I'm a feminist, ask me anything!

I think the fact that it was a MUSLIM conference should be pointed out.

This wasn't a "European" conference of sorts, it as a bunch of backward and misogynistic muslims campaigning for wife-beating... no man in the West condones it.

It's great! Seriously, guys are also negatively affected by the patriarchy, so seeing y'all help to destroy it is great ^^

Oh, you're one of those feminists.

edit: This post got way too long so apologies

I'm assuming you mean here that patriarchy affects men in a negative way as well. I have never seen compelling evidence for the existence of patriarchy in modern Western society, but for the moment I'll work under the assumption it exists now (and that it existed in the past).

So you are claiming that patriarchy negatively affects women and men, but only benefits men. I believe I'm right in assuming that you consider patriarchy to be responsible for making people view masculinity as strength and femininity as weakness. So, as a consequence of the patriarchy, women have not been drafted into wars, so millions of women avoided violent and early deaths. I'd say that's quite the benefit.

I hope you'll agree that if a man attacks a woman in a public place, she is certain to be protected by those around her, because it is assumed that the women is weaker and more vulnerable. But in general nobody is going to care about a woman attacking a man. Does she not benefit from the patriarchal assumption?

Women are assumed to be better caregivers, so are more likely to be given custody over their children in cases of divorce (by the way I realise the lack of concrete statistics in this post but I don't think these are issues of contention really) Again, you can say this is a consequence of patriarchy, that it is symptomatic of people seeing mothering as the sole purpose of the female, in contrast to the man who is given much more freedom, but how does it not benefit the woman (assuming she wants custody rights since she is fighting for them)?

A woman can rape (well, not according to the law, although I see you disagree with that) a man and get an extremely lenient sentence if any at all. I'd say she has been benefited by the patriarchy, if we believe it is indeed the patriarchy that makes people assume men want sex all the time and that sexual assault by a woman cannot possibly be traumatic for men. This one seems hardest of all to explain away by a negative view of femininity; all I can come up with is that weakness implies passivity, and strength implies activity or rather the whole "men act, women are acted upon" thing. A women cannot act on a man by the patriarchy, so she cannot rape him.

If a girl or woman is upset, she is hardly likely be told to "man up"; she is probably going to be listened to and given sympathy, because she is according to patriarchy vulnerable and in needing of protection. Seems quite beneficial to me.

I understand that you can ascribe all this stuff to a negative societal view of femininity. But you can equally ascribe all this stuff to a negative view of masculinity and a positive view of femininity, to a "matriarchy" if you will.

Matriarchy views women as valuable and men as disposable, hence why men have been drafted into wars to die in their millions. For the same reason we can see why a woman attacking a man is laughable, but a man attacking a woman must be stopped.

Females are seen to possess the positive characteristics of being nurturing and loving, while males are seen to possess the negative characteristics of being aggressive and dangerous, hence why women are more likely to be given custody rights.

Women generally have the positive characteristic of being sexually selective and so it is a great violation for a women to be sexually assaulted, but men have the negative characteristic of being sexually indiscriminate as well as being disposable objects of women's pleasure, so a woman sexually assaulting a man does not matter or is even something to poke fun at.

A man's role is to protect the valuable women around him; he is akin to a servile guard dog. You don't want your guard dog having an emotional crisis; you have to make sure it has nothing but aggression. Hence why men are told to man up and women are given sympathy. (I realise this point is a little flawed: I have just applied "patriarchal" reasoning in that saying emotional crises are negative. But this is tempered by the fact that I am only saying that this is so for servile creatures, not as a general rule)

Obviously that is in general ridiculous, (bolding to try and stop anyone missing the fact that those aren't my actual views since this is such a long post) right? So is, in my view, patriarchy theory. There is no one gender oppressing the other; we are all victim to stereotypes and expectations, that to be honest form partly as a consequence of biology (women are usually weaker than men physically for instance, so they are more vulnerable in general, while men are less empathetic than women usually, so they are less good at being nurturing and tending to the emotional needs of others in general). Everyone, to some extent, lumps everyone else into categories based on every little and every big thing; it is how we form a cohesive, if very flawed, worldview. Different groups of people face different stereotypes and different problems, but we all face problems. Some people face worse hardships than others. Life is not fair, but this cannot be explained by something as simplistic and lacking in evidence as "patriarchy".

And why is that? That's due to social conditioning.

Why should I care about your movement? What do you aim to bring to the table with it and what is your endgame? It's all well and good opposing this "Patriarchy" but when you've won what will you replace it with?

Not meaning to sound rude here but these are questions nobody has ever answered to me.

Because men, for example, are dominant in government. It's bad, because it's not representative.

So you would like a government that is near enough 50/50?

Fair enough, I see no problems with that kind of ideal.

But would you, if you had the choice, force women to work in politics?

What she wrote there was a logical fallacy called Middle-ground. This is typical Feminist behaviour.

Basically:

" We recognize that men have issues related to the inequality of women, and we support men who want to join our movement, as long as they are willing to admit that we live in a patriarchal society and that the patriarchy is at the heart of all of their problems. "

Posted from TSR Mobile

Surely forcing people to take a position in government "just to fill a quota" is far more sexist?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Surely forcing people to take a position in government "just to fill a quota" is far more sexist?

No, it's literally what the patriarchy means. The only people not affected negatively by the patriarchy are those at the top.

I'm not sure why feminists make out that all men benefit then?

I'm a meninist, ask me anything!

It's a fallacy!

It's not about forcing, lmao, it's about encouraging.

I'm not sure why feminists make out that all men benefit then?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Even so, if they don't want to be in parliment would it be fair to try and encourage them? Men aren't encouraged to become ballerinas for example. Free choice is what makes us democratic