-female or female-only spaces where women are free to go to the ends of our thoughts, based on our shared reality and experiences and our hope for a better future, and our shared, sincere desire for the end of patriarchy and undermining of male power. Because of male entitlement, men are simply used to unearned deference on every issue (especially from women) and having sexual and other access to women and women’s spaces, including inside our discussions and in our heads.

Yes I am a man and been about on and off for many years. I am about 50/50 here to both learn and express views. Of which when it comes to those views I am by no means certain. You should not take anything I say as the anything other than a perspective. The topic is pretty vast, complex and nuanced for me to be certain of much. So if you’ve taken anything I have written as mansplaining apologies.

I am at heart a classical British liberal so that’s the lens/bias I tend to view things through, and I don’t believe at it’s heart that philosophy should be centering men or any particular race either for that matter. I suspect we may end up at odds philosophically over socialism/communism but who knows maybe you can figure out the X factor that could make it work at scale.

As to stymieing discussion if you feel I have done that I am happy to bow out of the thread entirely if that is what you would prefer. No explanation necessary it is your thread I will defer to your judgement on the matter.

I am interested in that book Caliban and The Witch however.

Dervel

You're 50% here to learn but you also want to "express your views" on a feminist forum.

Do you go on, for example, black lives matter forums and express your views there too?
If so, are your views welcome? Do you feel you add to the conversation/discussion? Do people have to keep explaining their oppression to you? How do you think this is helpful to them?

The only way a man can be an ally to feminists is by not watching porn and by teaching other men not to watch porn. Other than that you might be requiring women to exert labour on you

Well first off I’m neither a feminist nor a feminist ally. Although I am not predisposed to oppose it either. Funnily enough I was engaged in an in-depth chat with some African-American and Hispanic friends only a month or so back and the topic of race was explored. It gave me much food for thought.. No of course my views are not always welcome as is the case obviously in this interaction which is why I won’t post anymore on your thread following this one, but then again no-one bats 100% on every social interaction they partake in. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to men.

At no point have I sought or expected any woman to perform “labour” for me. All social interactions should be voluntary. You don’t wish to engage with me or any man for that matter just don’t. It doesn’t require any justification or explanation and it’s certainly not a requirement. That isn’t me conferring that on you btw it’s just a basic principle of freedom of association. Best of luck on all your studies into feminism and the general adventures of life, and I do mean that sincerely.

I addressed the issue of the draft down below, that masculinity has its own laws. Feminism isn't about fighting to join male hierarchies.

Yes, but wouldn't you feel a bit hacked off as a teenage boy (not some powerful big balls CEO) if you had to agree to theoretically be sent off to die in a foreign country, just so you could get the same subsidies that your sister gets by default? The problem is that you seem to talk of 'men as some homogenous group which they're not.

I also disagree with you that ideologies can't be challenged. I'd happily tell a BLM advocate if I thought they were full of shit (and I think many are, actually).

Your attitude reminds me a bit of the shut up and listen/no debate trans rhetoric and I think that modern feminism (one of the preceding strands of identity politics) has contributed hugely to the way the trans lobby act - it's almost like they've borrowed the 3rd wave feminist rulebook (disruptive protests, no platforming, etc).

I think Dervel often says some very useful things in discussions. Even if he's wrong about capitalism.