Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is Male dominance still present in society? Patriarchy Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    In terms of aristocracy? Probably. In terms of average men and women? Not really.
    Well, not really to you to. Yes, the Duchess of X would have considerable power over the stable boy, but there's not question the stable boy's wife was subject to his command. He could, after all, rape her without consequence.

    No, but that does not justify it....
    It doesn't justify it but nor does it determine that it's women's fault, which you seemed to imply.

    It undeniably does favor women, as whoever has the children, receives the largest divorce payments...
    Whoever has the children also has the largest overheads and bill in terms of food, accomodation, clothing, electricity

    Meaning that she does get a better deal as she decided whether or not he gets to have split custody.
    She might get a better financial settlement in that moment, but she also has considerably inferior employment prospects, and far greater financial commitments based on the children she has to look after.

    No, but i certainly would have not been able to vote. I'm trying to point out that, yes at the top or overclass, men dominate there, but when you look down the ladder, how had a working class man got a much better deal than a working class woman?
    As I said already, the Duchess of X ruled the stable boy, but the stable boy unquestionably ruled his wife.

    Yes I know.... So why would you agree that it's justifiable if it's based around stereotypes?
    I'm not saying it's justifiable. What I'm saying is that it's a social construct that undeniably favours men.

    How on earth is losing custody of a child, less consequence? It's quite a devastating thing...
    I'm not saying it's less devastating. What I am saying is that there was always the possibility a man would get custody (in fact, before the '60s men invariably got custody of legitimate children). On the other hand, there was no possibility of women attaining political power or authority.

    What's this got to do with sexism?
    So you deny that men have higher rates of suicide, do the most disgusting and undesirable jobs in society (like garbage collection, mining etc), and die younger? Or is it only sexism in your eyes if it's against women? Surely you need some consistency; you seem to be undermining your own argument.

    I'm aware....majority? Certainly, dominates in? Quite possible, but it is not exclusive to men...
    You should beware of conflating class issues with gender issues. You seem to believe that because the Duchess rules of the stable boy, therefore women have an equal share of power.

    And I don't think that working class women have much more problems than working class men, both have it pretty badly at the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum, trust me on that.
    They both had/have it bad, but considering women were still subject to their husbands, it must be said that women had it worse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    I've got to admit you're quite obviously a decent lawyer...
    Thank you That's rather gentlemanly of you to say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Thank you That's rather gentlemanly of you to say.
    Yes, I have to hand it to you sir, you have critical analysis skills that are quite obviously superb. I admire that.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    They both had/have it bad, but considering women were still subject to their husbands, it must be said that women had it worse.
    And fathers, and brothers, and anybody else who could claim them as property
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    And fathers, and brothers, and anybody else who could claim them as property
    Well, no. Not their brothers. And not anyone who could claim them as property.

    Unless we are going to frame the debate in prehistoric terms.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    The thing is though, feminism is all about stopping these inequalities for BOTH sides. A lot of anti-feminists on TSR bring up the whole, "you only care about women! you're protecting women who commit crimes against men because you just hate men!" - it gets really annoying trying to explain over and over again that its the system thats wrong, its not an attack on men, but an attack on the system which prioritises men (and in some cases can prioritise women over men, divorce courts etc etc).

    Real feminism is about gender equality for all, but because of male privilege, I truly believe that women are more disadvantaged in life, socially, than men are. I'm not talking about things like legality, because as formal law, it obviously isn't allowed to discriminate on terms of gender. But things like how women are only portrayed as sex objects in advertising, how men are encouraged to be masculine (and bullied/undermined when they exhibit feminine attributes or agree with women a la the "white knights" as TSR likes calling them) how women are harassed sexually and it's seen as a regular occurrence, if we try and call out said harassment then we're being hysterical or over sensitive - the list can go on and on and on.

    It's not about fighting men, it's about fighting a system that sees men as some kind of "default" for human beings, and entire cultures where women are seen as inferior. The problem I have with MRAs, as you may have seen me mention in other threads, is that in theory, they should be feminist allies - we all hate gender inequality, it's totally sucky, so why are we fighting amongst ourselves? Because instead of getting out there and doing something about the inequalities men face (seemingly the only inequalities MRAs care about) they spend their time trying to undermine and derail feminism, which a) is never going to work, and b) just wastes everybody's time.

    Gender inequality ties in to a lot of other inequalities - class, race, sexual orientation - they're all things which affect people's lives through no fault of their own. When I see people who argue that male privilege doesn't exist, I can be pretty sure they'll probably argue against white privilege, and heterosexual privilege.

    That's just a few reasons to be a feminist (or, if you don't want to identify as feminist, that's fine. But it's more than enough reason not to be an anti-feminist). I believe with all my heart that being a feminist is the right thing to do, and it makes me really sad to see people calling feminists all names under the sun with no backing whatsoever of fact.

    Oh, on the topic of male victims of domestic abuse,
    http://www.mankind.org.uk/
    http://www.mensadviceline.org.uk/mens_advice.php
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...estic-violence
    http://www.respect.uk.net/pages/mens-advice-line.html
    http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic...&itemTitle=Men

    There are lots of places male victims can look for help! And it's certainly a problem, but:

    "Whilst both men and women may experience incidents of inter-personal violence, women are considerably more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of violence, including sexual violence. They are also more likely to have experienced sustained physical, psychological or emotional abuse, or violence which results in injury or death.

    Domestic violence is not acceptable and should not be tolerated whether the victim is male or female. Every person has the right to live a life free from violence.
    "

    So, whilst female victims are more likely to be exposed to more severe violence (again probably just because of the superior physical strength and possible predisposition to violence of SOME men) they'll probably get more media and police attention. As a gender inequality, that is something which feminism strives to change.
    One of the best posts explaining modern day liberal feminism. Kudos to you, I think I may love you a little.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    I wouldn't say that, forced envelopment can easily be just as nasty and violent as rape... I would undeniably state that unlike the UK, Sweden is more egalitarian than over here, but.... That's doesn't justify forced envelopment not coming under rape, it's like putting an intentional murder under manslaughter.

    I've got to admit you're quite obviously a decent lawyer...
    I agree that given the public's understanding of the word rape, as opposed to the UK legal definition of rape, forced envelopment should perhaps be fitted in with it, for the sake of the name and the power that holds. Just like how gay people should have a right to marriage as opposed to something with the same rights but a different name.

    However you seem to keep suggesting female perpetrators of forced envelopment (where the woman is found guilty of this) receive lighter sentencing. Do you have any proof for this whatsoever? If not, I'm afraid you can't keep comparing it to murder/manslaughter. Besides which, murder/manslaughter is about intent and lack of intent. Both rape and the sexual crime women would be charged with for forced envelopment would imply intent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Yes, I have to hand it to you sir, you have critical analysis skills that are quite obviously superb. I admire that.
    Thanks

    I'm going to find it hard to debate against you now... what you just said, it's the equivalent for me as when one rubs a cat on the back of their neck and they go all paralysed and retarded.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Well, no. Not their brothers. And not anyone who could claim them as property.

    Unless we are going to frame the debate in prehistoric terms.
    I'm talking about medieval times. Up until the Viking invasion women were pretty much screwed. It got a bit better after that... but not much. I'd say the past hundred years have shown the most drastic change in terms of time scale.

    (sorry I know medieval stuff is irrelevant, I just like throwing medieval factsies about )
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    One of the best posts explaining modern day liberal feminism. Kudos to you, I think I may love you a little.
    :^_^: Thanks! I put a lot of work into it, kind of cross that the guy who insisted I answer his question mysteriously disappeared from the conversation after I posted it... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    I'm talking about medieval times. Up until the Viking invasion women were pretty much screwed. It got a bit better after that... but not much. I'd say the past hundred years have shown the most drastic change in terms of time scale
    Well, not quite. In pre-Viking times, I'd say you'd struggle to just go and "claim" a Saxon woman. They weren't cavemen.

    Equally, during the Viking Terror, they would be carrying off boys and young men as well. All would have been subjected to slavery. I don't think it was a gender thing.

    When you move into medieval times, you certainly couldn't go and claim a woman, and I don't think that women were ever subjected, in a legal sense, to their brothers under medieval English common law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Well, not really to you to. Yes, the Duchess of X would have considerable power over the stable boy, but there's not question the stable boy's wife was subject to his command. He could, after all, rape her without consequence.
    Yes, but she could have done the same, as forced envelopment isn't included in marital rape nor has forced envelopment been included in legal status for a long time. However it's obviously true that marital rape should have been illegal a long time ago.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    It doesn't justify it but nor does it determine that it's women's fault, which you seemed to imply.
    If she has better custodial rights then it is her. How isn't it?

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Whoever has the children also has the largest overheads and bill in terms of food, accomodation, clothing, electricity
    Undeniably..

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    She might get a better financial settlement in that moment, but she also has considerably inferior employment prospects, and far greater financial commitments based on the children she has to look after.
    Yes I'm aware, but how does it favor the average man in any possible way? I'm pretty sure most men love their children as much as women do.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    As I said already, the Duchess of X ruled the stable boy, but the stable boy unquestionably ruled his wife.
    I'm just wondering, how?

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I'm not saying it's justifiable. What I'm saying is that it's a social construct that undeniably favours men.
    I don't like it either, traditional gender roles are obviously quite wrong. But I still don't understand how this favors men.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I'm not saying it's less devastating. What I am saying is that there was always the possibility a man would get custody (in fact, before the '60s men invariably got custody of legitimate children). On the other hand, there was no possibility of women attaining political power or authority.
    Possibility? Yes, probability, certainly not. I'm not disputing that its right or wrong, but split custody should be a social norm instead, not single parenting.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    So you deny that men have higher rates of suicide, do the most disgusting and undesirable jobs in society (like garbage collection, mining etc), and die younger? Or is it only sexism in your eyes if it's against women? Surely you need some consistency; you seem to be undermining your own argument.
    No, it proves that working/under class men are deemed the most disposable by society, which yes is sexist...

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    You should beware of conflating class issues with gender issues. You seem to believe that because the Duchess rules of the stable boy, therefore women have an equal share of power.
    No, but I'm the "stable boy" as I do live in a council flat, :/ I'm just trying to see if the white male has it best or the white middle/upper class male.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    They both had/have it bad, but considering women were still subject to their husbands, it must be said that women had it worse.
    Yeah I'm not arguing that a patriarchy didn't exist in the past (that would be delusional) but class has always had a much larger effect than gender, that was all I was trying to point out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Thanks

    I'm going to find it hard to debate against you now... what you just said, it's the equivalent for me as when one rubs a cat on the back of their neck and they go all paralysed and retarded.
    Funny guy
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Well, not quite. In pre-Viking times, I'd say you'd struggle to just go and "claim" a Saxon woman. They weren't cavemen.

    Equally, during the Viking Terror, they would be carrying off boys and young men as well. All would have been subjected to slavery. I don't think it was a gender thing.

    When you move into medieval times, you certainly couldn't go and claim a woman, and I don't think that women were ever subjected, in a legal sense, to their brothers under medieval English common law.
    Terror? Oh, Vikings were nasty on occasion, but they were often peaceful. They just have a bad rep because the only people who wrote about them at the time were the literate monks who had their monasteries raided. Compared to all the rest of Europe, they were pretty civilised for their time (since everybody was down with slavery)

    I studied this last term, so don't have books to source, but that's as I remember it being - if a father died and had unmarried daughters, they became the property of their brothers. There were even some cases of younger brothers having superiority over their older sisters (bit like Edward VI and Mary I, in tudor times) if I remember rightly. The dark ages were a very interesting time indeed! Anyways, I'm going off topic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    I agree that given the public's understanding of the word rape, as opposed to the UK legal definition of rape, forced envelopment should perhaps be fitted in with it, for the sake of the name and the power that holds. Just like how gay people should have a right to marriage as opposed to something with the same rights but a different name.

    However you seem to keep suggesting female perpetrators of forced envelopment (where the woman is found guilty of this) receive lighter sentencing. Do you have any proof for this whatsoever? If not, I'm afraid you can't keep comparing it to murder/manslaughter. Besides which, murder/manslaughter is about intent and lack of intent. Both rape and the sexual crime women would be charged with for forced envelopment would imply intent.
    The punishment for rape is usually at the very least, ten years... Are you suggesting that forced envelopment usually gets the same punishment as rape? When the punishment is a maximum of ten years? Because that's definitely not true, and the reason why is sexual assault doesn't receive the same punishment as rape. Punishments for rape are always high, whereas punishments for other sexual assault are undoubtedly variable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Terror? Oh, Vikings were nasty on occasion, but they were often peaceful.They just have a bad rep because the only people who wrote about them at the time were the literate monks who had their monasteries raided
    Right. That should tell you something. Vikings were raiding monastaries. Were monks raiding Viking settlements?

    Compared to all the rest of Europe, they were pretty civilised for their time (since everybody was down with slavery)
    Were they? This seems to be a bit of a contrarian/revisionist meme, but in fact there were many areas of Europe where there was no slavery. It seems to have become a common misconception that because historical accounts aren't always 100% accurate, therefore the Vikings must have been entirely peaceful hippies who have been unfairly maligned by Christian libelists.

    s I remember it being - if a father died and had unmarried daughters, they became the property of their brothers.
    I'm afraid you remember wrong. Then again, secondary school history teachers often regurgitate the rather dubious historo-memes that were doing the rounds in the 80s; that is, that everything we've learned is probably wrong. In fact, the revisio-revionists have shown that our historical records were often correct.

    There were even some cases of younger brothers having superiority over their older sisters (bit like Edward VI and Mary I, in tudor times) if I remember rightly.
    Except that Edward VI was the sovereign. He didn't just have superiority over his sisters, he had superiority over every living being in England.

    Similarly, when his sister Elizabeth ascended the throne, she had authority over every living being in England. Rather handily demonstrates that this was more about class than gender.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Right. That should tell you something. Vikings were raiding monastaries. Were monks raiding Viking settlements?



    Were they? This seems to be a bit of a contrarian/revisionist meme, but in fact there were many areas of Europe where there was no slavery. It seems to have become a common misconception that because historical accounts aren't always 100% accurate, therefore the Vikings must have been entirely peaceful hippies who have been unfairly maligned by Christian libelists.



    I'm afraid you remember wrong. Then again, secondary school history teachers often regurgitate the rather dubious historo-memes that were doing the rounds in the 80s; that is, that everything we've learned is probably wrong. In fact, the revisio-revionists have shown that our historical records were often correct.



    Except that Edward VI was the sovereign. He didn't just have superiority over his sisters, he had superiority over every living being in England.

    Similarly, when his sister Elizabeth ascended the throne, she had authority over every living being in England. Rather handily demonstrates that this was more about class than gender.
    Mate, I'm doing a degree in Viking Studies. I'm pretty sure on this one. Either way its off topic and I'm tired, can we drop it? It's the holidays. I only mentioned it as a throw away comment, I wasn't expecting you to latch onto it so much.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chaoshi)
    Your friend gets married, whose last name do you think everyone assumes they'll have? Who might cause some stir by keeping their last name? When people assume they're Mr and Mrs ____, how often do they guess the man's original name, and how often the woman's?
    Your friend tells you that one parent will stay at home with the children, who do you immediately assume it will be?
    Your friend isn't staying home with the children, and is going to work. Your friend is getting seriously judged for this. What gender is your friend?

    It's more ingrained than you think.
    Your friend tells you someone is taking a lot of time of work because they are having a child, what gender is that?

    Your friend is telling you that a gender is naturally more impulsive, buoyant, aggressive, and dominant , which gender is that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Mate, I'm doing a degree in Viking Studies. I'm pretty sure on this one
    Pretty sure that brothers had authority over their sisters? No, I'm afraid you're quite wrong. In medieval England they did not, and they never have under the common law.

    Either way its off topic and I'm tired, can we drop it?
    No worries.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    **** it.
    I'm just going to say it.
    Feminism is for ****ing idiotic, narcissistic princesses who are feeling sorry for themselves.
    The kind of people who use "inequality" as a medium for getting what they want, "it's all men's faults, oppressing women!"
    If women are so strong, why are they letting men oppress them?
    In actual fact, it's women oppressing men.
    And one day, when the estrogen fueled Nazi party take over the world, men will be sorry for not fighting back.
    Women were brave enough to fight back when men oppressed them years ago, so why can't we do the same and fight back against the feminists?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.